Discussion
It will be disclosed at a later stage but not whilst you are being interviewed, assuming it goes to trial or whatever.
Have you been charged? I think that's when it starts to be disclosed
From the interweb:
In a police investigation, "full disclosure" (the legal release of all evidence and unused material) does not happen all at once. It occurs in stages managed by the Crown Prosecution Service:
Before Charge/Interview: The police provide limited disclosure to your solicitor to outline the allegation, but they do not share all the evidence.
Initial Disclosure (Post-Charge): If you are charged, the prosecution must serve the initial details of their case and a summary of the circumstances (usually before the first court hearing).
Full Disclosure (Ongoing): The primary duty to disclose all unused material (evidence not being used in court but which may assist the defence or undermine the prosecution) triggers after a "not guilty" plea in the Magistrates' Court or when the case goes to the Crown Court
Have you been charged? I think that's when it starts to be disclosed
From the interweb:
In a police investigation, "full disclosure" (the legal release of all evidence and unused material) does not happen all at once. It occurs in stages managed by the Crown Prosecution Service:
Before Charge/Interview: The police provide limited disclosure to your solicitor to outline the allegation, but they do not share all the evidence.
Initial Disclosure (Post-Charge): If you are charged, the prosecution must serve the initial details of their case and a summary of the circumstances (usually before the first court hearing).
Full Disclosure (Ongoing): The primary duty to disclose all unused material (evidence not being used in court but which may assist the defence or undermine the prosecution) triggers after a "not guilty" plea in the Magistrates' Court or when the case goes to the Crown Court
you have the right to remain silent
as per the caution.
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/your-right...
Your rights when being questioned
The police may question you about the crime you’re suspected of - this will be recorded. You do not have to answer the questions but there could be consequences if you do not. The police must explain this to you by reading you the police caution:
“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
as per the caution.
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/your-right...
Your rights when being questioned
The police may question you about the crime you’re suspected of - this will be recorded. You do not have to answer the questions but there could be consequences if you do not. The police must explain this to you by reading you the police caution:
“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
jonsp said:
So the police say we suspect you robbed this bank
You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
Nothing has to be disclosed or it will be staged disclosure. You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
I deal with PIP 1 stuff mainly. I pretty much disclose everything at the start.
Fatals are different and often nothing other than involved in a crash. Someone died is disclosed at the start. Then a challenge interview will be conducted later.
I dont deal with PIP 2 stuff apart from fatals, but I rarely interview for them.
LosingGrip said:
jonsp said:
So the police say we suspect you robbed this bank
You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
Nothing has to be disclosed or it will be staged disclosure. You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
I deal with PIP 1 stuff mainly. I pretty much disclose everything at the start.
Fatals are different and often nothing other than involved in a crash. Someone died is disclosed at the start. Then a challenge interview will be conducted later.
I dont deal with PIP 2 stuff apart from fatals, but I rarely interview for them.
Austin Prefect said:
Is this the 'ask the same question over and over again until the suspect rephrases the answer and then say they've changed their story so must be guilty' model?
It's the least coercive form of questioning there is. There is no other model I know of that is less likely to gain an improper 'confession'.There are few police forces around the world where it is used. If I was arrested for a crime I did not commit, England/Wales is the area I'd choose. It's safest.
As others have said, no disclosure is required at this stage.
They want to speak to you about something to get your side of the story. If you didn't do what they suspect you of doing, you can tell them that, or you can remain silent or you can say no comment - totally up to you. They might or might not have some evidence.
For example, I interviewed someone about criminal damage. The suspect denied any involvement.
Then I showed them the CCTV of them doing the damage, clear as day. The suspect then admitted everything.
If I hadn't had CCTV, I imagine the suspect would have stuck to her story.
Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, responding to the interviewing officer's questions with an explanation which includes a defence is enough to make it go away, but it really does depend on a lot of factors.
So, the choice is yours.
They want to speak to you about something to get your side of the story. If you didn't do what they suspect you of doing, you can tell them that, or you can remain silent or you can say no comment - totally up to you. They might or might not have some evidence.
For example, I interviewed someone about criminal damage. The suspect denied any involvement.
Then I showed them the CCTV of them doing the damage, clear as day. The suspect then admitted everything.
If I hadn't had CCTV, I imagine the suspect would have stuck to her story.
Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, responding to the interviewing officer's questions with an explanation which includes a defence is enough to make it go away, but it really does depend on a lot of factors.
So, the choice is yours.
Austin Prefect said:
Is this the 'ask the same question over and over again until the suspect rephrases the answer and then say they've changed their story so must be guilty' model?
If the police tried that your solicitor would (should) pipe up and say my client has answered that question. When I was young and clueless I thought that asking for a solicitor is akin to an admission of guilt. It isn't.
jonsp said:
So the police say we suspect you robbed this bank
You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
Well the best way to avoid that is to not be robbing a bank in the first place, you have the right to silence and right to legal representation, that balances out the rights of the police to without evidence until a prescribed point in proceedings. (obviously that all goes out of the window if you're dealing with a regional crime squad in the 80s or GMP at anytime.)You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
jonsp said:
So the police say we suspect you robbed this bank
You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
I’m no expert, but not putting everything you know on the table at the start means that someone who is telling the truth has greater credibility if their first version of events fits the evidence you held back. Someone who is telling untruths can be caught by inconsistencies between their version of events and the evidence they weren’t aware you had. Seems very fair to me. You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
Wills2 said:
jonsp said:
So the police say we suspect you robbed this bank
You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
Well the best way to avoid that is to not be robbing a bank in the first place, you have the right to silence and right to legal representation, that balances out the rights of the police to without evidence until a prescribed point in proceedings. (obviously that all goes out of the window if you're dealing with a regional crime squad in the 80s or GMP at anytime.)You say no I didn't. Why do you think I did?
Police say we've got some evidence but we're not telling you what it is. That doesn't seem fair
'If only my client had talked more freely to the police, this could all have been cleared up without charge' said no defence lawyer ever.
If they disclosed everything at the beginning of the interview stage it would give you time to think up a make believe alibi. They first offer you a chance to give your account of what happened and then they might gradually drip feed disclose to you in the form challenging your account.
If you have a solicitor they may offer partial disclosure but the could be as little as just revealing they have video evidence, but they don t have to. However the solicitor may then advise you to no comment.
If that continues and they charge you they ll probably assume you re pleading not guilty and that might affect the process moving forward.
If you have a solicitor they may offer partial disclosure but the could be as little as just revealing they have video evidence, but they don t have to. However the solicitor may then advise you to no comment.
If that continues and they charge you they ll probably assume you re pleading not guilty and that might affect the process moving forward.
The Gauge said:
If they disclosed everything at the beginning of the interview stage it would give you time to think up a make believe alibi. They first offer you a chance to give your account of what happened and then they might gradually drip feed disclose to you in the form challenging your account.
If you have a solicitor they may offer partial disclosure but the could be as little as just revealing they have video evidence, but they don t have to. However the solicitor may then advise you to no comment.
If that continues and they charge you they ll probably assume you re pleading not guilty and that might affect the process moving forward.
It would also give me a chance to say where I really was.If you have a solicitor they may offer partial disclosure but the could be as little as just revealing they have video evidence, but they don t have to. However the solicitor may then advise you to no comment.
If that continues and they charge you they ll probably assume you re pleading not guilty and that might affect the process moving forward.
If I know I'm being questioned because my car was seen parked down the street from the robbery I can explain what I was doing there. If I don't know why I'm being questioned I'm hardly going to volunteer the fact that I was in the area at the time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff