Police Authority Question

Nitefly said:
Yep, that's what I said. The inference will be a negative one.


They will know your name anyway before the interview. They can ask you for your name in the interview and if you answer that, but then stay silence to other questions, a negtative influence can be drawn.



And yes, giving your name in an interviewing and then remaining silent or answering no comment can be viewed negatively in court, because I was taught this by a ex-high court judge (who's husband is in charge of a police station) that this is not an uncommon police tactic and she has had to direct the jury on this issue before.

So yeah... not made up ;)
Click to expand...

You said that 'it allows the court to infer that you're deceiving the police'. Tosh. Stating your name then remaining silent or going no comment does not imply deception at all. Whether you state your name or not, the inference as to why you do not give an account when given the opportunity to do so is purely in relation to the questions asked of you about the matter you have been arrested for. To answer your name but then go no comment is not worse than simply remaining silent.

To answer some questions and not others may come across worse, but answering to your name is just something to identify that it's you being interviewed on an audio tape.

What's not an uncommon police tactic? The choice to go no comment is made between the brief and client.

If you go no comment the police can, in relation to certain things, give you a 'special warning', which states very clearly to you and for the tape, that your choice to remain silent or go no comment will result in the judge, jury etc drawing a 'proper inference' as to why you have chosen not to give an account when given an opportunity to do so. That's not a 'tactic' that's to make sure you fully understand the effect your 'no comment' may have on your trial, should there be one.

What's with the wink? Not sure I understand the context? Hope it wasn't to emphasise that you are better informed, because that would just be embarrassing for you! ;)
 
Chris [BEANS];18835249 said:
You said that 'it allows the court to infer that you're deceiving the police'. Tosh. Stating your name then remaining silent or going no comment does not imply deception at all. Whether you state your name or not, the inference as to why you do not give an account when given the opportunity to do so is purely in relation to the questions asked of you about the matter you have been arrested for. To answer your name but then go no comment is not worse than simply remaining silent.

To answer some questions and not others may come across worse, but answering to your name is just something to identify that it's you being interviewed on an audio tape.

What's not an uncommon police tactic? The choice to go no comment is made between the brief and client.

If you go no comment the police can, in relation to certain things, give you a 'special warning', which states very clearly to you and for the tape, that your choice to remain silent or go no comment will result in the judge, jury etc drawing a 'proper inference' as to why you have chosen not to give an account when given an opportunity to do so. That's not a 'tactic' that's to make sure you fully understand the effect your 'no comment' may have on your trial, should there be one.

What's with the wink? Not sure I understand the context? Hope it wasn't to emphasise that you are better informed, because that would just be embarrassing for you! ;)
Click to expand...

I have never seen the point in 'No Comment' or staying silent because if your not guilty to something, what do you have to hide?? If your innocent, answer their questions...simple!
 
Burnsy2023 said:
You can't be asked a 'loaded question'. Like I said earlier, there are very strict rules on what can be asked in an interview.
Click to expand...

That depends on your definition of a loaded question. There are still situations in which answering a question can be potentially more damaging to one's innocence than saying nothing at all. Answer one question and it can open up a whole avenue of new questions which might be much more difficult to answer and thus give the impression that you are struggling to provide all the information required because you're not squeaky clean.

Whilst they might not be patently obvious, it's easy to get tripped up in questioning without some form of professional counsel.
 
DNA tests are so horribly relied on these days and used as absolutely irrefutible proof when that absolutely isnt the case.

If you are actually sharing a flat with someone, of have visited them once, or they have visited you, some detectable forensic trait from either person is going to be left behind,whether its skin cells, fingerprints, hair, dandruff or whatever.

Should something then happen to either person, and forensic evidence from the other is found anywere in the crime scene, the police and law forces will simply be like 'derp derp, we found your DNA, you must have done it, even if you were only a friend visiting to say hello'.

Also, contrary to what the average joe believes, hair does not contain DNA, and forensic tests which rely on hair as evidence do not carry out any kind of DNA testing on that hair. Hair is the same thing as fingerprints, your hair will look like no ones elses under a microscope except for an identical twins.

So if you ever visit anywhere, dont leave any of your hair, fingerprints or skin cells behind if you dont want to potentially end up in jail in the case of a crime occurring there. <--- This line is a joke.
 
Last edited:
this could be classed as rape no? i would be ****** myself if i was the op. Time to grab the passport and flee the country my boy.
 
.Kencs said:
I have never seen the point in 'No Comment' or staying silent because if your not guilty to something, what do you have to hide?? If your innocent, answer their questions...simple!
Click to expand...

Even if you are innocent and answer truthfully your answers can still convict you. If another witness makes an innocent error of recollection it could contradict what you said to the police giving rise to suspicion.
 
Chris [BEANS];18835249 said:
You said that 'it allows the court to infer that you're deceiving the police'. Tosh. Stating your name then remaining silent or going no comment does not imply deception at all.
Click to expand...
I think you must have mistook me for saying it allows the court to infer under s.34/36/37 of PACE. I meant the word 'infer' as in 'the police will try to get the client to answer trivial questions so selective silence is given in the interview'.

Whether you state your name or not, the inference as to why you do not give an account when given the opportunity to do so is purely in relation to the questions asked of you about the matter you have been arrested for. To answer your name but then go no comment is not worse than simply remaining silent.
Click to expand...
Again, I think you have mistaken me as above. But to give your name then to go no comment is selective silence, therefore it is worse. Why would an ex-high court judge say otherwise :confused:

What's not an uncommon police tactic? The choice to go no comment is made between the brief and client.
Click to expand...
Asking trivial questions to make the client look worse off when the tape is played back.

If you go no comment the police can, in relation to certain things, give you a 'special warning', which states very clearly to you and for the tape, that your choice to remain silent or go no comment will result in the judge, jury etc drawing a 'proper inference' as to why you have chosen not to give an account when given an opportunity to do so. That's not a 'tactic' that's to make sure you fully understand the effect your 'no comment' may have on your trial, should there be one.
Click to expand...
Again, you are refering to certain sections of PACE. I was not.

What's with the wink? Not sure I understand the context? Hope it wasn't to emphasise that you are better informed, because that would just be embarrassing for you! ;)
Click to expand...
I think you clearly misunderstood what I said (understandable really from my use of the word infer which could have been misleading)... I'm not feeling very embarrassed :p
 
.Kencs said:
I have never seen the point in 'No Comment' or staying silent because if your not guilty to something, what do you have to hide?? If your innocent, answer their questions...simple!
Click to expand...

It depends. If you don't believe that the police any evidence against you and won't disclose to you what they have against you prior to the interview, you may be better off by not telling them anything. Anything you say can be construed against you. 'No comment' cannot (save to certain specific circumstances).
 
Nitefly said:
It depends. If you don't believe that the police any evidence against you and won't disclose to you what they have against you prior to the interview, you may be better off by not telling them anything. Anything you say can be construed against you. 'No comment' cannot (save to certain specific circumstances).
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, I always seen the 'No Comment' statement to be negative and work against you :/
 
And if you are guilty there's no point telling the police anything, in the end they may not have enough evidence to charge you and you'll be free to go, even the police officer who witnessed the crime could die of a heart attack before it comes to court. If not you can always plead guilty when it gets to a later stage to receive the sentence discounts etc.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, it is simply better to follow the advice of your legal counsel.

In interview don't volunteer information about your name etc as it is not necessary.

The Interviewing Officer has to state your name along with everyone else present for the tape or ask you to prior to the interview anyway. After that you can just refer them to the tape.
 
Energize said:
And if you are guilty there's no point telling the police anything, in the end they may not have enough evidence to charge you and you'll be free to go, even the police officer who witnessed the crime could die of a heart attack before it comes to court. If not you can always plead guilty when it gets to a later stage to receive the sentence discounts etc.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is, as Chris[BEANS] said, is that if you later rely on facts in your defence at trial that should have reasonably been brought up following a police interview, the court and jury can infer a recent fabrication of events.

If you are going down that route, it might be better to write a written statement and give it to them just before they charge you, if they are going to charge you.
 
Nitefly said:
The problem with that is, as Chris[BEANS] said, is that if you later rely on facts in your defence at trial that should have reasonably been brought up following a police interview, the court and jury can infer a recent fabrication of events.

If you are going down that route, it might be better to write a written statement and give it to them just before they charge you, if they are going to charge you.
Click to expand...

I meant plead guilty before it goes to trial in order to get the maximum sentence discount.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
True, although you will still have fingerprints and DNA taken which will stay on record.
Click to expand...

The 'list' I was referring to - so that's definitely not BS, is it now?

Theophany said:
That depends on your definition of a loaded question. There are still situations in which answering a question can be potentially more damaging to one's innocence than saying nothing at all. Answer one question and it can open up a whole avenue of new questions which might be much more difficult to answer and thus give the impression that you are struggling to provide all the information required because you're not squeaky clean.

Whilst they might not be patently obvious, it's easy to get tripped up in questioning without some form of professional counsel.
Click to expand...

Energize said:
Even if you are innocent and answer truthfully your answers can still convict you. If another witness makes an innocent error of recollection it could contradict what you said to the police giving rise to suspicion.
Click to expand...

Those last two quotes elaborate the essence of the problem I experienced when interviewed.
I made the assumption at the time that as I had done nothing wrong, it would be a simple matter to explain and clear up without all the unnecessary kerfuffle of solicitors and all of that. The two chaps sitting opposite me clearly had other ideas and motivation. Until then, I always had the notion that a policeman was someone you could rely on to be on your side, someone who deserved respect due the uniform. That only changed to the view I hold now because of their attitude towards me.

All sarcasm aside, since then I have always been very wary when having anything to do with the law when it involves scrutinising me.
I just have very little confidence in the general integrity of the police force because of how they have dealt with me in the past, never mind my thoughts on current standards of policing; the last guy who had to fill out paperwork on me seemed almost illiterate... and that's not a good thing when tasked to take details from the public in such an official capacity. Mostly these have been young chaps, who appear very gung-ho when stacked up next to their older colleagues. Though to be fair to the young guys, the two coppers who started all of the problem with coercion and harassment were definitely experienced enough to know how to behave better.
 
Energize said:
I meant plead guilty before it goes to trial in order to get the maximum sentence discount.
Click to expand...

You are only entitled to get the maximum sentencing discount of 1/3 if you enter a guilty plea at the first reasonable opportunity. Once a trial date is set, you can get up to 1/4 off. Just before the trial begins, or during it, it's only 1/10 off, if anything

So in essence, if your are holding off pleading guilty, you probably aren't going to get the maximum reduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom