Visit to Police Station. Advice please...
Discussion
stuttgartmetal said:
Nicked?
That's just the start of it.
That's just what normally happens isn't it ?
Go from there.
No matter how "nice" you're acting, you're getting nicked if they've got evidence
Self incrimination, that's what they're going for.
I'd be prepared to let them go for it with what they've got
Which sounds like not that much.
Id tell them I don't know what they're talking about, and shrug your shoulders a lot.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You have no clue how the system works, and your "advice" is worse than useless. That's just the start of it.
That's just what normally happens isn't it ?
Go from there.
No matter how "nice" you're acting, you're getting nicked if they've got evidence
Self incrimination, that's what they're going for.
I'd be prepared to let them go for it with what they've got
Which sounds like not that much.
Id tell them I don't know what they're talking about, and shrug your shoulders a lot.
Luckily, I don't think anyone is daft enough to take any notice of you.
Errr
Get a grand plus vat and get a brief
LOL
Ask him what he wants
Tell him you don't know what he's talking about
Admit nothing
Deny everything
Ask for proof.
Go from there
Get the duty solicitor, for free, if you get to court
He's not after excuses or reasons, he's out to nick you.
If he's got anything, let him nick you with that
Don't mug yourself off
Oh dear, he's got his file to close
Oh dear, he's got his orders
Oh dear
Jog on
Raspberry and two fingers.
LOL
Get a grand plus vat and get a brief
LOL
Ask him what he wants
Tell him you don't know what he's talking about
Admit nothing
Deny everything
Ask for proof.
Go from there
Get the duty solicitor, for free, if you get to court
He's not after excuses or reasons, he's out to nick you.
If he's got anything, let him nick you with that
Don't mug yourself off
Oh dear, he's got his file to close
Oh dear, he's got his orders
Oh dear
Jog on
Raspberry and two fingers.
LOL
Edited by stuttgartmetal on Tuesday 16th December 00:30
Will the duty solicitor be free irrespective of wealth? most people are highly skilled at saying too much and unwittingly making things worse rather than better.
In a world where section 168 of the highway code is blatantly contravened by many this kind of accusation is likely to be on the increase, knowing how to react is useful information.
In a world where section 168 of the highway code is blatantly contravened by many this kind of accusation is likely to be on the increase, knowing how to react is useful information.
I had exact same thing, a old bat took exception to my nice exhaust and said I was:
speeding
hit her
she had to jump a 12ft hedgerow to escape my driving
she then later stood in the middle of the road, called someone and jotted down my number. few months later got a voicemail from a copper, he came round and had a chat. that was that case closed
speeding
hit her
she had to jump a 12ft hedgerow to escape my driving
she then later stood in the middle of the road, called someone and jotted down my number. few months later got a voicemail from a copper, he came round and had a chat. that was that case closed
A solicitor of your choice is free of charge at the police station - as long as the solicitors' firm has a legal aid franchise. Police station advice is not means tested.
Frankly, you would be daft to pay a solicitor from a non-specialist criminal firm £500 or 'a grand plus VAT' as suggested on this thread.
Frankly, you would be daft to pay a solicitor from a non-specialist criminal firm £500 or 'a grand plus VAT' as suggested on this thread.
I'll start by saying I think anyone should always ask for legal representation. The basis for this is that I can only see upsides and no possible downsides. The potential downsides to going in unaccompanied are pretty obvious.
I can relate a personal experience which is one thing that underpins the opinion stated above. I was involved in an at fault rtc. No injuries, just car damage. I did all the things you are supposed to do such as exchanging details. About a week later I got a call from the Police asking me to come in for a chat. When I asked what they wanted to chat about they would only say that it was in connection with the rtc.
I turned up unaccompanied and the chat commenced. I don't recall any taping and I wasn't cautioned. Basically the opening question put me on guard as it was along the lines of "tell me what happened". My response was to read a pre-prepared statement along the lines of "I was the driver of vehicle reg xyz123 which was involved in a rtc on xx/yy/zz. I exchanged personal and insurance details with the other driver at the scene and have therefore discharged my legal responsibilities in this matter. I have nothing further to say".
I then got a series of questions ranging from the details and purpose of my journey to the speeds involved, who I blamed for the accident, why was I being unhelpful, etc. In every case I responded with the prepared statement. The officer asking the questions went from friendly to angry to jokey to sarcastic, anything in an attempt to get me to add to my statement. The discussion ended after about an hour and I heard nothing more.
People can make their own minds up about the Police motives but my view is that it was an obvious attempt to get me to incriminate myself, perhaps with a careless driving prosecution in mind. I have no idea what prompted this; it could have been a complaint from the other driver I suppose but I was never told.
I'd do the same thing tomorrow if I couldn't get representation. It's certainly not in my interests to tell the Police things they cannot corroborate without my assistance and which may then be used against me.
I can relate a personal experience which is one thing that underpins the opinion stated above. I was involved in an at fault rtc. No injuries, just car damage. I did all the things you are supposed to do such as exchanging details. About a week later I got a call from the Police asking me to come in for a chat. When I asked what they wanted to chat about they would only say that it was in connection with the rtc.
I turned up unaccompanied and the chat commenced. I don't recall any taping and I wasn't cautioned. Basically the opening question put me on guard as it was along the lines of "tell me what happened". My response was to read a pre-prepared statement along the lines of "I was the driver of vehicle reg xyz123 which was involved in a rtc on xx/yy/zz. I exchanged personal and insurance details with the other driver at the scene and have therefore discharged my legal responsibilities in this matter. I have nothing further to say".
I then got a series of questions ranging from the details and purpose of my journey to the speeds involved, who I blamed for the accident, why was I being unhelpful, etc. In every case I responded with the prepared statement. The officer asking the questions went from friendly to angry to jokey to sarcastic, anything in an attempt to get me to add to my statement. The discussion ended after about an hour and I heard nothing more.
People can make their own minds up about the Police motives but my view is that it was an obvious attempt to get me to incriminate myself, perhaps with a careless driving prosecution in mind. I have no idea what prompted this; it could have been a complaint from the other driver I suppose but I was never told.
I'd do the same thing tomorrow if I couldn't get representation. It's certainly not in my interests to tell the Police things they cannot corroborate without my assistance and which may then be used against me.
Edited by 9mm on Friday 26th December 16:03
Edited by 9mm on Friday 26th December 19:29
Mk3Spitfire said:
Tannedbaldhead said:
That's actually good advice.
No, it's not."Ask him what he wants."
If your are totally clueless you will want to know why the police would like a chat. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, likelyhood of the offence being witnessed and the credibility of the witnesses one can judge whether you should attend with a Lawyer or not and how to conduct yourself in the interview.
"Tell him you don't know what he's talking about".
Depends on whether your line of defence is complete denial rather than "I was there but"
"Admit nothing
Deny everything"
Surely to God that's a given. Say you've t
tted someone on a night out. Police ask "Did you hit him a crack?" and you answer "Yeah, but he hit me first" and you're guilty of assault by your own admission regardless of what you consider justifiable. "Never touched the bloke" and the prosecution has some work to do. Police don't do shades of right and wrong they do black and white what's legal/illegal provable/ not provable and prosecute accordingly.You'd be surprised what amount of evidence can be fronted. I was once up against an on duty police witness. He hadn't entered any details of my alledged "incident" in his note-book. Although he recognised an identical person by means by a set of collapsable crutches in his rucksack (I was recovering from a badly broken leg at the time and also rode with collapsable crutches in a rucksack)and the fact I was in the same jacket as the suspect he couldn't say what day the incident (at the time of my questioning a few weeks old) took place. He also couldn't have seen the guilty party's face. Now had I been guilty of the offence and fessed up I'd have been for the high jump.
"Ask for proof.
Go from there"
Try and find out what they know. If they have you cold it's best to confess, explain, cry and throw yourself at the mercy of the investigating officer then court. It can work
Now when you say it's not good advice are you talking about the best interest of the suspect being the police getting to the bottom of everything or the suspect walking out on the station charge free?
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 26th December 18:12
Tannedbaldhead said:
Say you've ttted someone on a night out. Police ask "Did you hit him a crack?" and you answer "Yeah, but he hit me first" and you're guilty of assault by your own admission regardless of what you consider justifiable. "Never touched the bloke" and the prosecution has some work to do. Police don't do shades of right and wrong they do black and white what's legal/illegal provable/ not provable and prosecute accordingly.
Your example here is precisely why blanket advice of no comment is wrong. If you've been hit first and responded it's opening up the defence of self defence. Without this explanation it may be there's a strong prima facie against you for assault and sufficient evidence to proceed to summons, passing the prosecution threshold tests. The court would likely be entitled to draw a negative inference by your failure to mention self defence at interview. Whereas if you establish your defence at interview, it makes it less likely the Police will charge, as the prospect of success at trial has significantly reduced.tted someone on a night out. Police ask "Did you hit him a crack?" and you answer "Yeah, but he hit me first" and you're guilty of assault by your own admission regardless of what you consider justifiable. "Never touched the bloke" and the prosecution has some work to do. Police don't do shades of right and wrong they do black and white what's legal/illegal provable/ not provable and prosecute accordingly.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff