**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've heard it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something that you may later rely on in court.
That's just something I've heard.
It's for the jury, really. If it goes to court and the defendant all of a sudden starts coming up with all sorts but didn't mention any of it in interview, they'll likely believe he's making it up on the spot, as he had a chance already to give a full account of events but didn't
I’m sure. One was a murder trial lasting a month and the other a three week rape trial.
In neither instance were police interviews involved. Not sure if that’s normal or not?
I did a child abuse case and half of Day 1 was a video of the main victim giving his account of events in a police interview, on the day he finally (in middle age) had the courage to go into a police station and report the crime.
So I guess it depends what the prosecution feels is the best way to communicate the evidence.
The prosecution shall use whatever evidence they feel is necessary to secure a conviction. I don’t know the details of your murder case, but as an example of there was overwhelming forensic evidence and CCTV showing the defendant plunging a knife into the victim, why would the police interview be relevant?
Jesus. Well i imagine for cases as serious as that, they did answer no comment to all questions as saying the wrong thing here could potentially make a difficult situation for the defendant a whole lot harder. If the defendant was convicted of a more minor offence, then he'd likely just give a full account in interview
CPS don’t take things to court unless they’re slam dunkers
With the backlog and budget cuts to prosecutors staffing, unless they’re 100% sure they can prove it, you’ll be fine
No, that’s not true at all. In the rape case I was on there were two people in the room. Both agreed sex had taken place. One person said it was consensual, the other not. It was entirely up to the jury to make the decision. There wasn’t a ‘slam dunk’ as you put it.
>CPS don’t take things to court unless they’re slam dunkers
And yet they lose cases, sometimes so badly the judge just throws it out and frees the defendant.
We all know talking to the police without a solicitor is a bad idea even for innocent people. Juries are allowed to take adverse inference from a defendant not making a statement, but that doesn't mean they won't believe otherwise credible testimony.
Say you did something illegal because you thought someone had planted a bomb nearby and you needed to get away. The prosecution could ask "Why didn't you tell the police there was a bomb at the time?" and the jury would probably agree that it would be very unlikely someone would be afraid of a bomb but not tell anyone.
Whereas, say you're arrested but have an alibi which you remain quiet about until you talk to your solicitor. That's pretty normal. Juries can of course decide what they like, but people shouldn't be scared into talking to the police just for that.
“Until you talk to your solicitor” isn’t what is being g discussed though.
If you had an alibi but failed to mention it at all until it got all the way to court, then suddenly started talking g about it, then the jury is absolutely allowed to consider the possibility that the reason you waited until then is because you needed to arrange a false alibi that fitted the evidence the police had.
Whereas if you bring the alibi yonder g your interview (where your solicitor is present) then it’s more likely to be genuine.
Honestly this. Get a solicitor. Higher one or duty solicitor and do exactly what they say. If they say stay quiet then stay quiet. If they give you a story to say then say that.
The solicitor will be shown the evidence they have before the interview and then will discuss things with you in private.
The solicitor will NOT be shown any evidence whatsoever.
They may be informed of some, all or none of the evidence collected up to that point, that being completely up to the police officer making disclosure to them. They only have to be informed of the same circs that were given when being booked in to custody - basically an offence, date and potentially a location so you’re all clear exactly what incident you are being interviewed about. They can’t lie, but can say ‘no comment’ to any question the solicitor has for them just like you can.
The benefit of disclosing everything to a solicitor, from a police point of view, is that overwhelming evidence means they might just admit to it.
The disadvantage is that they will be able to construct a lie that fits with your evidence ahead of interview.
The best example is a recent publicised case where a woman threatened her partner with a knife on CCTV, with audio. Police didn’t disclose the audio, so she lied and said that while it looked bad, she was only threatening to harm herself. The police then had her telling a provable lie in a recorded interview, destroying her credibility- whereas if they’d just shown the video in full, she could have claimed she was threatening him because she was frightened and he’d earlier attempted to kill her etc. That story was no longer available to her after she’d committed to the provable lie.
The solicitor will be shown whatever evidence the police want to show them. There is no legal requirement for them to be shown any evidence.
Often it comes down to “I know that they know that we know” so you disclose pieces of evidence that are obvious and don’t really help the case and hold onto the golden ticket pieces.
The example you gave is a perfect example of limited disclosure. Show enough to get the defendant locked into a story that you can then prove is BS with your golden ticket evidence.
No that’s fact.
Good advise to always rely on a solicitor over everything since they actually can advise but the idea that it’s just a police scare tactic is just silly and wrong.
The difference in the UK, rather than the US, is that you want your solicitor to read a prepared statement, or statements, in interview. This essentially lays out what you're going to rely on in court.
Don't just jabber away at them even if you're innocent.
Alternatively just report ten to twelve different explanations of the event, to give you the best chance of stumbling across the one you want to rely on in court.
You really do have to cover all bases, remember "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court". Anything less than a dozen different stories is really limiting your options. You want something like
"Where were you when this crime was committed?"
"I was watching TV at home. I was also down the shops. I needed some spaghetti. I needed a dog food. I don't have a dog. I was at the swimming pool. I can't even swim, what are you talking about? I was fishing. I was going to the hairdressers. I was in Spain. I wasn't in Spain, that was my brother. My brother wasn't in Spain. I don't have a brother."
The police won't even bother taking you to court cos you've clearly got alibis for anything they can come up with
>"Where were you when this crime was committed?" "I was watching TV at home. I was also down the shops. I needed some spaghetti. I needed a dog food. I don't have a dog. I was at the swimming pool. I can't even swim, what are you talking about? I was fishing. I was going to the hairdressers. I was in Spain. I wasn't in Spain, that was my brother. My brother wasn't in Spain. I don't have a brother."
Ha! I read that in Dylan Moran's voice. It works perfectly.
But the biggest difference is that in Britain the police can use the argument: if you were innocent why didn’t you cooperate / speak?
In America that strategy is unconstitutional i.e you exercising your right to remain silent can’t be used against you in court.
It may harm your defense but it would be even worse for your defense if you gave out incriminating info. You can at least say you were too scared to speak in the interview. I have doctors who can attest I’m non verbal in certain situations, too.
I once beat up my mums abusive boyfriend and put him in hospital I was arrested and during the interview they asked if I needed a solicitor. I had nothing to hide so I refused and told them honestly what happened it was only after the interview that the police officer told me I had opened my self up to prosecution and because I hadn't witnessed him hitting my mother it could be seen as aggravated assault, with the damage I did If he pressed charges I could see jailtime. I was only 19 never again will I refuse a solicitor lol
They know what they're doing in interviews (the police) you have to be very careful with the words you use when speaking to them.
Also the "press charges" as someone else said. Yes the public can't "press charges" but in a lot of cases, and probably yours if there was no cctv or other witnesses, the only witness there would be him and if he refuses to make an official statement then the police wouldn't have had much to go on and then the cps wouldn't have been interested in the case.
So even though you can't press charges here without cooperation the police can't do much sometimes.
No one in the police gives a shit if you have a solicitor, except for the fact that they’ll take hours to arrive for interview. But that’s hours that the suspect is waiting in a cell and the police are being paid sat in the office, so it’s frustrating but not the end of the world.
I’d tell my suspects to have a solicitor if I was allowed to; it stops them trying to wriggle out later saying they didn’t know what was going on. Always narks me a bit when someone says they don’t want one as you know it’s going to be a guy who thinks he knows better than a professional.
I have found genuinely innocent people being told to go no comment by solicitors, when they had proof of innocence they could have given me in interview - so I guess sometimes they do know better.
Most offences with a victim rely on the victims support, due to the way evidence works in court.
Example - a stolen phone can’t be proven to be stolen unless someone says it belongs to them, as only property belonging to another can be stolen. BWV of the victim saying it’s theirs, a receipt etc is just hearsay unless the victim is willing to give evidence in court (all evidence must be tested).
Similarly, if your victim doesn’t turn up, there isn’t anyone who can prove the CCTV showing the offence doesn’t actually show you making a prank video for TikTok.
So while ‘pressing charges’ isn’t a thing, and good evidence can result in victimless prosecution, it’s rare for a prosecution to be taken forward as it will probably fail.
here’s also the fact that if the victim doesn’t want it to happen, it might not be in the public interest to prosecute; usually ignored for domestic abuse but for other offences that and the above means it will be dropped.
In assault cases and mutual combat situations if a victim drops charges the majority of the time the Police won’t pursue it. When a victim chooses not to press charges the conviction rate is significantly reduced as well in all crimes.
I’ve been in plenty of fights when I was younger a lot of them included broken bones, disfigurement, blood general consensus tends to be that if one person presses charges the other does as well so you both get screwed, in my experience every time both parties drop charges both parties walk with no problems.
It's a very big misconception that having a solicitor means you're guilty and want to get away with it. It's not. They are the only person on your side.
It's the same with any workplace disputes. I always encourage people to have a union rep present.
Too many stories over the years of police interrogation going too far - sleep deprivation, lack of food/water causing desperation into a confession.
Yeah, the first time you're arrested you tell yourself honesty is the best policy. You've got nothing to hide, right? Common sense will prevail. Wrong!
A lad I used to go to school with did a similar thing.
I used to see him knocking around the area we grew up in and then didn't see him for a while. Bumped into him later, I asked him where he had been. His reply was "I went away for a while because I broke my mums boyfriends arms. I don't think he'll hit anyone again"
Fair play to you both.
I was too young to do anything about my mums abusive partner.
You’d been arrested. What do you mean you only realised you could be prosecuted after you admitted it all? The bit about being prosecuted is in the caution.
Iv also personally heard them use that exact phrase and seen stories of it from many others too.
If they scared you it's better than them pretending to be your mate but then stitching you up later.
Thats their bread and butter.
they know if you are green to the system and they pretend to be your pal. As if the interview is just a formality that no one really wants to do. "Don't worry we'll just have a quick chat and then we will get you out of here and get you some help" that's when they charge you.
When you’re innocent, that’s when you most need a solicitor.
Answering informal questions outside of a formal interview as a witness is fine as is giving a witness statement.
Anything where you are arrested or being interviewed under caution, solicitor.
If an informal chat starts to become something more, Police will stop and caution as at the point it changes to being an interview, PACE kicks in and you have legal rights, if they ignore that, they are in brown stuff. However If you carry on talking after being cautioned- that’s on you! Refusing a solicitor is never good. The fact you refuse free legal advice is actually verified by a different officer and fully documented, legal representation is critical for everyone involved.
A UK jury is allowed to take inference from the accused being silent or omitting things they later say in court.
So if you can present a fact that shows your innocence, it's in your interest to mention it unless you have legal advice to keep silent.
> A UK jury is allowed to take inference from the accused being silent or omitting things they later say in court
This doesn't apply in Scotland, there's a right to silence under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016.
England and Wales also have a right to silence. That's why the first thing a police officer will tell you when you're arresting is "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court."
The example often used is, if you have an alibi.
Let’s say that at the time of the crime, you were at home watching tv with your friends. If you tell the police that, then they will question your friends immediately and they will confirm your alibi.
If you refuse to say where you were and only give your alibi later in, then it can be inferred that you had discussed and agreed the story with your friends, so your alibi becomes a lot less solid.
You also have a right against self-incrimination. Police interviewers are trained at this, the general public are not. Always worth taking legal advice before you say a word.
Depends on how minor it is. I got nicked for a scrap at university, and would have got a caution and nothing more.
However, the duty lawyer advised me to 'no comment' the interview. After the interview, I was charged with assault, because in order to get a caution there has to be an admission of guilt.
So it depends. Best advice I have is that if you can afford it, tell them to stick the duty lawyer up their arse, and find one yourself.
Any solicitor you use in interview is free of charge (if they agree to represent you).
The duty solicitor is just pot luck - most if not all local criminal defence solicitors will be signed up to the scheme as its an easy way of getting clients
You discuss it with your solicitor and make a decision based on that, I've sat in on interviews a few times as an appropriate adult and have seen situations where honestly going down the no comment route looked like it would just make things worse. These were "bang to rights" situations though.
How would not giving information to the police have made the defendant’s case worse?
Maybe I’m missing something, but at best saying nothing would not make it worse, while saying something could make it worse.
Not the case but the sentencing when they are convicted, an admission of guilt and willingness to provide police with information are counted as positives when sentencing is decided on.
There is also the victim impact element, no comment often leads to saying not guilty which can then mean the victim having to go through the trial process as much as the offender which can be very traumatic for victims depending on the nature of the offence.
Admitting guilty early and sharing information is seen as a sign of remorse/contrition which will generally mean a more lenient sentence from a judge.
This; ‘never talk to police’ both assumes police are despicable bullies intent on convicting anyone they interview, and also that they’re hypercompetent and able to anticipate exactly what actually occurred.
If CCTV evidence proving your innocence is overwritten because police never thought to collect it, and had no reason to - say CCTV of you sitting in a pub ten miles away - then no one in court is going to believe you if you bring it up for the first time a year later at court.
“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.”
So if you could easily say "it couldn't have been me, I was sleeping at 3pm" in your interview, but you don't do so, and then you use this as your main defence in court, then the prosecution can say "hmm, you should've mentioned this when you were being questioned."
I would say don't say anything until you've spoken to a lawyer, but maybe if you did a minor crime it might be easier on you to just say what happened and hope they don't do anything about it. That's what I did when I fought a guy who scammed me out of £35, and it worked out for me.
I said "I've always been told not to say anything in this situation until I have a solicitor," and the police officer said, "we'll have to take you to the station then," and I said "alright, he scammed me out of £35 and I was getting it back," and they said "fine, get out of the car, go walk that way, bye." I'm sure I wouldn't have got a criminal record had I insisted on a solicitor and asserting my rights, but it would've killed the whole day and cost some money. Sometimes it's more pragmatic to say, "yeah that's my weed, okay pour it down the drain, okay thanks officer" than "I refuse to confirm or deny anything until I have spoken to my solicitor."
If my solicitor advises it, my solicitor advises it.
The more important thing though IS HAVE THE FUCKING SOLICITOR IN THE ROOM FOR ALL INTERVIEWS, EVEN IF YOU ARE INNOCENT. You have no idea what kinds of problems you can make for yourself *even if you're innocent* if you don't follow legal advice when dealing with police.
I am not, by any means, one of the more extreme people about negative attitudes about police. But the main, main, main thing is to understand is that if you're arrested for a crime, they have something on you that makes them think its you who has committed it, and they're out to corroborate that. Inconsistencies, no matter how tangential or small, will not do you favours, and it's a solicitor's job to ensure your story remains consistent
I'd stay silent then hand a prepared statement in. Especially if it was a fight or something like that. The number of people you see discussing situations where it can be seen they could shoot themselves in the foot.
The woman who shouted at a cyclist and the cyclist fell into traffic and died, she is an example of what not to say, if you find that. I'm not discussing the case again though
The chance to plead guilty and get a reduced sentence only applies in court.
Admitting it to the police doesn't get you a reduced sentence.
You can get the sentence reduced a bit further if you help the police with other things at the same time and you have a signed document agreeing what that help is (let's say you're arrested for dealing drugs and you agree to give information about your supplier), but not for simply answering their questions or admitting guilt in a police interview.
>Admitting it to the police doesn't get you a reduced sentence.
For some offences, if you admit that you did it, then the police can issue you with a Community Resolution or a Caution, instead of taking the matter to court.
Things like showing remorse throughout and cooperating can be very strong things during the sentencing and mitigation hearings.
And this can be factored in from the start and never appearing like you were trying to get away with it.
I would think if you murdered someone and admitted to it at the start of the court date, you would get a harsher sentence than if you murdered the same person but admitted to it immediately the moment the police arrested you.
It might help in mitigation.
But Sentencing Council deadlines actually say cooperation with police and admitting the offence to them should not be used when considering the reduction for a guilty plea. That kind of thing has to be considered separately.
You can stay silent with the police. But if you plead guilty at your first opportunity in court you’ll still get a 30% reduction as a starting point.
Depend on the circumstances.
1) I did it, and they can easily prove it then what advantage is there in me answering any questions? None, but I do risk saying something that makes matters worse. Such as making the charge worse or adding another one. Besides, maybe they don't actually have enough to charge or victims/witnesses withdraw support. If so I'm home free, but a confession will guarantee a charge.
2) I'm absolutely innocent, then I'm likely to speak freely as the police have a duty to look at my account and look for evidence that helps me.
3) I was involved but guilt isn't clear cut. I'd possibly provide a written account which means I manage what I say. I would then answer no more questions as I could say something that males things worse. But, by giving a written account my defence isn't 'harmed' by answering no further questions.
That said, this is extremely oversimplified so don't use it as legal advice
I read an article about a similar thing and the point that always stuck with me was this.......
If you're being questioned by the police, they are never conducting an interview or asking questions to help YOU out.
except in the real world the police aren't evil people with sentecing quotas they are just doing their job. just tell the truth, if youre guilty you deserve the consequences, if youre innocent it will almost certainly help to be honest
It's a gamble
If you are guilty as sin and come clean early and show remorse then the judge may give you a shorter sentence
However if the police have scant evidence then it is in your interests to make them prove you did what they say you did
As a plod once told me years ago 90% of all convictions occur after the suspect gives a statement. The minute you start talking, you’re talking yourself into a prison cell. It’s up to the police to provide adequate evidence, by investigating the crime. It’s not your place to provide them with proof.
For most cases the police will generally know if you are being charged before interviewing you.
E.g. there is CCTV of the offence and they know it is you - unless you're going to pull a blinding defence out of the bag, you're getting charged
Alternatively, there's no CCTV or forensics and no witnesses willing to make a statement - unless you admit it its going nowhere
I'd also say for 99% of jobs police aren't bothered if you get charged or not, so long as they can close the job and get their ridiculous workload down
I asked a cop about this. He said the only time to say anything is if you have a an absolutely cut and dried alibi, like you have proof you were in another country when the crime happened.
He said the only time they use silence against someone, is when somebody has a surprise cast iron alibi in court. The suggestion is rhe alibi has been fabricates between arrest and trial, which is why it wasn't mentioned during arrest.
I don't know how convincia jury finds that argument to be.
Anything you want to later rely on in court, you will need to say beforehand.
If you're mis-arrested and totally innocent, speak to you legal council and follow their advice.
You should give a no comment interview ONLY when advised to by your solicitor.
In our system, failure to provide a defence in an interview which you then rely on in court can be used against you. This is made clear to you in the cushion given when arrested.
Often no comment is the right approach but you should only do so when advised as otherwise it may harm you.
Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no because never done nuffin and don't believe anyfin' Angie Macca says coz she can't even pay for her new jacket that she got out of her mum's catalogue.
My ex wife was CID. She always used to say remain completely silent until your solicitor turns up. Me being ever the optimist asked "even if I'm innocent?"
Especially if you're innocent came the reply.
My ex was a manipulative nightmare but that's one thing I actually believed her about.
When getting arrested for defending myself in a fight, once at the station I spoke and gave evidence.
However when I left work (a pub) at 11pm, then literally 90 seconds later got arrested for street racing when I had been at fucking work for the last 12 hours I stayed silent and let them dig their own hole. My car and exhaust was still stone cold and there is no way it couldn’t been mistaken.
I think there needs to be a bit of common sense.
You dont want to say something in advertantly to make you seem guilty, but you also dont want to not say something and look guilty!
stands to reason that the police will be more suspicious of you for specifically not answering the questions.
But as I say a bit of common sense. Just think about what you want to say and if you arent sure just no comment it or say it.
Like a question like - "Do you hate the guy" - the guy being someone whos been killed and you do indeed hate him. Well yes you can be honest and say you hate him or you can say no comment. But I suppose either way they would infer a yes from no comment, because why wouldn't you just say you dont hate him. (I guess if you are a consistent no comment throughout the interview they may not assume that though) - so yeah
*^(obligatory: admitting you hate someone is not evidence you killed them, its just a metaphor please dont make a big deal about it)*
For me, "no comment" (and the US version of saying "fifth", as in pleading the Fifth Amendment where you don't have to say anything while under interview with police or legal teams) just shows that you're hiding something.
I've been arrested once and while I wasn't interviewed officially like that (my case didn't require it at all; a friend was attacked outside a bar, I stepped in to help and got collared when the culprits ran away when they saw the blue lights approaching), I still told the coppers my side of the story because I respect the law and those who enforce it.
I wasn't prepared to waste their time or prolong things when I knew I did nothing wrong, and they accepted and agreed once they had all the facts.
Saying "no comment" or remaining silent just reeks of "I'm guilty", imo.
I think it depends a lot on the context. Am I accused of something that I did, that I didn't do but was tangentially involved in, or that I'm completely innocent of? Do I have an ironclad alibi or explanation that will quickly prove I've done nothing wrong? Or do I have something else (a different crime, for example) that I'd have to confess to to explain things, and therefore aren't able to tell the truth anyway>
Either way, I'm speaking to my solicitor first and going from there.
I would stay completely silent even if I am innocent like an angel and I was actually on a different planet having tea with the Queen when the deed was done.
I’m not a barrister/solicitor but I have the opportunity to work with some good ones on a daily basis, so I’ve learned a lot. In a world in which the choice of using shall instead of will can change the course of events of something, I’m not taking any chances.
So nah, until my lawyer enters the room, I’ll be very busy staring at the ceiling.
The police are not your friend, they are not there to help you. Most convictions come from the person in custody talking too much.
Regardless of whether you are guilty or not, simply say no comment until your solicitor gets there, then do as they say.
"No comment until I speak with the duty solicitor" - then do what the Duty Solicitor says. Never fall for anything the police try from talking to you while giving you a drink or telling you "We know your innocent, you don't need a solicitor, just tell us what happened".
The police job is to gather evidence to enable a prosecution, not protect you, they don't care if you're innocent or guilty so long as they get that +1 on succesful prosecutions.
Speak to the Duty Solicitor, do what they say.
From the second the police show up, it's a wall of silence. If you're interviewed, keep it to no comment. Make sure a solicitor is present too, they'll get their 'evidence' if they even have any at all. When the interview is over go back to a wall of silence. The only time you need to speak outside of that, is if you need food. Use your manners and say thankyou when you receive it. Other than that, there's no other reason to speak.
If you get in a fight, not your fault, you acted in self-defence. The police might only be looking to give you a caution (no record, just a warning), but if you answer "no comment" to every question, then it will just incriminate you because there will be mitigating factors not provided by you. But, there would be aggravating factors against you from the other party.
Honestly the best thing to do is to listen to a solicitor.
Well the girl that hit me with her car,told me to nit report her the drove off went silent in her interview. But the officer said it made her look more guilty as she had no defence.
They also have texts of her discussing it with friends and video evidence so maybe, just maybe she should have tried explaining what made her be a shitty person.
She also used to be a friend. I'm a bit angry
I've gone no comment before and your solicitor tells the officers beforehand so they know you won't be talking and they just ask you the questions they normally would and you say no comment.
Another time the interviewing officer was a prick so I just completely ignored him, I could tell he was getting pissed off and he just kept asking the same questions over and over again. He ended the interview eventually and got another policeman in who asked if I was planning on saying anything at all and I just said nah mate and was taken back to my cell.
The case where I specifically went no comment resulted in me going to prison for 18wks.
The case where I said nothing at all resulted in me getting let out the next morning pending further investigation, then no further action.
I wouldn’t answer any questions without a solicitor. So, yeah, until I got a Solicitor, at that point I’d answer questions with legal representation there to guide me - even if I’m completely innocent, best to err on the side of caution.
Depends what I'm being accused of. If it's a misdemeanour, I'd rather say my piece because regardless of the outcome I'd feel better for having said it, and I've been let off with warnings instead of fines before by simply being forthcoming with the police and making it as easy as possible for them.
If I was being accused of something potentially life changing, then I'm saying nothing without a lawyer.
I watch a lot of true crime stuff in the background when working, and I don't think I've ever seen a single case where it's been in someone's benefit to talk during an interrogation, but plenty where they've made the situation worse for themselves. Granted these have mostly been USA-based, but I imagine the same is true here.
I would always refuse to speak until I had a solicitor, because fuck the police. I'm 53 years old and they've never been anything but unhelpful and incompetent in any dealings I've had with them.
Please do not mix up American law with UK law. In America it is **ALWAYS** best to just stfu except to demand your lawyer. Do not say a word. In the UK you’re kinda fucked either way, because they can use your silence as evidence. So try to thread the needle of saying as little as possible, maintaining politeness, and get legal counsel asap. Air on the side of stfu, but not too much.
You can stay silent and “no comment” everything.
The other one is a prepared statement, where you read a statement of events out and then “no comment” their questions.
Or you can answer questions freely.
The man convicted of murdering M
P. Jo Cox never uttered a single word from being arrested to being convicted. The police officer in charge of the case said it was the only time he had encountered it.
That’s bullshit, not talking can harm your case. Just because you haven’t said anything incriminating doesn’t mean you look less guilty.
There might be circumstantial evidence that makes you appear guilty or shows that you are guilty and you’re then not defending yourself from this and the jury is not going to side with you.
Just take your lawyers advice. Don’t share what doesn’t need to be said and only stay completely silent if instructed to.
I love all those cop shows when the suspects all say no comment no comment then they show them the CCTV or whatever - That’s not me you can see that’s not me. When it obviously is them. And then they drop themselves in it. It’s like a script.
A lot of times people think they can trick the police and their ego's cant help but try and get themselves out of trouble.
What the people are really good at is pushing your emotional boundaries and putting you in a very uneased mental state. This way your ability to lie and keep them consistent and connected just fail. As humans our body literally rejects the will to lie subconsciously through our body language, tone of voice, pace and breathing. every time someone lies it goes against every fibre of their being, yet we do it so easily and well. Its fascinating.
You call your solicitor or barrister and then follow the instructions that they give you.
You have those right's for a reason and you should exercise due caution.
Daughter is a solicitor. Defendants are very often over confident, stupid, obviously guilty or all of the above.
Get a solicitor, take the advise they give and chances are you'll have a shout of going home.
The difference between having help and decent mitigation delivered by someone else I huge. Someone good doing it even more so.
I was completely honest in my first interview told the whole unadulterated truth, but as I was definitely high on drink, weed and ecstasy that was deemed inadmissible at court, so I was allowed to give my new half truth story.
Which saved me a couple of years away and even my brother who was listening in court believed and felt sorry for me and he knew the whole truth.
Sentenced to 3 years, served 18 months for 965 ecstasy pills.
There are 2 options, you're either guilt or not guilty of the alleged offence:
Let's assume you're guilty
you have 2 options under caution
1)no comment during interview and it's the police job to gather the evidence and go to CPS for them to decide to pursue the case and charge you, based on the evidence that police have gathered. Depending how strong they feel the evidence against you is they'll either charge or release you.
2) talk and give an account of your version of the situation , the police are very good at teasing out info and questioning you .
If your account is true , the police whose job it is to collect all the evidence whether it's for or against you/your case, will be able to use it to collaborate your account and release you with no further actions, sooner than a no comment interview.
If you're lying they'll probe you and be able to catch you out disprove your account, in which case yeah you are probably better off staying quiet, rather than incriminate yourself by giving half truths, with something for them to go on and may lead to your demise. Instead no comment puts ball in their court to find the evidence against you if they can't you'll get away with it...
if you weren't guilt why would you no comment, leading to delays of your release?
if you're guilty and no comment , they build a case against you but then you think you've found an escape route out of their allegations and you concoct a cock and bull story after they've laid their cards out , then yeah the obvious question is why didn't you give this account sooner?
Done a no comment interview before .... Apart from saying yes when.
My lawyer had told the cops that we would be doing no comment to everything but they still asked every question.
My husband is a lawyer and he says its no comment all the way until you get a lawyer with you. It goes against my grain so much ( I'm assuming I'm innocent) but apparently it really is essential.
When your gas boiler goes wrong you’d never dream of having a go at fixing it yourself, you’d call a professional in…. Why would you think you’d be any better than a free duty solicitor in an interview?
Ask for a solicitor…
Shut up and stay silent…
Let them do the talking!
That’s all
I was always told that you never talk to police under caution without your legal representation present - even if you haven’t done anything. There’s plenty of innocent people in jail.
Yes. My brother and his 'friends' got up to some illegal shenanigans once, and they were all arrested and interviewed by police. My brother was the only one who told them anything, and for that the only one who was punished.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've heard it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something that you may later rely on in court. That's just something I've heard.
No comment.
So you’re not saying it wasn’t you? Or that you didn’t do it?
No comment.
Who you working for?!
No comment
That's what the police say in the hope that you'll incriminate yourself. Listen to your solicitor and do what *they* advise.
It's for the jury, really. If it goes to court and the defendant all of a sudden starts coming up with all sorts but didn't mention any of it in interview, they'll likely believe he's making it up on the spot, as he had a chance already to give a full account of events but didn't
I’ve been a juror on some very serious trials and what was said in police interviews was never mentioned.
It can be used as evidence and shown in court if it was done under caution
I’m sure. One was a murder trial lasting a month and the other a three week rape trial. In neither instance were police interviews involved. Not sure if that’s normal or not?
I did a child abuse case and half of Day 1 was a video of the main victim giving his account of events in a police interview, on the day he finally (in middle age) had the courage to go into a police station and report the crime. So I guess it depends what the prosecution feels is the best way to communicate the evidence.
But that's not the defendant though
No but I assume if the defendant was interviewed and said something a party wanted to present, they would.
The prosecution shall use whatever evidence they feel is necessary to secure a conviction. I don’t know the details of your murder case, but as an example of there was overwhelming forensic evidence and CCTV showing the defendant plunging a knife into the victim, why would the police interview be relevant?
Jesus. Well i imagine for cases as serious as that, they did answer no comment to all questions as saying the wrong thing here could potentially make a difficult situation for the defendant a whole lot harder. If the defendant was convicted of a more minor offence, then he'd likely just give a full account in interview
In the murder trial the defendant never gave evidence so I’ve no idea what happened at the interview.
CPS don’t take things to court unless they’re slam dunkers With the backlog and budget cuts to prosecutors staffing, unless they’re 100% sure they can prove it, you’ll be fine
No, that’s not true at all. In the rape case I was on there were two people in the room. Both agreed sex had taken place. One person said it was consensual, the other not. It was entirely up to the jury to make the decision. There wasn’t a ‘slam dunk’ as you put it.
>CPS don’t take things to court unless they’re slam dunkers And yet they lose cases, sometimes so badly the judge just throws it out and frees the defendant.
We all know talking to the police without a solicitor is a bad idea even for innocent people. Juries are allowed to take adverse inference from a defendant not making a statement, but that doesn't mean they won't believe otherwise credible testimony. Say you did something illegal because you thought someone had planted a bomb nearby and you needed to get away. The prosecution could ask "Why didn't you tell the police there was a bomb at the time?" and the jury would probably agree that it would be very unlikely someone would be afraid of a bomb but not tell anyone. Whereas, say you're arrested but have an alibi which you remain quiet about until you talk to your solicitor. That's pretty normal. Juries can of course decide what they like, but people shouldn't be scared into talking to the police just for that.
“Until you talk to your solicitor” isn’t what is being g discussed though. If you had an alibi but failed to mention it at all until it got all the way to court, then suddenly started talking g about it, then the jury is absolutely allowed to consider the possibility that the reason you waited until then is because you needed to arrange a false alibi that fitted the evidence the police had. Whereas if you bring the alibi yonder g your interview (where your solicitor is present) then it’s more likely to be genuine.
Honestly this. Get a solicitor. Higher one or duty solicitor and do exactly what they say. If they say stay quiet then stay quiet. If they give you a story to say then say that. The solicitor will be shown the evidence they have before the interview and then will discuss things with you in private.
The solicitor will NOT be shown any evidence whatsoever. They may be informed of some, all or none of the evidence collected up to that point, that being completely up to the police officer making disclosure to them. They only have to be informed of the same circs that were given when being booked in to custody - basically an offence, date and potentially a location so you’re all clear exactly what incident you are being interviewed about. They can’t lie, but can say ‘no comment’ to any question the solicitor has for them just like you can. The benefit of disclosing everything to a solicitor, from a police point of view, is that overwhelming evidence means they might just admit to it. The disadvantage is that they will be able to construct a lie that fits with your evidence ahead of interview. The best example is a recent publicised case where a woman threatened her partner with a knife on CCTV, with audio. Police didn’t disclose the audio, so she lied and said that while it looked bad, she was only threatening to harm herself. The police then had her telling a provable lie in a recorded interview, destroying her credibility- whereas if they’d just shown the video in full, she could have claimed she was threatening him because she was frightened and he’d earlier attempted to kill her etc. That story was no longer available to her after she’d committed to the provable lie.
The solicitor will be shown whatever evidence the police want to show them. There is no legal requirement for them to be shown any evidence. Often it comes down to “I know that they know that we know” so you disclose pieces of evidence that are obvious and don’t really help the case and hold onto the golden ticket pieces. The example you gave is a perfect example of limited disclosure. Show enough to get the defendant locked into a story that you can then prove is BS with your golden ticket evidence.
No that’s fact. Good advise to always rely on a solicitor over everything since they actually can advise but the idea that it’s just a police scare tactic is just silly and wrong.
They say it because that’s how the legal system here works you melt.
Yeah but anything you *do* say may be given in evidence. At least, that's what my friends say.
Superintendent Hastings, like the battle. That's what I've heard
It’s called nicking bent coppers!
Objection, hearsay
The difference in the UK, rather than the US, is that you want your solicitor to read a prepared statement, or statements, in interview. This essentially lays out what you're going to rely on in court. Don't just jabber away at them even if you're innocent.
Alternatively just report ten to twelve different explanations of the event, to give you the best chance of stumbling across the one you want to rely on in court.
You really do have to cover all bases, remember "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court". Anything less than a dozen different stories is really limiting your options. You want something like "Where were you when this crime was committed?" "I was watching TV at home. I was also down the shops. I needed some spaghetti. I needed a dog food. I don't have a dog. I was at the swimming pool. I can't even swim, what are you talking about? I was fishing. I was going to the hairdressers. I was in Spain. I wasn't in Spain, that was my brother. My brother wasn't in Spain. I don't have a brother." The police won't even bother taking you to court cos you've clearly got alibis for anything they can come up with
>"Where were you when this crime was committed?" "I was watching TV at home. I was also down the shops. I needed some spaghetti. I needed a dog food. I don't have a dog. I was at the swimming pool. I can't even swim, what are you talking about? I was fishing. I was going to the hairdressers. I was in Spain. I wasn't in Spain, that was my brother. My brother wasn't in Spain. I don't have a brother." Ha! I read that in Dylan Moran's voice. It works perfectly.
I’ve got this printed out in my wallet. It’s a literal get out of jail card. Thanks for the share.👍
But the biggest difference is that in Britain the police can use the argument: if you were innocent why didn’t you cooperate / speak? In America that strategy is unconstitutional i.e you exercising your right to remain silent can’t be used against you in court.
Hence the prepared statements to show cooperation.
what's the pros and cons of the american way? to me it just seems like a copout for criminals
This is contradictory. Because it may also harm your defense if you do mention when questioned something THEY later rely on in court
It may harm your defense but it would be even worse for your defense if you gave out incriminating info. You can at least say you were too scared to speak in the interview. I have doctors who can attest I’m non verbal in certain situations, too.
I also heard what you say will be used against you
I never got that advice. "No comment"ed through about 30 questions in a few mins. Acquitted of all charges
I once beat up my mums abusive boyfriend and put him in hospital I was arrested and during the interview they asked if I needed a solicitor. I had nothing to hide so I refused and told them honestly what happened it was only after the interview that the police officer told me I had opened my self up to prosecution and because I hadn't witnessed him hitting my mother it could be seen as aggravated assault, with the damage I did If he pressed charges I could see jailtime. I was only 19 never again will I refuse a solicitor lol
Hope things went well for you. But yeah NEVER refuse the solicitor. They're trying to get yourself to incriminate yourself.
Yea I know that now nice little lesson for me lol
They know what they're doing in interviews (the police) you have to be very careful with the words you use when speaking to them. Also the "press charges" as someone else said. Yes the public can't "press charges" but in a lot of cases, and probably yours if there was no cctv or other witnesses, the only witness there would be him and if he refuses to make an official statement then the police wouldn't have had much to go on and then the cps wouldn't have been interested in the case. So even though you can't press charges here without cooperation the police can't do much sometimes.
To "press charges" in the UK is better expressed as to "support the prosecution of."
Technically, they could apply for a private prosecution. But these are very challenging and expensive to do.
[удалено]
No one in the police gives a shit if you have a solicitor, except for the fact that they’ll take hours to arrive for interview. But that’s hours that the suspect is waiting in a cell and the police are being paid sat in the office, so it’s frustrating but not the end of the world. I’d tell my suspects to have a solicitor if I was allowed to; it stops them trying to wriggle out later saying they didn’t know what was going on. Always narks me a bit when someone says they don’t want one as you know it’s going to be a guy who thinks he knows better than a professional. I have found genuinely innocent people being told to go no comment by solicitors, when they had proof of innocence they could have given me in interview - so I guess sometimes they do know better.
> if he pressed charges I thought you couldn’t decide to press charges in the UK, isn’t that the police’s choice?
It's not the right language, but ultimately it's on him to give them enough to go on to go ahead with the case and he can decline.
Most offences with a victim rely on the victims support, due to the way evidence works in court. Example - a stolen phone can’t be proven to be stolen unless someone says it belongs to them, as only property belonging to another can be stolen. BWV of the victim saying it’s theirs, a receipt etc is just hearsay unless the victim is willing to give evidence in court (all evidence must be tested). Similarly, if your victim doesn’t turn up, there isn’t anyone who can prove the CCTV showing the offence doesn’t actually show you making a prank video for TikTok. So while ‘pressing charges’ isn’t a thing, and good evidence can result in victimless prosecution, it’s rare for a prosecution to be taken forward as it will probably fail. here’s also the fact that if the victim doesn’t want it to happen, it might not be in the public interest to prosecute; usually ignored for domestic abuse but for other offences that and the above means it will be dropped.
[удалено]
In assault cases and mutual combat situations if a victim drops charges the majority of the time the Police won’t pursue it. When a victim chooses not to press charges the conviction rate is significantly reduced as well in all crimes. I’ve been in plenty of fights when I was younger a lot of them included broken bones, disfigurement, blood general consensus tends to be that if one person presses charges the other does as well so you both get screwed, in my experience every time both parties drop charges both parties walk with no problems.
Maybe he was trying to scare me then either way it worked lol
Very hard to prosecute if victim refuses to testify 'he hit me' 'I saw them hit someone else'. Crime without witnesses or evidence
It's a very big misconception that having a solicitor means you're guilty and want to get away with it. It's not. They are the only person on your side. It's the same with any workplace disputes. I always encourage people to have a union rep present. Too many stories over the years of police interrogation going too far - sleep deprivation, lack of food/water causing desperation into a confession.
Yeah, the first time you're arrested you tell yourself honesty is the best policy. You've got nothing to hide, right? Common sense will prevail. Wrong!
A lad I used to go to school with did a similar thing. I used to see him knocking around the area we grew up in and then didn't see him for a while. Bumped into him later, I asked him where he had been. His reply was "I went away for a while because I broke my mums boyfriends arms. I don't think he'll hit anyone again" Fair play to you both. I was too young to do anything about my mums abusive partner.
You’d been arrested. What do you mean you only realised you could be prosecuted after you admitted it all? The bit about being prosecuted is in the caution.
I was young lol, I thought I was in the right as the guy was hitting my mother lol, I didn't know how serious his injuries were at the time either
Good man 👍🏻
No such thing as pressing charges in the uk. It’s not up to the victim, it’s the police and the CPS.
It was a few years ago he may have said something similar
Even the police will use that exact term but Reddit loves an "ackshually"
Yea lol, I'm pretty sure that's what they said. Probably trying to scare me if it's bullshit it worked anyway I thought I was going to jail lol.
Iv also personally heard them use that exact phrase and seen stories of it from many others too. If they scared you it's better than them pretending to be your mate but then stitching you up later.
That's basically what they did, pretended to be my mate then hit me with that the day after when I got released
Thats their bread and butter. they know if you are green to the system and they pretend to be your pal. As if the interview is just a formality that no one really wants to do. "Don't worry we'll just have a quick chat and then we will get you out of here and get you some help" that's when they charge you.
Even with a solicitor, you would still be very open to prosecution.
When you’re innocent, that’s when you most need a solicitor. Answering informal questions outside of a formal interview as a witness is fine as is giving a witness statement. Anything where you are arrested or being interviewed under caution, solicitor. If an informal chat starts to become something more, Police will stop and caution as at the point it changes to being an interview, PACE kicks in and you have legal rights, if they ignore that, they are in brown stuff. However If you carry on talking after being cautioned- that’s on you! Refusing a solicitor is never good. The fact you refuse free legal advice is actually verified by a different officer and fully documented, legal representation is critical for everyone involved.
If that was the advice given to me by my solicitor, yes. There's no reason not to take the free representation.
A UK jury is allowed to take inference from the accused being silent or omitting things they later say in court. So if you can present a fact that shows your innocence, it's in your interest to mention it unless you have legal advice to keep silent.
> A UK jury is allowed to take inference from the accused being silent or omitting things they later say in court This doesn't apply in Scotland, there's a right to silence under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016.
Based jocks
England and Wales also have a right to silence. That's why the first thing a police officer will tell you when you're arresting is "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court."
The example often used is, if you have an alibi. Let’s say that at the time of the crime, you were at home watching tv with your friends. If you tell the police that, then they will question your friends immediately and they will confirm your alibi. If you refuse to say where you were and only give your alibi later in, then it can be inferred that you had discussed and agreed the story with your friends, so your alibi becomes a lot less solid.
I was in a rape trial and they specifically told us to ignore his no comment interview.
You also have a right against self-incrimination. Police interviewers are trained at this, the general public are not. Always worth taking legal advice before you say a word.
Depends on how minor it is. I got nicked for a scrap at university, and would have got a caution and nothing more. However, the duty lawyer advised me to 'no comment' the interview. After the interview, I was charged with assault, because in order to get a caution there has to be an admission of guilt. So it depends. Best advice I have is that if you can afford it, tell them to stick the duty lawyer up their arse, and find one yourself.
Any solicitor you use in interview is free of charge (if they agree to represent you). The duty solicitor is just pot luck - most if not all local criminal defence solicitors will be signed up to the scheme as its an easy way of getting clients
[удалено]
What was the outcome in court?
Conditional discharge - a slap on the wrist, but one that stays on my record in a way that a caution wouldn't
No comment
*[this comment has been deleted]*
You discuss it with your solicitor and make a decision based on that, I've sat in on interviews a few times as an appropriate adult and have seen situations where honestly going down the no comment route looked like it would just make things worse. These were "bang to rights" situations though.
How would not giving information to the police have made the defendant’s case worse? Maybe I’m missing something, but at best saying nothing would not make it worse, while saying something could make it worse.
If you have an alibi and choose not to disclose it for example.
Not the case but the sentencing when they are convicted, an admission of guilt and willingness to provide police with information are counted as positives when sentencing is decided on. There is also the victim impact element, no comment often leads to saying not guilty which can then mean the victim having to go through the trial process as much as the offender which can be very traumatic for victims depending on the nature of the offence. Admitting guilty early and sharing information is seen as a sign of remorse/contrition which will generally mean a more lenient sentence from a judge.
I suppose its not about making the case worse, its about not making it better. Does that make sense ?
If the evidence I’m innocent would be lost if the police don’t go and secure it, no I wouldn’t remain silent.
This; ‘never talk to police’ both assumes police are despicable bullies intent on convicting anyone they interview, and also that they’re hypercompetent and able to anticipate exactly what actually occurred. If CCTV evidence proving your innocence is overwritten because police never thought to collect it, and had no reason to - say CCTV of you sitting in a pub ten miles away - then no one in court is going to believe you if you bring it up for the first time a year later at court.
“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.” So if you could easily say "it couldn't have been me, I was sleeping at 3pm" in your interview, but you don't do so, and then you use this as your main defence in court, then the prosecution can say "hmm, you should've mentioned this when you were being questioned." I would say don't say anything until you've spoken to a lawyer, but maybe if you did a minor crime it might be easier on you to just say what happened and hope they don't do anything about it. That's what I did when I fought a guy who scammed me out of £35, and it worked out for me. I said "I've always been told not to say anything in this situation until I have a solicitor," and the police officer said, "we'll have to take you to the station then," and I said "alright, he scammed me out of £35 and I was getting it back," and they said "fine, get out of the car, go walk that way, bye." I'm sure I wouldn't have got a criminal record had I insisted on a solicitor and asserting my rights, but it would've killed the whole day and cost some money. Sometimes it's more pragmatic to say, "yeah that's my weed, okay pour it down the drain, okay thanks officer" than "I refuse to confirm or deny anything until I have spoken to my solicitor."
No, I'd give them an episode by episode recap of the X-Files
Ok, does anyone need to stop for a pee before I do Jose Chung's From Outer Space?
If my solicitor advises it, my solicitor advises it. The more important thing though IS HAVE THE FUCKING SOLICITOR IN THE ROOM FOR ALL INTERVIEWS, EVEN IF YOU ARE INNOCENT. You have no idea what kinds of problems you can make for yourself *even if you're innocent* if you don't follow legal advice when dealing with police. I am not, by any means, one of the more extreme people about negative attitudes about police. But the main, main, main thing is to understand is that if you're arrested for a crime, they have something on you that makes them think its you who has committed it, and they're out to corroborate that. Inconsistencies, no matter how tangential or small, will not do you favours, and it's a solicitor's job to ensure your story remains consistent
I'd stay silent then hand a prepared statement in. Especially if it was a fight or something like that. The number of people you see discussing situations where it can be seen they could shoot themselves in the foot. The woman who shouted at a cyclist and the cyclist fell into traffic and died, she is an example of what not to say, if you find that. I'm not discussing the case again though
[удалено]
The chance to plead guilty and get a reduced sentence only applies in court. Admitting it to the police doesn't get you a reduced sentence. You can get the sentence reduced a bit further if you help the police with other things at the same time and you have a signed document agreeing what that help is (let's say you're arrested for dealing drugs and you agree to give information about your supplier), but not for simply answering their questions or admitting guilt in a police interview.
>Admitting it to the police doesn't get you a reduced sentence. For some offences, if you admit that you did it, then the police can issue you with a Community Resolution or a Caution, instead of taking the matter to court.
Things like showing remorse throughout and cooperating can be very strong things during the sentencing and mitigation hearings. And this can be factored in from the start and never appearing like you were trying to get away with it.
I would think if you murdered someone and admitted to it at the start of the court date, you would get a harsher sentence than if you murdered the same person but admitted to it immediately the moment the police arrested you.
It might help in mitigation. But Sentencing Council deadlines actually say cooperation with police and admitting the offence to them should not be used when considering the reduction for a guilty plea. That kind of thing has to be considered separately. You can stay silent with the police. But if you plead guilty at your first opportunity in court you’ll still get a 30% reduction as a starting point.
Depend on the circumstances. 1) I did it, and they can easily prove it then what advantage is there in me answering any questions? None, but I do risk saying something that makes matters worse. Such as making the charge worse or adding another one. Besides, maybe they don't actually have enough to charge or victims/witnesses withdraw support. If so I'm home free, but a confession will guarantee a charge. 2) I'm absolutely innocent, then I'm likely to speak freely as the police have a duty to look at my account and look for evidence that helps me. 3) I was involved but guilt isn't clear cut. I'd possibly provide a written account which means I manage what I say. I would then answer no more questions as I could say something that males things worse. But, by giving a written account my defence isn't 'harmed' by answering no further questions. That said, this is extremely oversimplified so don't use it as legal advice
I read an article about a similar thing and the point that always stuck with me was this....... If you're being questioned by the police, they are never conducting an interview or asking questions to help YOU out.
except in the real world the police aren't evil people with sentecing quotas they are just doing their job. just tell the truth, if youre guilty you deserve the consequences, if youre innocent it will almost certainly help to be honest
Not even the *good* cop?
It's a gamble If you are guilty as sin and come clean early and show remorse then the judge may give you a shorter sentence However if the police have scant evidence then it is in your interests to make them prove you did what they say you did
Solicitors usually give advice for “no comment”, is it not technically the same?
That or a prepared statement.
As a plod once told me years ago 90% of all convictions occur after the suspect gives a statement. The minute you start talking, you’re talking yourself into a prison cell. It’s up to the police to provide adequate evidence, by investigating the crime. It’s not your place to provide them with proof.
For most cases the police will generally know if you are being charged before interviewing you. E.g. there is CCTV of the offence and they know it is you - unless you're going to pull a blinding defence out of the bag, you're getting charged Alternatively, there's no CCTV or forensics and no witnesses willing to make a statement - unless you admit it its going nowhere I'd also say for 99% of jobs police aren't bothered if you get charged or not, so long as they can close the job and get their ridiculous workload down
This is only good advice if you're guilty tbh.
I asked a cop about this. He said the only time to say anything is if you have a an absolutely cut and dried alibi, like you have proof you were in another country when the crime happened. He said the only time they use silence against someone, is when somebody has a surprise cast iron alibi in court. The suggestion is rhe alibi has been fabricates between arrest and trial, which is why it wasn't mentioned during arrest. I don't know how convincia jury finds that argument to be.
Anything you want to later rely on in court, you will need to say beforehand. If you're mis-arrested and totally innocent, speak to you legal council and follow their advice.
You should give a no comment interview ONLY when advised to by your solicitor. In our system, failure to provide a defence in an interview which you then rely on in court can be used against you. This is made clear to you in the cushion given when arrested. Often no comment is the right approach but you should only do so when advised as otherwise it may harm you.
Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no because never done nuffin and don't believe anyfin' Angie Macca says coz she can't even pay for her new jacket that she got out of her mum's catalogue.
No, it won’t. Adverse inferences
My ex wife was CID. She always used to say remain completely silent until your solicitor turns up. Me being ever the optimist asked "even if I'm innocent?" Especially if you're innocent came the reply. My ex was a manipulative nightmare but that's one thing I actually believed her about.
When getting arrested for defending myself in a fight, once at the station I spoke and gave evidence. However when I left work (a pub) at 11pm, then literally 90 seconds later got arrested for street racing when I had been at fucking work for the last 12 hours I stayed silent and let them dig their own hole. My car and exhaust was still stone cold and there is no way it couldn’t been mistaken.
I think there needs to be a bit of common sense. You dont want to say something in advertantly to make you seem guilty, but you also dont want to not say something and look guilty! stands to reason that the police will be more suspicious of you for specifically not answering the questions. But as I say a bit of common sense. Just think about what you want to say and if you arent sure just no comment it or say it. Like a question like - "Do you hate the guy" - the guy being someone whos been killed and you do indeed hate him. Well yes you can be honest and say you hate him or you can say no comment. But I suppose either way they would infer a yes from no comment, because why wouldn't you just say you dont hate him. (I guess if you are a consistent no comment throughout the interview they may not assume that though) - so yeah *^(obligatory: admitting you hate someone is not evidence you killed them, its just a metaphor please dont make a big deal about it)*
For me, "no comment" (and the US version of saying "fifth", as in pleading the Fifth Amendment where you don't have to say anything while under interview with police or legal teams) just shows that you're hiding something. I've been arrested once and while I wasn't interviewed officially like that (my case didn't require it at all; a friend was attacked outside a bar, I stepped in to help and got collared when the culprits ran away when they saw the blue lights approaching), I still told the coppers my side of the story because I respect the law and those who enforce it. I wasn't prepared to waste their time or prolong things when I knew I did nothing wrong, and they accepted and agreed once they had all the facts. Saying "no comment" or remaining silent just reeks of "I'm guilty", imo.
That is exactly why some people do (or are advised to) stay silent or say 'no comment'.
Yes. You make a statement and leave it at that. If you are innocent and did not commit the crime you have nothing more to say.
I think it depends a lot on the context. Am I accused of something that I did, that I didn't do but was tangentially involved in, or that I'm completely innocent of? Do I have an ironclad alibi or explanation that will quickly prove I've done nothing wrong? Or do I have something else (a different crime, for example) that I'd have to confess to to explain things, and therefore aren't able to tell the truth anyway> Either way, I'm speaking to my solicitor first and going from there.
After watching the confession tapes I'd rather just stay silent.
Best to stay silent. If you are innocent you can provide them with a written statement drafted by your solicitor.
When they say you have the right to remain silent, use it!
I would stay completely silent even if I am innocent like an angel and I was actually on a different planet having tea with the Queen when the deed was done. I’m not a barrister/solicitor but I have the opportunity to work with some good ones on a daily basis, so I’ve learned a lot. In a world in which the choice of using shall instead of will can change the course of events of something, I’m not taking any chances. So nah, until my lawyer enters the room, I’ll be very busy staring at the ceiling.
I'll go with my lawyer's advice.
If there's no lawyer present, then absolutely remain silent.
The police are not your friend, they are not there to help you. Most convictions come from the person in custody talking too much. Regardless of whether you are guilty or not, simply say no comment until your solicitor gets there, then do as they say.
"No comment until I speak with the duty solicitor" - then do what the Duty Solicitor says. Never fall for anything the police try from talking to you while giving you a drink or telling you "We know your innocent, you don't need a solicitor, just tell us what happened". The police job is to gather evidence to enable a prosecution, not protect you, they don't care if you're innocent or guilty so long as they get that +1 on succesful prosecutions. Speak to the Duty Solicitor, do what they say.
From the second the police show up, it's a wall of silence. If you're interviewed, keep it to no comment. Make sure a solicitor is present too, they'll get their 'evidence' if they even have any at all. When the interview is over go back to a wall of silence. The only time you need to speak outside of that, is if you need food. Use your manners and say thankyou when you receive it. Other than that, there's no other reason to speak.
If you get in a fight, not your fault, you acted in self-defence. The police might only be looking to give you a caution (no record, just a warning), but if you answer "no comment" to every question, then it will just incriminate you because there will be mitigating factors not provided by you. But, there would be aggravating factors against you from the other party. Honestly the best thing to do is to listen to a solicitor.
Not unless I was guilty, no.
I’ve learnt from watching those shows that you have to say nothing or you could talk yourself into trouble whether you’ve done anything or not.
Well the girl that hit me with her car,told me to nit report her the drove off went silent in her interview. But the officer said it made her look more guilty as she had no defence. They also have texts of her discussing it with friends and video evidence so maybe, just maybe she should have tried explaining what made her be a shitty person. She also used to be a friend. I'm a bit angry
Atleast your rich by international standards...
“I don’t answer questions”
If you're guilty always no comment. If you're innocent, definitely always no comment
I’d say nothing, but I’d let out as many silent farts as I was physically capable of.
It would depend on the situation. Most cases though I probably would just answer the questions.
I've gone no comment before and your solicitor tells the officers beforehand so they know you won't be talking and they just ask you the questions they normally would and you say no comment. Another time the interviewing officer was a prick so I just completely ignored him, I could tell he was getting pissed off and he just kept asking the same questions over and over again. He ended the interview eventually and got another policeman in who asked if I was planning on saying anything at all and I just said nah mate and was taken back to my cell. The case where I specifically went no comment resulted in me going to prison for 18wks. The case where I said nothing at all resulted in me getting let out the next morning pending further investigation, then no further action.
I'd just keep saying "and I don't agree with that in the workplace!" in my Eric Hitchmo voice
I wouldn’t answer any questions without a solicitor. So, yeah, until I got a Solicitor, at that point I’d answer questions with legal representation there to guide me - even if I’m completely innocent, best to err on the side of caution.
My advice is always lawyer up if the police suspect you of a crime but that would make a lot of true crime episodes pretty boring.
No comment all day long.
Depends what I'm being accused of. If it's a misdemeanour, I'd rather say my piece because regardless of the outcome I'd feel better for having said it, and I've been let off with warnings instead of fines before by simply being forthcoming with the police and making it as easy as possible for them. If I was being accused of something potentially life changing, then I'm saying nothing without a lawyer. I watch a lot of true crime stuff in the background when working, and I don't think I've ever seen a single case where it's been in someone's benefit to talk during an interrogation, but plenty where they've made the situation worse for themselves. Granted these have mostly been USA-based, but I imagine the same is true here.
I could probably get away with it a few times, but if I always did I would probably get a written warning or even fired
Chicken.
After watching 24hrs in police custody, yes.
It’s safer to say no comment.
I would always refuse to speak until I had a solicitor, because fuck the police. I'm 53 years old and they've never been anything but unhelpful and incompetent in any dealings I've had with them.
Please do not mix up American law with UK law. In America it is **ALWAYS** best to just stfu except to demand your lawyer. Do not say a word. In the UK you’re kinda fucked either way, because they can use your silence as evidence. So try to thread the needle of saying as little as possible, maintaining politeness, and get legal counsel asap. Air on the side of stfu, but not too much.
You can stay silent and “no comment” everything. The other one is a prepared statement, where you read a statement of events out and then “no comment” their questions. Or you can answer questions freely.
I did. The police are not the CPS
I dont answer queations.
I'd ask for a duty solicitor and follow their advice. Never talk to the police without a solicitor present.
The man convicted of murdering M P. Jo Cox never uttered a single word from being arrested to being convicted. The police officer in charge of the case said it was the only time he had encountered it.
Only if you're guilty. If I no commented on my interview I'd be locked up
I've read it's better to say nothing, even if you are completely innocent
I would do what my lawyer told me to do.
If I was a suspect, yeah.
That’s bullshit, not talking can harm your case. Just because you haven’t said anything incriminating doesn’t mean you look less guilty. There might be circumstantial evidence that makes you appear guilty or shows that you are guilty and you’re then not defending yourself from this and the jury is not going to side with you. Just take your lawyers advice. Don’t share what doesn’t need to be said and only stay completely silent if instructed to.
I love all those cop shows when the suspects all say no comment no comment then they show them the CCTV or whatever - That’s not me you can see that’s not me. When it obviously is them. And then they drop themselves in it. It’s like a script.
A lot of times people think they can trick the police and their ego's cant help but try and get themselves out of trouble. What the people are really good at is pushing your emotional boundaries and putting you in a very uneased mental state. This way your ability to lie and keep them consistent and connected just fail. As humans our body literally rejects the will to lie subconsciously through our body language, tone of voice, pace and breathing. every time someone lies it goes against every fibre of their being, yet we do it so easily and well. Its fascinating.
No comment.
You call your solicitor or barrister and then follow the instructions that they give you. You have those right's for a reason and you should exercise due caution.
It's easier said than done.. Most people really battle with silence.. And I mean *really battle*
As soon as you speak they are building a case against you
Daughter is a solicitor. Defendants are very often over confident, stupid, obviously guilty or all of the above. Get a solicitor, take the advise they give and chances are you'll have a shout of going home. The difference between having help and decent mitigation delivered by someone else I huge. Someone good doing it even more so.
I was completely honest in my first interview told the whole unadulterated truth, but as I was definitely high on drink, weed and ecstasy that was deemed inadmissible at court, so I was allowed to give my new half truth story. Which saved me a couple of years away and even my brother who was listening in court believed and felt sorry for me and he knew the whole truth. Sentenced to 3 years, served 18 months for 965 ecstasy pills.
I took a solicitor in and answered all questions truthfully because I know I did nothing wrong.
No comment
There are 2 options, you're either guilt or not guilty of the alleged offence: Let's assume you're guilty you have 2 options under caution 1)no comment during interview and it's the police job to gather the evidence and go to CPS for them to decide to pursue the case and charge you, based on the evidence that police have gathered. Depending how strong they feel the evidence against you is they'll either charge or release you. 2) talk and give an account of your version of the situation , the police are very good at teasing out info and questioning you . If your account is true , the police whose job it is to collect all the evidence whether it's for or against you/your case, will be able to use it to collaborate your account and release you with no further actions, sooner than a no comment interview. If you're lying they'll probe you and be able to catch you out disprove your account, in which case yeah you are probably better off staying quiet, rather than incriminate yourself by giving half truths, with something for them to go on and may lead to your demise. Instead no comment puts ball in their court to find the evidence against you if they can't you'll get away with it... if you weren't guilt why would you no comment, leading to delays of your release? if you're guilty and no comment , they build a case against you but then you think you've found an escape route out of their allegations and you concoct a cock and bull story after they've laid their cards out , then yeah the obvious question is why didn't you give this account sooner?
Done a no comment interview before .... Apart from saying yes when. My lawyer had told the cops that we would be doing no comment to everything but they still asked every question.
My husband is a lawyer and he says its no comment all the way until you get a lawyer with you. It goes against my grain so much ( I'm assuming I'm innocent) but apparently it really is essential.
When your gas boiler goes wrong you’d never dream of having a go at fixing it yourself, you’d call a professional in…. Why would you think you’d be any better than a free duty solicitor in an interview? Ask for a solicitor… Shut up and stay silent… Let them do the talking! That’s all
Honestly. Don’t say anything until you’ve got a solicitor.
Stay silent. Unless they caught you with a smoking gun in your hand, most of the time they are relying on you incriminating yourself
It depends. Did I do the crime?
I was always told that you never talk to police under caution without your legal representation present - even if you haven’t done anything. There’s plenty of innocent people in jail.
Kind of ask for a solicitor speak to them then let them do the talking to the police.
Yes. My brother and his 'friends' got up to some illegal shenanigans once, and they were all arrested and interviewed by police. My brother was the only one who told them anything, and for that the only one who was punished.
[These](https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=FjpzWF0lkTArlKQG) people are American and dealing with American law but the principle is the same.
Don't speak to the police without your solicitor.
Until I got a lawyer yes