Visit to Police Station. Advice please...
Discussion
I'm sure something similar was discussed recently on another forum I frequent and the overwhelming advice was to not answer any questions. Go for the interview, but state no comment to everything (other than name). Do not choose which questions to answer as this can be used against you.
Its a fishing exercise, don't give them anything.
Its a fishing exercise, don't give them anything.
ozzuk said:
I'm sure something similar was discussed recently on another forum I frequent and the overwhelming advice was to not answer any questions. Go for the interview, but state no comment to everything (other than name). Do not choose which questions to answer as this can be used against you.
Its a fishing exercise, don't give them anything.
Again, terrible advice.Its a fishing exercise, don't give them anything.
The naive advice to give a blanket no comment interview is awful.
This is why you should have a brief. They will advise you when to go no comment. No offence ozz, but with your knowledge of the incident and legal expertise, this advice shouldnt be followed. Going no comment can sometimes drop you in it, when answering questions would have resolved it.
Why do you think people don't just go no comment to every interview.
It depends on what evidence is available, what the OP can justify, and a whole lot of other variables.
Dixy said:
This is against you, by going and saying anything you are only helping them.
ozzuk said:
I'm sure something similar was discussed recently on another forum I frequent and the overwhelming advice was to not answer any questions. Go for the interview, but state no comment to everything (other than name). Do not choose which questions to answer as this can be used against you.
Its a fishing exercise, don't give them anything.
It's already been pointed out about these two posts, but ignore generic pub-advice rubbish like this. Do the people posting it actually consider that they may be wholly misleading? I can only think it's written more for their benefit (look I can give advice, I feel good!) rather than the OP's. Its a fishing exercise, don't give them anything.
Each scenario is individual and the approach and responses to it unique.
The only advice, which you've been given, is to have legal representation. They will be able to assess the best response for you to give and advise accordingly.
Bigends said:
considering the other posts, i think you'd be surprised, and it's the software that monitors it, so it will look for certain phrases etc.the team i run at work are responsible for internet filtering amongst other things and the software on the routers / filter devices can and will search for stuff to block it before staff get to it if need be.
Dixy said:
Mk3 what is your professional qualification for your statements, why does answering anything help the OP as opposed to the police.
Because if you don't answer any questions, you can't then come out with defence at court using something that you refused to reveal at interview. The caution "IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED, SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT"
The Police Officer making this request will have a whole pile of work to get through. If he/she didn't attend this incident at the time, it's an unwanted enquiry that's appeared in their inbox, on top of everything else they have to do. They are not out to 'get you'. They are out to get the interview completed so they can move on to all the other work they have to do.
Elroy Blue said:
Because if you don't answer any questions, you can't then come out with defence at court using something that you refused to reveal at interview.
The caution "IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED, SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT"
Note it says 'may' harm your defence, not 'will'.The caution "IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED, SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT"
Contrary to what is said above you can introduce a defence in court that was not brought forth in interview. There are tightly interpreted rules governed by s34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 on when the court can draw an adverse inference from your silence when interviewed.
CPS Guidance gives this advice on when an adverse inference cannot be drawn;
CPS Guidance said:
What prevents Section 34 applying?
No adverse inferences can be drawn if the police have made up their mind to charge. Under the provisions of Code C paragraph 11.6, questioning must cease once the investigating officer/custody sergeant is of the view that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and any interview after that point should not take place - Pointer [1997] Crim.L.R. 676. (But note that if the officer still has an open mind to the involvement or otherwise of the suspect, an interview can proceed even if there is clear evidence of guilt - Gayle [1999] Crim.L.R. 502, CA).
No adverse inference can be drawn if the case is so complex or related to matters so long ago, that silence would be justified as no sensible immediate response was appropriate.
No adverse inferences can be drawn if the facts in question were not known to the defendant at the time when he failed to disclose them. Nickolson [1999] Crim. L.R. 61. Refer to Pre-interview Disclosure below in this chapter.
No adverse inferences can be drawn unless legal advice is offered or made available from the initial stages of interrogation. This principle applies to terrorism cases. Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29; Averill v UK [2001] 31 E.H.R.R. 3 and section 58 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
The language of section 34, (and subsections 36 and 37) indicate that adverse inferences cannot be drawn if the defendant faces trial on a different offence from that with which he was charged or given warning of prosecution (section 34) or which was originally specified when he was cautioned (section 36) or arrested (section 37). In the light of the charging program, such a situation should now be a rare occurrence.
A bare admission of facts in the prosecution case, or a mere suggestion or hypothesis are not facts relied on by the defence for the purposes of section 34. Betts and Hall [2001] 2 Cr.App.R. 16. Mere suggestion or hypothesis cannot be a foundation for adverse inferences. Nickolson [1999] Crim. L.R. 61.
Some police officers on this thread have quite rightly pointed out that blanket advice recommending 'no comment' is bad. I would extend that to add taking legal advice from Police officers in general is bad. As is relying on internet forums when you're faced with events that may have long term consequences.No adverse inferences can be drawn if the police have made up their mind to charge. Under the provisions of Code C paragraph 11.6, questioning must cease once the investigating officer/custody sergeant is of the view that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and any interview after that point should not take place - Pointer [1997] Crim.L.R. 676. (But note that if the officer still has an open mind to the involvement or otherwise of the suspect, an interview can proceed even if there is clear evidence of guilt - Gayle [1999] Crim.L.R. 502, CA).
No adverse inference can be drawn if the case is so complex or related to matters so long ago, that silence would be justified as no sensible immediate response was appropriate.
No adverse inferences can be drawn if the facts in question were not known to the defendant at the time when he failed to disclose them. Nickolson [1999] Crim. L.R. 61. Refer to Pre-interview Disclosure below in this chapter.
No adverse inferences can be drawn unless legal advice is offered or made available from the initial stages of interrogation. This principle applies to terrorism cases. Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29; Averill v UK [2001] 31 E.H.R.R. 3 and section 58 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
The language of section 34, (and subsections 36 and 37) indicate that adverse inferences cannot be drawn if the defendant faces trial on a different offence from that with which he was charged or given warning of prosecution (section 34) or which was originally specified when he was cautioned (section 36) or arrested (section 37). In the light of the charging program, such a situation should now be a rare occurrence.
A bare admission of facts in the prosecution case, or a mere suggestion or hypothesis are not facts relied on by the defence for the purposes of section 34. Betts and Hall [2001] 2 Cr.App.R. 16. Mere suggestion or hypothesis cannot be a foundation for adverse inferences. Nickolson [1999] Crim. L.R. 61.
Dixy said:
Mk3 what is your professional qualification for your statements, why does answering anything help the OP as opposed to the police.
He is qualified, and we're not trying to be dicks when being blunt, we just don't want the OP to be misled and go in with a generic approach (other than to get a legal rep!) that may harm him. I don't know if you mean specifically for this scenario about not talking, or generically for your first comment. I'll provide you a couple of examples where it's very likely giving an account is better than not.
1) You innocently buy stolen goods. It's very likely you'll want to explain the circumstances surrounding buying them rather than not giving an account. That you had no way of knowing or believing they were stolen as you bought them from a dealer, for a reasonable price, with a receipt etc etc.
2) You hit someone in self-defense, they fall bang their head and die. A significant amount of why one can use force comes from the internal mental aspect. A honestly held belief, feeling threatened etc etc. You wouldn't want to be giving your first account of why you did what you did when stood in the Crown court.
allergictocheese said:
CPS Guidance gives this advice on when an adverse inference cannot be drawn;
How do any of these apply? It's a quick interview after a complaint of due care a few weeks previously. Not a multi million pound fraud trial. CPS Guidance said:
What prevents Section 34 applying?
No adverse inferences can be drawn if the police have made up their mind to charge. Under the provisions of Code C paragraph 11.6, questioning must cease once the investigating officer/custody sergeant is of the view that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and any interview after that point should not take place - Pointer [1997] Crim.L.R. 676. (But note that if the officer still has an open mind to the involvement or otherwise of the suspect, an interview can proceed even if there is clear evidence of guilt - Gayle [1999] Crim.L.R. 502, CA).
No adverse inference can be drawn if the case is so complex or related to matters so long ago, that silence would be justified as no sensible immediate response was appropriate.
No adverse inferences can be drawn if the facts in question were not known to the defendant at the time when he failed to disclose them. Nickolson [1999] Crim. L.R. 61. Refer to Pre-interview Disclosure below in this chapter.
No adverse inferences can be drawn unless legal advice is offered or made available from the initial stages of interrogation. This principle applies to terrorism cases. Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29; Averill v UK [2001] 31 E.H.R.R. 3 and section 58 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
The language of section 34, (and subsections 36 and 37) indicate that adverse inferences cannot be drawn if the defendant faces trial on a different offence from that with which he was charged or given warning of prosecution (section 34) or which was originally specified when he was cautioned (section 36) or arrested (section 37). In the light of the charging program, such a situation should now be a rare occurrence.
A bare admission of facts in the prosecution case, or a mere suggestion or hypothesis are not facts relied on by the defence for the purposes of section 34. Betts and Hall [2001] 2 Cr.App.R. 16. Mere suggestion or hypothesis cannot be a foundation for adverse inferences. Nickolson [1999] Crim. L.R. 61.
No adverse inferences can be drawn if the police have made up their mind to charge. Under the provisions of Code C paragraph 11.6, questioning must cease once the investigating officer/custody sergeant is of the view that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and any interview after that point should not take place - Pointer [1997] Crim.L.R. 676. (But note that if the officer still has an open mind to the involvement or otherwise of the suspect, an interview can proceed even if there is clear evidence of guilt - Gayle [1999] Crim.L.R. 502, CA).
No adverse inference can be drawn if the case is so complex or related to matters so long ago, that silence would be justified as no sensible immediate response was appropriate.
No adverse inferences can be drawn if the facts in question were not known to the defendant at the time when he failed to disclose them. Nickolson [1999] Crim. L.R. 61. Refer to Pre-interview Disclosure below in this chapter.
No adverse inferences can be drawn unless legal advice is offered or made available from the initial stages of interrogation. This principle applies to terrorism cases. Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29; Averill v UK [2001] 31 E.H.R.R. 3 and section 58 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
The language of section 34, (and subsections 36 and 37) indicate that adverse inferences cannot be drawn if the defendant faces trial on a different offence from that with which he was charged or given warning of prosecution (section 34) or which was originally specified when he was cautioned (section 36) or arrested (section 37). In the light of the charging program, such a situation should now be a rare occurrence.
A bare admission of facts in the prosecution case, or a mere suggestion or hypothesis are not facts relied on by the defence for the purposes of section 34. Betts and Hall [2001] 2 Cr.App.R. 16. Mere suggestion or hypothesis cannot be a foundation for adverse inferences. Nickolson [1999] Crim. L.R. 61.
I predict this interview will be over very quickly. It's up to the OP to decide what to say. After over twenty years in the job, my advice would be that nothing draws attention more than being evasive.
Elroy Blue said:
How do any of these apply? It's a quick interview after a complaint of due care a few weeks previously. Not a multi million pound fraud trial.
I predict this interview will be over very quickly. It's up to the OP to decide what to say. After over twenty years in the job, my advice would be that nothing draws attention more than being evasive.
My reply was to your (wrong) general advice that going no comment prevented the OP from introducing a defence later and that it would harm his defence.I predict this interview will be over very quickly. It's up to the OP to decide what to say. After over twenty years in the job, my advice would be that nothing draws attention more than being evasive.
Firstly, he is not prevented from introducing a defence later (it is up to the court to decide if they believe him or not) and, secondly, the court does not have unfettered discretion to draw adverse inferences from silence at interview in any case.
It will depend on the circumstances.
Which is why giving blanket advice here, either to say nothing or to introduce every possible defence now, or to commit to anything in between, is potentially misleading the OP.
Dixy said:
Mk3 what is your professional qualification for your statements, why does answering anything help the OP as opposed to the police.
As Liga and the others have put it, pretty much. Sorry if it appeared blunt, but people spouting things like that can potentially end up getting someone into a lot of trouble.
I have done hundreds of interviews and more than once, someone has ended up worse off for trying to be clever, or, going off advice they've seen on forums like this, and going no comment.
Another quick example...a simple theft. Suspect banged to rights, but decides to go no comment. Not really been in trouble before, and is cautionable. Doesn't admit it (goes no comment) and so can't be cautioned and instead ends up in court.
Surprised no one has suggested that it might be a hoax/scam/car jacking?
is your car parked outside your house? Ie, could you get the reg AND your home address just by standing outside your house?
'Come to the station, bring all spare keys so we can verify you are in charge of them all. bring your logbook and locking wheel nut too'
Bam!, car jacked at a junction on route to the station.
Pissed off/jealous neighbour ?
Did you call the number on the note or did you dial the station from a researched number?
is your car parked outside your house? Ie, could you get the reg AND your home address just by standing outside your house?
'Come to the station, bring all spare keys so we can verify you are in charge of them all. bring your logbook and locking wheel nut too'
Bam!, car jacked at a junction on route to the station.
Pissed off/jealous neighbour ?
Did you call the number on the note or did you dial the station from a researched number?
allergictocheese said:
Some police officers on this thread have quite rightly pointed out that blanket advice recommending 'no comment' is bad. I would extend that to add taking legal advice from Police officers in general is bad. As is relying on internet forums when you're faced with events that may have long term consequences.
Bit of a contradiction there...Anyway, perhaps you should give us your legal standing. I'm guessing CPS, or duty brief?
Pixelpeep7r said:
Surprised no one has suggested that it might be a hoax/scam/car jacking?
is your car parked outside your house? Ie, could you get the reg AND your home address just by standing outside your house?
'Come to the station, bring all spare keys so we can verify you are in charge of them all. bring your logbook and locking wheel nut too'
Bam!, car jacked at a junction on route to the station.
Pissed off/jealous neighbour ?
Did you call the number on the note or did you dial the station from a researched number?
Jings...best bring your tinfoil hat as well! is your car parked outside your house? Ie, could you get the reg AND your home address just by standing outside your house?
'Come to the station, bring all spare keys so we can verify you are in charge of them all. bring your logbook and locking wheel nut too'
Bam!, car jacked at a junction on route to the station.
Pissed off/jealous neighbour ?
Did you call the number on the note or did you dial the station from a researched number?
Mk3Spitfire said:
Bit of a contradiction there...
It would be a contradiction if I said don't take advice from any police officers but do listen to unknown people on the internet. Neither of these groups is 'on your side' (that is not the same as saying they are against you, BTW!). The sensible thing to do is to engage a solicitor (many will attend for free regardless of your means) and take their professional, insured advice. Once you have instructed them they are on your side and are regulated to ensure as much. They are trained on procedure, the law and offering advice. They will be able to enquire as to the nature of the allegation before you sit in the interview and will take notes throughout so you don't have to remember every single detail after the event (this may be very important).
No side here is impartial (please don't take that as a criticism of the Police, as it's not intended to be), so don't enter what might turn into a lion's den without taking a free and partial (to you) expert.
Pixelpeep7r said:
Surprised no one has suggested that it might be a hoax/scam/car jacking?
is your car parked outside your house? Ie, could you get the reg AND your home address just by standing outside your house?
'Come to the station, bring all spare keys so we can verify you are in charge of them all. bring your logbook and locking wheel nut too'
Bam!, car jacked at a junction on route to the station.
Pissed off/jealous neighbour ?
Did you call the number on the note or did you dial the station from a researched number?
Don't be surprised, as it's total nonsense.is your car parked outside your house? Ie, could you get the reg AND your home address just by standing outside your house?
'Come to the station, bring all spare keys so we can verify you are in charge of them all. bring your logbook and locking wheel nut too'
Bam!, car jacked at a junction on route to the station.
Pissed off/jealous neighbour ?
Did you call the number on the note or did you dial the station from a researched number?
allergictocheese said:
No side here is impartial
Err..I am. It makes not a jot of difference to me what the OP does. I'm merely passing on (having conducted hundreds and hundreds of RTC/Due care interviews) that the vast majority are simply box ticking exercises. All this 'say nothing, they're out to get you' is paranoid nonsense. However, going no comment suddenly means that the interviewing Officer can't just recommend NFA and has to forward it for a decision. All it does is mean your case will be subject to greater scrutiny. That's twenty plus years of experience. You haven't yet mentioned what you do.
Pixelpeep7r said:
Surprised no one has suggested that it might be a hoax/scam/car jacking?
is your car parked outside your house? Ie, could you get the reg AND your home address just by standing outside your house?
'Come to the station, bring all spare keys so we can verify you are in charge of them all. bring your logbook and locking wheel nut too'
Bam!, car jacked at a junction on route to the station.
Pissed off/jealous neighbour ?
Did you call the number on the note or did you dial the station from a researched number?
This. Definitely this.is your car parked outside your house? Ie, could you get the reg AND your home address just by standing outside your house?
'Come to the station, bring all spare keys so we can verify you are in charge of them all. bring your logbook and locking wheel nut too'
Bam!, car jacked at a junction on route to the station.
Pissed off/jealous neighbour ?
Did you call the number on the note or did you dial the station from a researched number?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff