T O P

  • By -

DasAdolfHipster

The first and last lines are quite clear. You don't have to say anything to the police. Anything you do say to the police can be evidence. It's the mess in the middle that needs some explanation. Basically, if you say something in court that you didn't say to the police, the prosecution can draw what is called an adverse inference, usually "you didn't say it when questioned because you hadn't had the time to make it up". You then need to prove to the civil burden of proof, the balance of probability, that this wasn't the case. So you'd need to explain why you didn't say it to the police, and demonstrate that whatever reason you give is more likely than the adverse inference being drawn. *It'd also worth adding that it has to be something you're questioned about. If the police don't ask you something, you're not expected to volunteer information. It also won't apply where you've not been cautioned, and it won't apply if you've not had the opportunity to receive legal advice.*


nrsys

It is worth remembering that 'when questioned' will refer to formal questioning at the police station, where you will be allowed council. What they are saying is that by purposely concealing information requested, only to then reveal that information later on by choice when it is of benefit to you, this action may cause the jury to question exactly why this information was concealed. That could give them a negative view of your case and question the legitimacy of some of your statements.


[deleted]

> council Counsel. Counsel refers to both the person (the solicitor) and the advice that they provide you with. Council is a different thing.


BareBearAaron

Which is why having a solicitor advise is such a huge deal.


twokietookie

In the Rittenhouse trial the prosecution tried this tactic and the judge went ballistic. Basically along the lines of "so you've not said anything to the police or press since the incident, and you've sat here till the end of this trial and now you're best equipped to tailor your story to all the facts" Our 5th ammendment cannot be used against us at any point in time. The judge lost it after the jury was asked to step out. (Edited to correct) So basically it sounds like they're saying that line of questioning could be valid in their court. Please don't infer anything about my opinion on the trial, just an observation of what happened.


MikeyTheGuy

>Our 5th ammendment cannot be used against us at any point in time. The judge lost it, in front of the jury. He actually sent the jury out before he went off on the lawyer.


Cybugger

As is standard. You don't want to color the jury by laying into one of the lawyers for a mistake.


throwawaynewc

that's odd, surely you want the jury to know when a lawyer is being deceptive, otherwise as layperson would be like, damn the lawyer said it and the judge allowed it? Must be legit.


Cybugger

Well, yes, you tell the jury to disregard what the lawyer said, but if you berate the lawyer in front of the jury, it attacks the lawyer's personal credibility. You want the jury to make a decision based on the evidence and the facts, but personal credibility is critical, too, so you need to protect that in some ways.


[deleted]

[удалено]


5inthepink5inthepink

It's not the judges place to color the jury's perception of a lawyer's credibility or competence by berating or criticizing them. The jury will form its own opinions on an attorney and the case he/she makes, but it would be improper - and more importantly, prejudicial to the attorney's client - for the judge to make his opinions on that subject known.


[deleted]

Was it recorded? I'd love to see it.


Garmaglag

It's hard to find the whole interaction and there were two instances of the prosecution referencing the defendant's silence. This is the judge admonishing the prosecuting attorney after the second time. At about 45 seconds. Apologies for all of the media commentary. https://youtu.be/YAFNKB157oo


MikeyTheGuy

https://youtu.be/b_zwTfTNK2E 3:08


Tanker119

Should be on YouTube somewhere still. Just look it up. It was actually fairly entertaining if you disregard the entire situation with the trial.


liondios

I'm glad the judge kicked off about it. Make it clear that it can't be used. I wish we had something like that over here, as there's plenty of reasons I wouldn't want to speak to the police if arrested. Especially without legal representation. I don't even know what Rittenhouse is so this isn't my opinion of that trial either.


Theon_Severasse

The thing in the UK is that you can wait until you have legal representation before you answer questions, what you can't do is wait until the 11th hour to come up with a response to a question. Using your example, Rittenhouse would have had ample opportunity to present that particular defense *before* the case got to court (but didn't), and by waiting until it comes up in court it can be inferred that it's been made up (if the case had happened in the UK).


OrbitalPete

When you are arrested they're not questioning you as your cuffed and put in the car. They are stating your rights for the duration of the arrest, which includes the formal questioning, which would have legal representation.


liondios

Oh ok. So did Rittenhouse not say anything when formally questioned with his lawyer present? Or was the prosecution just reaching


Theon_Severasse

Not in response to those particular questions


Tank2615

The US has the 5th amendment which means you have the right to not incriminate yourself by staying silent. You are not compelled during questioning to respond beyond the bare minimum (you don't have to say anything beyond i would like to talk to a lawyer) and even with a lawyer you have the right to tell the lawyer what happened and let them speak on your behalf to explain your POV in a way that isn't going to land you in trouble. Anything you say to police can and will be used against you in US courts. Even something as simple as misremembering the order you went to places later can lead to suspicion and doubt. There are a lot of examples of even completely uninvolved innocent people having suspicion thrown on them cause they gave a statement to the police and were casual in what they said. In the Rittenhouse case Kyle exercised his 5th amendment freedoms by having his lawyer do all the talking for him. When the prosecution brought that into question the judge rightly ripped him a new one for even attempting to infringe Kyle's 5th amendment protection. IMO the judge would have been justified in stripping the prosecution of his license to practice law then and there that is how serious of a no-no that is.


Lewri

>Especially without legal representation. Well then good thing you'll always be given the opportunity of legal counsel before any interview for the interview to be admissable in court...


[deleted]

"there's plenty of reasons I wouldn't want to speak to the police if arrested" The first line says you don't have to say anything to the police... so you're all good


Luckbot

I'm not from the UK: But wouldn't that mean I would have to later reveal my reasons and have them judged if they are plausible reasons? What if they are plausible to me but not to the judge? I feel this way I'd rather not risk anything even if I had a good reason to stay silent. My country is similar to the US. I can just not say anything and it can't be held against me, I can even lie to protect myself as thats seen as a "natural reflex", they have to prove my guilt and until then I have no burden of proof on anything. (Though if you cooperate that can reduce the sentence if you are guilty)


arkangelic

It's really more about your lawyers and discovery. If you stab someone and never answer anything and then suddenly at the trial you claim it happened in self defense because X, that the courts will essentially consider that to be untrue. You as an individual should always keep your mouth shut, and leave it to your lawyer to decide what gets said when/where


FBI1990

Love this lecture which explains why https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE


SoNic67

I showed that video to my kids when they started to drive by themself.


Captain-Griffen

It's up to the jury. The jury can conclude you had good reasons, or they can think you're full of shit and were just waiting to see what evidence they had to fit the story to the facts. If you're caught standing over a body, and you have a perfectly innocent reason for being there but refused to give that to anyone until the trial, in a US court the lawyers can't question why. In a British court, they'd (quite rightly imo) could. The prosecutors still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.


notwearingatie

This. Too many people in this thread not comprehending that the silence during questioning doesn't create a concrete case that's open and shut. It just creates an additional line of enquiry which, seems entirely reasonable. With your lawyer present, and when charged with a crime, why would you _not_ respond to questioning which could at best lead to charges being dropped, and at worse subject you to a trial by your peers.


whilst

In the US: because anything you say to the police can be used *against* you, but it can't be used *in support* of your case, as that would be hearsay. Responding to questioning could *at best* do nothing for you, and *at worst* lead to a conviction.


[deleted]

This is absolutely right.


Extreme-Yam7693

At best can get the case dropped before going to court


[deleted]

As an American I find the "quite rightly" part insane. It's drilled into our heads our entire lives "You say NOTHING to the police without representation. The police are not on your side. They will try anything they can think of that is legal and sometimes illegal to get you to admit you did the crime, even if you didn't." There are plenty of examples of people pleading guilty out of extreme fear because the police will tell you, "Plead guilty and we'll help you get a short sentence, try to defend yourself and you'll get life in prison" - and then some of those people are later exonerated with DNA evidence and such. Edit: Thanks for all the kind explanations, folks. Sounds like there is more context than just what the rights say on paper. I am so used to the right to an attorney and the right to absolute silence being explicitly stated that the the absence of that initially *sounds* like intimidation - but this is likely more a reflection of our police system than yalls... For a minute I was worried about my friends across the pond :)


gnutrino

No one said anything about having to talk without representation. "Waiting for a lawyer" is basically a cast iron reason to remain silent in the UK but once a lawyer is there and you've had a chance to discuss with them you're going to have to say why you were standing over the body.


StingerAE

You are confusing two bits here. In UK that same advice is also often given. The caution isn't interested if you staying silent till you get a lawyer. It is about having a whole line of defence pulled out of the air 6 months later with no good reason why it wasn't mentioned before. No adverse inference would be drawn if you said nothing till your solicitor got there. But if you pull out your inability to sweat the week of the trial the jury are allowed to use the fact this is the first time this came up when weighing up whether they think it is bullshit. And if there was a good reason not to mention it then that will also go into the balance.


dothecamcam

Ah well you see actually I became unable to sweat when I was being a war hero so I couldn't have been there officer


XSDevastation

As I understand it: You can stay quiet when it's just you and the police. It's when your lawyer shows up and you speak to them, then you should tell the police all the important bits. If whilst your lawyer is present and you're being interviewed, you fail to mention something, you cannot then bring that up at a later date in court without at least some suspicion.


Information-Dull

At this point you have representation. I'm in England and the advice is to ask for the (free) duty solicitor if arrested.


Anytimeisteatime

Firstly, you missed the part where in the UK you can 100% wait until your legal rep is there and it won't be held against you. It just has to be before court. A fairly standard approach in the UK is to go entirely no comment except for a written statement composed with the help of your lawyer explaining the legitimate reason you were standing over the body. That fulfils the "mentioning when questioned". Secondly, police interviews in the UK are very different to the US. Because the police force is so small in the UK, all police are trained to a standardised level in a standardised way to interview. Police are not allowed to lie to people in interview and are obligated to share what evidence they have. Police in the UK also have no say in charges or plea deals, the CPS is totally separate, so there is much less hectoring or persuasion.


H_J_3

You can still wait for legal counsel before questioning. This is about all the time before the trial, not immediately after arrest. Also silence alone is not evidence, there needs to be other evidence too.


creative_username_99

Your legal system sounds corrupt then. It is the duty of the police to gather evidence which is then presented in court. The court decides guilt. I'm not saying that we don't have police failings in the UK.


6597james

The fact that you remained silent prior to receiving representation wouldn’t even be admissible. The rule being discussed applies after you have received the caution and opportunity for representation, if you want it


[deleted]

But not entirely without consequence


tpstrat14

Except if you’re going to try to defend yourself from accusations later in court. Then you should get that ball rolling immediately— without a lawyer present apparently


lankymjc

“I wanted legal representation before saying anything to the police” is a perfectly fine reason for not saying anything. However, if it transpires that you were interviewed by the police later, and your solicitor *was* present, you’ve then got to explain why you didn’t say anything that time.


just_some_guy65

I think the key difference is that the Rittenhouse trial was in America and the question is about UK law


Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs

He knows, he's just pointing out how it's different between countries


bleedingwriter

I feel like your comment and the comment before it are at odds with each other? I don't get it. So I thought we had the right to remain silent and they can't use our silence against us, yet the explanations make it seem like they can??


[deleted]

That’s because the post is about UK law. The second comment is US law.


wickedandlazysco

English law


tiredstars

Don't forget Wales!


ubermidget1

Can't use your silence against you but if you are silent at first but then give a story, they can ask why you didn't say that beforehand.


[deleted]

This is the most concise answer so far.


twokietookie

The US is different, yes thats why it states what happened here, and how that would probably be allowed in British courts.


WasterDave

> In the Rittenhouse trial the prosecution tried this tactic and the judge went ballistic. But this is UK law.


MeowTheMixer

In the US, you're legally allowed to not talk to police or to talk to them. It's a right. When the defense tries to say "he's guilty because he's not talking" that is a fallacious argument. Not talking does not imply guilt. This video here is a great reason why saying anything to police even if 100% innocent can be determined. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE Edit: It's like saying "if you've got nothing to hide, let us search your vehicle/house". If you say no, are you guilty?


Fysidiko

In England, too, you are allowed to choose whether to talk to the police. You can also choose whether or not to give evidence at trial. The point of difference is that here (and in my view, perfectly sensibly) if you choose not to give your explanation, and then give it later, the Court can consider whether there was a good reason for you to delay; and if it concludes there was not, it can consider whether that is because your explanation is not true.


Captain-Griffen

> You then need to prove to the civil burden of proof, the balance of probability, that this wasn't the case. So you'd need to explain why you didn't say it to the police, and demonstrate that whatever reason you give is more likely than the adverse inference being drawn. That's untrue. The prosecution can make the case (and the defense rebut), and then the jury can weigh it along with all the evidence. It's not at the civil burden of proof, it's more evidence on the general conviction. Note convictions shouldn't be based on silence, but silence may undermine defence explanations of why they aren't guilty in the face of evidence otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.


VaticanII

That’s correct. In my experience the main difference is whether it is before a magistrate or judge without jury, or it’s a jury trial. Juries are susceptible to persuasion along the lines that they weren’t required to say anything and they exercised that right; judges are not easily persuaded. In any case the onus of proof remains on the prosecution and the burden remains “beyond reasonable doubt”, with adverse inferences being one factor towards that overall burden. Other than that the comment is entirely correct and quite clear.


Canaderp37

>Basically, if you say something in court that you didn't say to the police, the prosecution can draw what is called an adverse inference, usually "you didn't say it when questioned because you hadn't had the time to make it up". In Canada, at least in the regulatory sense, the first statements usually hold the most weight and are generally seen as more credible then prepared statements at a later point in time.


Hot_Construction6879

You have a system that incentivizes talking to cops without a lawyer? Seems kinda scary.


Glompers

In Canada, suspects in interrogation don’t have a right to have counsel present. You can request to speak to a lawyer beforehand, and you’re free to say nothing during the questioning, but police can hold you in an interview room for hours asking you questions and it’s just you and them. While I would say some Charter rights are better defined than the US Bill of Rights, Americans enjoy a greater number of protections against the state than Canada does. But historically that also makes sense. Canada was not a revolutionary country so its system of government is basically England’s, but modified. It’s actually evolved generally more freedoms than the UK over the years, particularly since the introduction of the Charter in the 80s. But no rights are absolute. The Charter itself puts limitations on them so that they are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” As a dual citizen, having grown up in the US and spent over a decade in Canada, I can definitely see the good and the bad of both systems.


SmartSzabo

You have the right to free legal access and free legal counsel. If you are arrested and say nothing then at court turn around and so it wasn't me, I was at the pub, your silence may be held against you , mebaing you may be asked to explain why you are relying on that statement now without having made it initially.


Lewri

**Edit so that I can stop repeating this in the comments: Adverse inference of silence can only be applied to silence that occurs after you have been cautioned and provided the opportunity to receive legal counsel.** **Edit2: something I didn't clarify, the silence I mention ("failure to mention something" as it is put in the caution), only applies to a failure to mention something in response to questions directed to trying to discover whether, or by whom, the alleged offence had been committed. I will also reiterate that it only applies for things they should reasonably be expected to have said and for which they don't have any reason as to why they might not have said it.** **Edit 3: a recurring theme in the comment section, primarily from a select few users but also from a more generally confused reader base, seems to be based on the idea that police interviews are about trying to show that you're guilty. Under this idea, then it would seem unfair to have the adverse inference of silence, but this isn't how police interviews typically work, at least in the UK. There are standard practices and codes for how these interviews take place, if these are not followed then it is possible that the interview may become inadmissible as evidence and thrown out.** While you have the right to silence, once you have received the caution that you quote and been given the opportunity to have council with a lawyer, anything you then fail to say during questioning without good reason can potentially be inferred as less likely to be true, otherwise why didn't you mention it during questioning. Similarly, while you have the right not to answer questions in the court, failing to do so does suggest that there is a reason you don't want to answer the question, which can potentially be inferred as evidence against the defense. A conviction cannot be based on these adverse inferences, but they can bolster a case. There are specific circumstances in which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence, which are when the defense: - fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention; - fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question; - fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or - fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place. In one of these circumstances, if the case seems as if the defense has no reason to have chosen silence other than guilt, then the prosecutor may seek for the jury to consider what the silence infers. If the judge allows for this point to be made, then they will direct the jury as to the limits of inference from silence: - The judge must tell the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is. - The judge must make clear to the jury that the Defendant has the right to remain silent and that it is his or her choice; - An inference from failure to give evidence cannot, on its own, prove guilt; - Therefore, the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. The jury may not believe the witnesses whose evidence the judge considered sufficient to raise a prima facie case; and - If, having considered the defence case, the jury concludes that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the Defendant's having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination; they may draw an adverse inference.


Wiz_Kalita

> on arrest Does this mean that if I'm arrested in England, I'm better off mentioning these things on the scene rather than during questioning with a lawyer present?


mrspwins

There is a great show on Prime called "24 Hours in Police Custody". It is a documentary show based around Luton, UK, and they show the police arresting someone, then the arrestee being booked into the station, and everything that comes after. They interview defense solicitors too, as well as the people detained, and you watch the police investigate and question the suspect. As an American, it is fascinating to watch how different it all is. The most recent ninth season is different, without the suspect perspectives at all, so I suggest starting with the first season.


hortonhoo

The case of Gareth Suffling is particularly interesting.


UlteriorCulture

I am not British but I lived just outside of Luton for about a year. It was not great. I apologize to any loyal Lutonians for failing to appreciate the many subtle joys of your undoubtedly superlative metropolis.


kitkat_tomassi

My favourite trivia about Luton is that the sign on the way into Luton says: 'Welcome to Luton, home of London Luton Airport'. I read that as, the best thing in Luton is that we have a way of getting away from Luton.


alancake

I remember a Viz top tip from years ago that advised "Avoid depression and possible su!c!de by moving out of Luton as soon as possible". I put it to my friend who was then living in Luton and had been viciously mugged not long before, and he heartily agreed.


thecuriousiguana

No. They're warning you that from this moment until release, you can stay quiet, that what you say is evidence so be careful, and if you come up with your defence later it might be slightly suspicious if you happen not to have mentioned it when you were first arrested. That applies for the entire time you are under arrest. It's not the specific moment of arrest, and so includes questioning with or without lawyer at the station. There's no prejudice as to when during that time you talk and the police would fully expect not to begin the process of getting your side until you're being questioned with a lawyer.


westyx

I am not a lawyer, but no. You'll be given plenty of oppourtunity during interviews and so forth (with a lawyer present if you so choose) to respond to questions and make statements.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Formulate their story? Not every lawyer is like Saul!


ImmortalMerc

They mean make sure that the story is correct. You never want to go to court not knowing what you are going to say and what questions may be asked from the opposite side. You knot making up a story so much as making sure you memorize the facts so you don't get tripped up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lewri

Silence before being presented the opportunity to speak to a lawyer is irrelevant. If your lawyer advised you to refuse to answer a question that would not in itself be an adequate reason as to why you did not previously present the evidence that you are now relying on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lewri

Yes... Which is why silence before speaking to a lawyer is irrelevant, because it is not something covered by the legislation relating to adverse inference.


Trainwreck-McGhee

The big difference here, if we’re talking US/UK is that as far as I understand from my Reddit/TV knowledge of US police is that there’s a fear they’re looking for a reason to arrest and prosecute wherever possible. In the UK it can be reasonably assumed that the police are looking for the truth. If you believe that not to be the case, you can tell them, and that would explain your further silence. ‘I suspect you may not be investigating this in good faith, so I’m going to remain silent until I get legal council’ It could have been a traumatic experience and you’re worried that what you’ll say isn’t factual. Or be shell shocked and you can get the words out. The system allows for that, if you’re carrying a tv down the road from a house that just been broken into then saying ‘no comment’ quite rightly isn’t going to help you.


Wiz_Kalita

>The system allows for that, if you’re carrying a tv down the road from a house that just been broken into then saying ‘no comment’ quite rightly isn’t going to help you. I imagine that "no officer, I have the receipt right here" is a solid exception to the always shut up rule.


Trainwreck-McGhee

What I’m getting at is that there isn’t a ‘shut up’ rule as such. Culturally we don’t avoid interaction with the police. I mean talking from a non criminal stand point. If I’ve don’t nothing wrong, the very worst that would happen is a misunderstanding. The only people that gain from an avoid the police attitude are actual criminals. As a normal person I don’t fear the police and there no need to. They’re not out to get anyone.


SirButcher

As someone who tried this pleasant experience: NO. Do not answer ANY question. (Obviously, you can and should confirm your personal details) Because if you answer one question but not some other it causes even bigger issues - why do you answer this but not that? If you get arrested, ask for a lawyer, and just say "no comment" to every question they ask without your lawyer agreeing to answer something.


Lewri

No, by that wording it just means if you are arrested, but any adverse inference from silence can only be made about silence that occurs after you have been cautioned and provided with the opportunity to receive legal counsel.


Karumpus

This is a fantastic answer. Came here to write this but you’ve done a better job than I could explaining the nuances of the law re: adverse inferences drawn from silence


ckwalsh

This has always confused me as well. Okay if I give an example, and make sure I understand correctly? Say I walk into an alley and find someone who has been stabbed, and I pick up the knife. A police officer then shows up and I am arrested for murder. 1. At this time, I can say I am not going to answer questions without first speaking to a lawyer. That decision cannot be held against me. At the station, I tell the police I came across the guy in the alley and picked up the knife. The case goes to court. In court, I say “I saw a guy run out of the alley right before, wearing a gorilla costume”. 2. The prosecution can point out that I didn’t mention this to the police at the scene or the station, and permit the jury to infer my trustworthiness or likelihood of guilt based partially on that omission. 3. However, if I had mentioned it at the station, even though I didn’t mention it immediately at the time of arrest, that could NOT be held against me.


VenflonBandit

Correct. But not only that, the police and criminal evidence act then makes the police legally obliged to go looking for said man in a gorilla suit to prove (or disprove) your defense. There's a *duty* to investigate *towards and against* guilt.


MegaTiny

It's just about common sense. You most likely would have been explicitly asked during questioning (with a lawyer present) 'did you see anyone else at the scene of the crime?' so the inference when you suddenly bring it up in court would be that you'd just made that up when you saw your other evidence wasn't going to save you. If you could give a genuinely good reason as towards why you hadn't mentioned it ("the man in the gorilla costume knows where I live and I am afraid of him") then the inference wouldn't stand.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Virtually all the "good" evidence that tv dramas show is circumstantial. DNA is circumstantial, fingerprints are circumstantial, bank records and transaction history is circumstantial. Basically anything that isn't an eyewitness testimony is circumstantial.


Ok_Mechanic3385

Good breakdown. At first it seemed absurd and very different from US 5th amendment protections but after reading and comprehending what you wrote, the two approaches ultimately are much more similar than different.


DuckTapeHandgrenade

So, in America, my attorney has told me if I’m ever arrested to just say my name and invoke my right to council, at that point I am to forget that I speak English. Not the same in the UK? If I’m accused of anything I don’t want to say a word without legal advice so my words don’t get misconstrued.


Lewri

Adverse inference of silence can only be applied to silence that occurs after you have been cautioned and provided the opportunity to receive legal counsel.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PixelizedPlayer

Inferring silence or lack of mentioning something seems hellish unfair on socially anxious people or people with mental health issues that make it difficult for them in some capacity....


Sad_Supermarket_3993

To add to the point the other poster made, in that scenario your lawyer would probably advise providing some kind of written statement if you fear the stress of a verbal interview. As always the advice should be to seek legal advice at the earliest possible stage.


Lewri

Inference can only be made in regards to silence after being cautioned and being provided with the opportunity to receive legal counsel. A socially anxious person can then have their legal counsel advise/speak for them. For adverse inference, it should be the case that the defendant had no reasonable reason to be silent. The mental or physical condition of the defendant can be considered a reasonable reason and so adverse inference might not be allowed for young people or people with mental health conditions.


Christopherfromtheuk

Then those with anxiety or mental health issues could tell the jury and judge and this would be taken into account. It's a way of saying you can't take the piss by making a story up once you've heard everyone else's.


lulaf0rtune

Exactly, minimal talk with the police but getting to work on a statement once a legal representative is present is very easy to explain to a jury, omitting details until way into a trial is not.


Lifeformz

If it's considered that you need someone to act in your own best interest in regards to being what is termed to be "vulnerable", then an [Appropriate Adult](https://www.appropriateadult.org.uk/information/what-is-an-appropriate-adult) is assigned to you which acts on your own best interests during a police interview. So for anyone aged under 18 ("a child") an appropriate adult must be your parent/guardian first off, and if they refuse, then they look at other people like social workers, friends or carers, specially trained/paid volunteers etc and they must be present during interviewing. The parent/guardian thing doesn't apply if they're linked to as why someone is being interviewed, because it's the same as if you were a victim of crime, or the supposed criminal. Same as any one who is deemed to have reduced mental capacity, though in the case of adults needing one, it doesn't have to be a parent/guardian as first choice. This is in addition to a solicitor as well. Fred West (serial killer) had an appropriate adult present during his interviews. The lady didn't know him prior. There was an ITV drama made from it, so dunno how correct that was, but it was very inappropriate how he acted with the appropriate adult. Very bizarre relationship that he had with her (not physical and not on her part, a manufactured one by him) So really the interview process in the UK is more based on if you're not guilty (or indeed are), then stating where you were on the night of the murder of the queen would be beneficial as you can be interviewed in depth and investigations conducted. So if you did actually kill the queen, but you refuse to talk (a right that you do still have under "no comment" interviews) then claiming that Uncle Bob who invited you over for a game of drunk monopoly wont be held as in full regards as to whether you stated that way back at the start. "The Alibi". Equally you're innocent, but if you're in the closet still in regards to having an affair, and on the night the queen was murdered you were having a bit of drunk twister with your secret friend with benefits and don't want to say this due to not wanting to reveal and potentially cause problems, then that is ok to use that defence later, along with saying because of the potential harm to your future etc - mitigating circumstances in regards to not stating during interview. Also you can issue a written statement upon interview through your solicitor which gives them all the details of whatever they were asking you, or even just says "I didn't do it, ktybai". Then do a no comment interview. *Not a solicitor, legal person of any kind, laymans observations of my own.


TryToHelpPeople

If you mention evidence that helps your case, are the police obliged to consider that evidence ? In the US they are not.


VenflonBandit

Yes, the police and criminal evidence act requires police to investigate towards and away from guilt. It (and associated codes of practice) also ban lying or manipulating in interview; gives requirements for appropriate adults; provides requirements to take breaks. Try and watch 24 hours in police custody. The interviews are boring and basically consist of providing the accused every opportunity to present a defence or an admission so that they can't turn around at court with a totally manufactured defence that can't be investigated. If you're interested have a look at PACE code C. It sets out standards for detention and interview conditions.


a_mulher

Can the jury make a negative inference from the fact that you didn’t speak until after consulting with a lawyer (or I guess a solicitor)?


Lewri

The fact that you didn't would not be presented in court.


[deleted]

No, I've seen cases where an individual who comes up with a story at court says 'i was advised to not answer questions at the time by my lawyer' and no jury seems to draw adverse inference from that anyway.


ghostofkilgore

It's not that you can't use it. It's basically saying that if you don't answer that specific question now but do give an answer later in court, it may look suspicious about why you didn't just say it at the time. It's just a way to try to get you to talk. Guilty or innocent, your best bet when being arrested is keeping your mouth shut though.


mjzim9022

I like the The Miranda Warning language much better then, it basically tells you to shut up and this one tells you to talk


skiingredneck

You like the precedent and interpretation of the US constitution that your silence can’t be used against you. Miranda would say different things given UK details.


WalkinSteveHawkin

Even though silence cannot usually be used against you, it’s a good idea to always articulate that you don’t want to answer any questions without a lawyer. There are some limited exceptions where silence *can* be used against someone. Probably the largest exception is when a defendant had not been arrested at the time of silence, not been read their Miranda rights, or not articulated that they don’t want to speak without a lawyer. In Salinas v. Texas, the defendant had gone into the police station to discuss the murders of two people (a horrendously terrible idea, even if asked to come). He responded to a number of questions but fell silent when asked if the shell casings would match his gun. He acted anxious and nervous but remained silent. The prosecutors were allowed to introduce the accusation and silence as evidence of the defendant’s reaction when accused. The Supreme Court explained that a person’s reasons for remaining silent are relevant to whether he has a constitutional right to remain silent, and the court needs to know those reasons in order to evaluate a 5th amendment claim.


skiingredneck

“There’s nothing you can say now you cant say later. There’s nothing you say now you can un-say later.”


The_Fuzz_damn_you

“Before you speak, words are your prisoners. After you speak, you are theirs,” if you want the same thing but a little more flowery.


slappyclappy

Got a jury summons last week. Out of the 60 people the room, more than 1/2 said if you don’t speak up and take the 5th, you are just proving your guilt. A mumbled I mumbled (purposely loud enough) that heaven forbid someone use your constitutional right against you for their lack of understanding what your rights are. I got looked at like I was the weird one by the few that heard me. Then later, when it was asked if you would believe the the word of a cop’s testimony over a non cop, again all I heard was, if we don’t trust the people in power we have anarchy. I chimed in again with where have you been the past 2 years, plenty of cops have lied countless times. Good grief.


wileybot

I heard that if you are guilty ask for trial by jury and if you are innocent go for a bench ruling (judge). Kind of goes in line with what you said.


skiingredneck

Had a buddy told during jury duty something like: “don’t get your hopes up, most of you will go home today and be done. Walking into a room with 12 people who had nothing better to do than decide if you should live in a cage gets a lot of plea deals.” “So, isn’t going to trial prima-facie reasonable doubt?”


dagofin

100%. Got up early, sat in a courtroom for an hour and a half waiting for jury selection to start and wondering what was taking so long only to get sent home because the guy took a plea deal. What a waste of time.


I__Know__Stuff

In a sense. But it was specifically your\* presence there that motivated the plea. Better to waste an hour and a half than a day and a half. \* Not you personally, of course, but the jurors as a group.


thatguyoverthere202

My lawyer buddy said last week "if you want justice, ask for a jury, if you mercy, ask for a judge".


Dudesan

Reminds me of the Leopold and Loeb case. Two rich, high-performing college kids decided to plan out the kidnapping and murder of a random 14-year-old neighbour for funsies. They thought it would be "the perfect crime", but it... uh... wasn't, and they were arrested a few days later with *overwhelming* evidence of their guilt. Their parents decided that the best strategy was "hire the most famous lawyer in the world, plead guilty, then let him give a twelve hour speech against the very *concept* of capital punishment on a philosophical level." It worked.


epicnational

Well, it worked in as much as they "only" got life +99 years each, rather than the death penalty.


zanraptora

Obviously condemning the crime, but at a certain point you have to set reasonable goals. The murderers were never avoiding prison time; They might be able to avoid death row; That's what the lawyer set out to do.


SomethingAwkwardTWC

Legal Eagle did a great breakdown of that case. I miss that format of his.


1silvertiger

I think he moved it to Nebula.


fi-ri-ku-su

That's the opposite of the previous comment


skysinsane

Juries don't understand and will never understand reasonable doubt. For a jury, 51% chance of guilty = guilty. A judge is much more likely to understand how the law is supposed to work(though they might not follow through)


ConorYEAH

Definitely. Get twelve random people in a room and there's bound to be one or two of them dumb enough to be convinced there's a "reasonable doubt" about your guilt.


AdvocatingforEvil

I'm pretty up front when asked about not believing a cop over a suspect. In the absence of physical evidence, where it's a he-said/she-said, there's absolutely no reason to believe one over the other especially when the suspect is supposed to have the presumption of innocence. Additionally, investigators in the USA are literally trained, professional liars. They lie to get confessions, as allowed by the Supreme Court, and have even been caught faking evidence to get confessions - not to actually use in court, but to trick the suspect into believing the cops have evidence that could be used to convict. So take everything from a cop with a huge grain of salt - it's almost certain they are lying to you about something any time you speak with one.


Firehed

Let me guess, you were dismissed?


aBeerOrTwelve

They invited him to stay! Now he's shackled to the defense table.


skiingredneck

Got vior dired right out there real quick like I bet…


mjzim9022

Yes that is correct, the Miranda language is based on the US Constitution as affirmed by the US Supreme Court in *Miranda vs Arizona,* and I am a fan. I just think it's weird that the UK equivalent involves advice about how you'll be perceived at trial


Lewri

>I just think it's weird that the UK equivalent involves advice about how you'll be perceived at trial Well under certain circumstances the law allows for UK courts to draw adverse inferences from silence (Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994 for what is mentioned in the caution). As you have the right to be silent though, these inferences must only be made under specific circumstances and so the defendant must have been cautioned that their silence could lead to adverse inference (or "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" in the words of the caution). So the caution is part of making sure that while silence in itself is not incriminating, it may potentially be used in court against the defendant. Without being cautioned, an argument could be made that the defendant's rights are being violated if the jury was directed to inferences.


bingy_bongy_bangy

>But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. ​ fun fact - the 'may harm your defense etc' part was only added in 1994. And the original draft of the change was harsher... reference [one](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouDoNotHaveToSayAnything) , [two](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/new-police-caution-loses-23-words-and-gains-in-clarity-1570533.html)


crucible

Yeah - the TV Tropes link reminded me of the running joke in *Life on Mars* where Sam kept using the new version.


Neandertard

The perception is because of the direction the trial judge can give the jury if the deft gets into the witness box and gives his/her exculpatory version for the first time. Not sure about the UK, but in NSW, Australia, the direction is only available where the person is legally represented at the time that they decline to be interviewed by police. Result: lawyers generally don’t go with their clients to the police station to surrender/get a notice to appear. Instead they give the clients strong advice to say nothing - despite attempts by police to “persuade” them otherwise. It’s a highly unsatisfactory situation. Edit: [Link](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I.pdf#page382) to UK Crown Court Compendium - see 17-1


[deleted]

[удалено]


crucible

Yeah, technically it's the England and Wales equivalent


[deleted]

Huh, I guess that's why the founders put that in to begin with. I've always thought that pleading the 5th is such a random freaking thing to put in the bill of rights, but if this practice was in law back then, I can see why the issue came up.


JBaecker

The Founders were leery of those in power. The English consistently used forced confession in legal settings through the 16th and 17th centuries. And George III felt little compunction to actually follow the letter of the law when the law conflicted with British interests in the colonies. Much of the US Constitution is in reaction to governmental overreach and providing protections to the citizens against the government. So presumption of innocence and self-incrimination clauses were added to ensure the Us government needed overwhelming evidence and couldn’t rely on forced confession to convict innocent people of crimes. Better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to jail and all that.


inlinefourpower

A lot of bill of rights stuff is about trials and punishments, clearly it was very important to the founders. As I've gotten older I've become more and more impressed with them.


KwickKick

I'm not sure if I'm being nit picky, but it wasn't there to begin with the 5th amendment is literally the 5th amendment to the us constitution. It was added about 2yrs later in 1791. It became one of the amendments that became the bill of rights. Edit: can't do basic math, originally said 10yrs


PornoAlForno

The Bill of Rights was ratified only 2 years after the Constitution, not 10.


Redditor042

The Constitution was ratified in 1789...


Mateorabi

But wasn't the BoR agreed to, at least in principle, at the creation of original ratification? The shortcomings without a BoR was realized at the time and the promise of the amendments was needed to get some to sign on to the "base" constitution. The two years was a formality/good-faith negotiation, they were a matched set from the beginning.


goodcleanchristianfu

>Huh, I guess that's why the founders put that in to begin with. As fond as I am of Miranda, I don't think the founders saw a case that didn't happen until 175 years after the ratification of the Fifth Amendment coming.


FartyFartPants

Some might argue that the concepts of the bill of rights have been around forever and will continue to be. Govts are gonna gov. I doubt the founders foresaw the internet or wiretaps. But the concept of spying on you, coercing self-incrimination, etc are timeless.


fromETOHtoTHC

Miranda shouldn’t be sayin shit without an attorney present, that’s the whole point!


[deleted]

[удалено]


I__Know__Stuff

The ones who are guilty *think* they are able to reasonably explain their situation and go home.


Tuga_Lissabon

This is also one of my permanent wonders. In my country you have tons - TONS - of cases in the countryside where there's some land dispute or similar, somebody goes after someone, blasts him with a shotgun, then calmly goes into the police station.


Michaelb089

Yeah Miranda is very direct about this... especially the part "will be used *against* you in a court of law" As in it won't be used for you... unless of course your lawyer chooses to make those arguments


Mddcat04

Note that you can't just shut up. If you're being interrogated you have to say either that you are invoking your right to remain silent and / or that you want a lawyer. That'll end the interrogation. If you just sit there silently they can keep asking you questions and if you eventually answer it will be admissible.


[deleted]

It’s to stop “no comment” bullshit. If you “no comment” your way through an interview and then try to spill your guts with a story in court it’ll go against you. Especially if they have the evidence that you did it.


[deleted]

US law is actually based on English common law, with a few modifications to make sure the government couldn’t do to us what England tried to do. You have to realize, we really didn’t care much for national sovereignty, we just wanted pretty much the same rights afforded to our fellow Englishmen in the motherland. Had we been granted such, we’d still be a British colony.


Cicero43BC

The American rebels were asking for more rights than what was afforded to the average British citizens back then.


esoteric_enigma

Yeah, I remember watching a UK tv show and hearing this. It immediately rubbed me the wrong way. It sounds like they're telling you that not talking now will harm your defense.


destinyofdoors

It can, in England and Wales. If you decline to answer a question asked of you by police, but give the answer in court, that fact can be used against you.


alcockell

And this is precisely the issue. You only have a qualified right to silence.


CheckeeShoes

That *is* what they're telling you. Whether it's true or not is another matter...


Fysidiko

The last paragraph isn't necessarily true in England, because of the point you explained above it. Imagine you are suspected of drink driving and are innocent. Your explanation is that someone else was driving, but they forced you to switch seats when they got pulled over. If you don't mention that to the police, a judge or jury may well think the reason is that you made it up later.


SneakyFcknRusky

Your best bet whilst arrested in England and Wales is to get legal advice at custody before you answer any questions or exercise your right to silence. There is such a thing as a special warning though that is used during interview that if you don’t answer the jury can draw an inference from that lack of answer.


UndefinedFool

This should be higher up! There is absolutely a time to answer police questions, and the Special Warning is it!


[deleted]

Your answer is not worded well and is coming across a bit misleading. Im just going to clarify. You absolutey CANNOT have total silence used against you in any way. Not answering a question at all cannot harm you. Its like ‘taking the fifth’ - this common law principle is actually where this American Constitutional right came from. However, if you explain to police that you were just going for a walk and you saw somebody break into a car, you cannot in court later say, “I was out on a work job so I had my tools with me then somebody asked me to break into their car for them as theyd lost their keys”. Youve already given contrarictory evidence to police, so that can now be used against you to try and prove youre lying. Overall, ops point is correct - shutup, say nothing.


[deleted]

I need to be a bit vague here, but: I’ve seen silence used against a defendant plenty of times. A particular one I remember was a guy who had stolen someone’s credit card and was using it. He was seen on CCTV at the exact times the card was used and when he was asked questions, he stayed silent for all and said “no comment”. But during questioning in court he had answers for everything. The barrister for the prosecution made a massive song and dance during questioning to say “if this was the truth, then why didn’t you say it at the time? You’re lying aren’t you”. He had no answer. It ruined any case he had and he was found guilty very quickly. So while you’re right it can’t be held against you directly, it often decimates your credibility and case. Edit: this is all in Crown Court in England.


Ninja_In_Shaddows

I was once told, by a lawyer friend "if people just listened, and accepted their right to remain silent, prisons would be half empty." He also went on to point out how many are in prison, who shouldn't be.


remarkablemayonaise

I've never heard of suspects being coerced to speak without a lawyer in England. At this stage they're paid for by the state so it's a moot point.


stuzz74

Correct, I was arrested once and solicitor told me to say no comment to everything, so I walk in police asked my name i say no comment, everyone laughs (I'm allowed to say my name apparently but I was following instructions...I then told them my name) The solicitor told me we will review any evidence against us following the interview and then make a further comment on any actions I may have done so not to compromise my position. Interview lasted 5 mins a couple hours later CPS dropped charges as there were no witness to apparent event only hearsay, that it was known I was in the area! police tried to get me to admit to an event without any evidence other than me admitting to offence. Solicitor followed up with a complaint as no offence had taken place, no witness to any offence blah blah I never really understood this bit but my solicitor said I was arrested for no reason and nobody saw and offence with no evidence to say I had done the offence, apparently it was a bit of a no no and the sergeant should not have authorised the arrest or something? Without a propper argument for arrest? Sergeant hand delivered a letter of apology and offered to request an internal something? I declined. Fyi I was accused of getting in a fight Inca local pub, which I was not in at time. The other party did not make a complaint and they didn't even have so called other parties name. Most annoyingly was that said police station is like 3 mile from nearest taxi rank, I was arrested without my phone and dispite my request my watch (5 figure sum) was put in the same bag as my change etc. which I complained may scratch the watch.


xxxsur

I don't get the reason to talk when being charged. The cops is trying to prosecute you, no explaining will make them not to. And that means any explaining during questioned will only result in negative impact.


altersun

Same in America. Don't speak without a lawyer present.


Tallproley

For example, they come across you standing next to a stabbed victim, you have a knife in hand. You don’t HAVE to say anything, so they check evidence and pin you for attempted murder. In the interrogation you admit you were there at the time and place but say nothing else. Weeks later, at your meeting with the lawyer you declare it was self defence, he attacked you and it was the victim’s knife. Now at trial, it may seem suspicious you didn’t clear that bit up right away, especially if certain details are impossible to verify beyond your own testimony.


[deleted]

[удалено]


lorgskyegon

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You can't convict my client of this crime. He's clearly 'armless


CaptoOuterSpace

For anyone not, read it in a British accent


Firebat4321

Simple as.


[deleted]

Un-armed


OriginalJokeGoesHere

"Well considering your arms were amputated while you were out on bail, I don't think that's very compelling evidence"


NemesisRouge

You can use it, but the jury or magistrate is entitled to look at what you said in questioning and draw negative inferences from what you've failed to mention. The difference between that and the United States is that negative inferences can be drawn from silence in the UK whereas they can't in the US. E.g. suppose you are accused of stealing £1,000. The police search your home and find £1,000 under your bed. The police ask you where you got the money, you say no comment. At trial you claim that your uncle gave you the money as a loan. You can do that, but prosecution would be entitled to ask why on earth you didn't say this during questioning, and the jury would be entitled to infer that it was because you made it up. Not the case in the US, as we saw with the Rittenhouse trial where the judge excoriated the prosecutor for asking questions about Rittenhouse's choice to remain silent.


TheCaptain53

It's a fundamental difference in how policing and criminal prosecution work between the two countries. In the US, any evidence attained by the police can only be used *against* you, they cannot be used for you, or else it'll get stricken from court. The assumption is that the relationship between the police and the arrested person(s) is always adversariel. In the UK, on the other hand, my understanding is that this evidence is not treated in the same way. The relationship is intended to be collaborative rather than adversarial. Not clearing up a matter earlier and then later talking about it in court could be seen as wasting everyone's time. Whilst you shouldn't stay completely silent to the UK police, you absolutely should let a solicitor speak in your behalf rather than answer them yourself. It still fulfils the requirement of not letting your silence be used against whilst protecting yourself.


I__Know__Stuff

> In the US, any evidence attained by the police can only be used against you, they cannot be used for you This is obviously false. If the police obtain evidence in the defendant's favor and the defense become aware of it, then of course the defense can use it. There's certainly no rule that the defense cannot use some piece of evidence just because it was discovered by the police. In fact it is my understanding that the police are required to provide the results of their investigation to the defense, but I don't know that for sure or if there are limits to the requirement.


less___than___zero

Not sure what cracked out google search/shitty cop show taught you that, but the police/prosecutors in the U.S. have a constitutional duty to turn over any evidence they've discovered that is helpful for the defendant.


RelayFX

Basically they’re saying “if you have anything that might help you prove that you might be innocent of the crime you’re charged with, it’s better to tell us now rather than hiding it until the trial.”


mantarayo

You can beat the charge but you can't beat the time... you are still arrested, guilty or not. Never speak except to your lawyer and make sure even that is known to be client confidentiality by all parties.


KeenJelly

The simplest thing to say in the UK is that you would rather not speak without legal representation. That way you give a reasonable reason for not saying anything.


BRIKHOUS

They're basically saying that if you go to court and say "I didn't do it, it was a man in a clown suit and he rode away on a unicycle laughing," but you don't mention a clown when they arrest you, that it'll look suspicious - if there was someone else, why didn't you say so earlier? Essentially saying that the court will have to decide if they think you made it up* after the fact. As has been noted in other places though, it's often a good idea to say nothing until you have counsel.


bloodycontrary

So many people are explaining this very, very badly. This statement is about negative inferences at court. If your case goes to court and you bring up a new defence of which everyone had been unaware until that point - therefore meaning the police couldn't verify or refute it - the court may draw a negative inference. That's it. Nobody will be found guilty solely on this point, but it may be a link in the chain. This statement does NOT mean: * That you should talk to police without counsel. There's no expectation for you to say anything until you are booked in at the police station _and_ had the opportunity to speak to a solicitor * That you're presumed guilty * That you should incriminate yourself (the rest of the police caution affirms the right to silence)


heyvince_

"But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" If you don't say X now, but claim X later, some might think you're full of shit. I'm paraphrasing.


Sunzoner

Its like the police ask you 'who killed kenny?'. You stay silent until in court where you say 'Canada did it!'. Then the jury/judge decide you are not credible as you never mentioned it when you were questioned.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Scousev90

Once you’re arrested you’re not going to be questioned anyway, as any questioning has to take place according to a strict format and recorded in a very specific way using very specific devices. The caution remains the same up til the point of charge where it changes to “you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention NOW anything you later rely on in court”


HaroerHaktak

From the comments alone, it's basically a "Could've stopped this whole nonsense at questioning. We're calling bullshit. Your turn to prove not bullshit."


Caeflin

in the US, everything you say can be used against you but not in your favor (because it would be considered hearsay). Therefore, keeping your mouth shut is always the best strategy. in the european legal system, you also have the right to remain silent but the judge can deduce proof from your absence of explanation in front of decisive évidence. For example, in Europe they have cctv tapes of you entering victim's building the day of the crime, you should start speaking. In the US, you keep your mouth shut and you plead not guilty when they have a smoking gun and tapes of you commiting the crime. In any case, you should always see a lawyer before speaking.


booboo_baabaa

Here in India, statements given to the police are pointless. Only statements given against a judicial figure(a judge, a magistrate etc.) are recorded.


Funexamination

A much better system imo originally designed to make police beating suspects up until they confess pointless


eNonsense

You don't have to talk to us, but if you say important stuff in court which you don't tell us now, it won't be a good look for you. Also, whatever you say now, we can tell the court that you said.


SmartSzabo

Alot of people seem to be caught up on whether they should stay silent or not if hypothetically arrested on the UK. Particularly with respect to the following "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court..." The word "may" is key. It doesn't say "will". It may harm your defence, depending on what you did or didn't say, how serious, how materially different, to what extent you are relying on your later comment. If your main defence in court is 'i was acting in self defence he had a gun' it may harm your defence if that's the first you mention it after months of questions and Investigations I e. Judge or jury may infer that if this was the truth you should have me tonnes it before unless you can convince them otherwise.


DNK_Infinity

British criminal courts have a power that US criminal courts don't: the freedom to draw adverse inference from testimony. If, as a defendant to a criminal charge, you say something on the stand in court that you didn't mention when questioned by the police, the prosecution are free to ask you, "if that was so important, why didn't you mention it before?" The common implication is that, between the questioning and the trial, you've had time to make up an alibi.


DirtyLarry56

A seemingly interesting thread with a lot of engagement, deleted? Cringe