Years ago someone I know was arrested at their home on a potentially serious but also spurious charge. The decent police officer refused to put this person in the back of the van and gave them a lift in the passenger seat to the police station. He said one thing on that journey. “Do not reply to what I am going to say but when you are interviewed the ONLY thing you say is ‘no comment’ and I will be driving you back home in an hour”. Decent guy and he spoke the truth.
After an experience with a very malicious, petty cop (and his "good" colleagues who stood there whilst their colleague threatened to invent charges), my solicitor gave me his card, scrawled his mobile number on top and told me to ring him 24/7 if ever stopped by the police in any way. He advised me to politely state "More than happy to answer all of your questions as long as my solicitor can be party to the conversation" whilst dialling the number. I've not needed it but after the experience of being a law abiding, honest person mistreated & degraded by police, I don't care if they want to ask me directions, what time it is or whether I saw who committed a crime, I dont trust them as far as I can spit and I'm not helping them. The police are not your friend, they want convictions for their end of year reviews and they don't have a crap who they get them off.
Well unless you don't leave the house and even if you don't, there is every chance you may break the law. We all do it in some way every day, as there are so many laws. We'll at least you know what to say if police coming a knocking on your door, for a crime you or a family member have been accused off...
@@EastonUlsterThe police had a warrant for my next door neighbor. They couldn't locate him so they knocked on my door to interview me. I tried to help them as best I could. They weren't satisfied and arrested me for obstructing justice. They later admitted what they did was wrong but tied me up in the court system for over a year to dodge a unlawful arrest lawsuit. It's best not to initially engage in a conversation even with the best of intentions.
This is such a simple concept and believe me it works , there is nothing you can say at all that will help you , opening your mouth will only get you in trouble
The one time I was in a police interview this was the advice given to me by my lawyer.It worked a treat.They had nothing and were going hard for self incrimination."No comment" all the way down the line even when they asked me if I knew one of the people I house shared with.All charges were dropped and we were out free within just over an hour.Make it your religious mantra in a police interview situation.I'm not a lawyer but it cut down their options to absolutely nothing in the absence of any hard evidence.Sound,sound advice.
Agree. They try every trick in the book. Good cop bad. They try being nice and your mates, they try threats and they try to trick you with roundabout questions, They try to belittle you and rile you up. Best thing always to do especially if you dont know any law is silence
@@tjlocustThere are so many conditional factors.I guess it depends on what evidence they have and what crime you're being accused of.The best thing is to follow your lawyer's advice in all interview situations.
@@tjlocust Then you'll be formerly arrested after giving a no comment interview and trying to leave. Then its up to you if you want to continue giving no comment / ask for lawyer
Last time I was arrested (well over 25 years ago) only things I said was my name address and age to the desk sergeant, in the interview I wouldn’t even say no comment and the police had to get my solicitor to say I was actually in the room. I just sat and stared making her uncomfortable.
This works even better don't even allow them to get a word out of your mouth, it's their job to incriminate you, don't do it for them, I've been through the system enough to know you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent no matter what you say... Say nothing and they have to prove your guilt with nothing to go off
I tried the 'No Comment' approach when questioned by my wife as to what I got up to last Saturday night. It resulted in No Nookie, No dinner, No ironing, No cups of tea!
Sorry to hear this. That’s why sometimes lawyers advise their clients to answer questions as this might achieve better results. And whether a person answers questions or not there is always Costa!
Please reread page 1 chapter 1 on being married where it say and I quote "Upon marriage all men become automatically guilty until proven innocent by a jury of her friends. Please note however that should you be found innocent you shall then be guilty of being found innocent while your guilt for the initial charge will remain."
Everyone needs to watch this. Especially people who are not in a life of crime. If that’s you then you are the exact person that is going to start blurting out all sorts of information. I was very naive to the process, thank god I spoke to a lawyer. Anything you say to them from the moment they come into contact with you until you are away from them they will use, not just in the interview. Ask for a lawyer (not one of theirs on duty) and go NO COMMENT. I’m by far from being an expert but I can’t see any benefit to you by answering their questions
Just say “no comment until full disclosure” as this tells them the reason you are saying no comment until all information they hold is given to you before you comment 👍
Good strategy - wait for full disclosure and use the interview as part of gaining disclosure - until them remain silent. And decide to comment at the end of the interview. Each case is different-seek lawyers advice.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 them lawyers are just as bad, they will tell you anythink, the law in this country stinks, they will tell you it's you're right to go no comment, then it gets used against you later om on Court, it's s farce.
Having watched interviews on TV.. It seems that staying silent is better than "no comment" when you say no comment another question is fired at you within a second...when you stay silent they have to wait to see if you respond and it seems to effect their flow.
"I don't do interviews" also works, especially if it's on a voluntary basis. If they call you and tell you to come down to the police station or any other place( school principal office etc.) "We just want to talk", ..DON'T GO!
Down side of not going to a voluntary interview is the threat of arrest made by the officer. Do you run that risk or just go to the voluntary interview?
@@communitylegaleducation8438 It is just a risk though. If they ask you to go and you say no, perhaps they haven't got enough to arrest you and the voluntary visit will be a fishing exercise to try to put you of balance and accidently /inadvertatly incriminate yourself....even if you have nothing to hide.
@@fifthof1795 understand - two criteria/ conditions for arrest - basically - reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in a crime - arrest is necessary Often police have the first but choose to offer voluntary as second condition not met. But if a person initially offered a voluntary says no then second condition met and they my proceed to PNC and arrest.
We are all only “ Bodies in the dock” to police officers. They are never your friend , their only aim is to obtain a conviction - innocence or guilt is irrelevant. I have worked with many, many serving and ex police officers and they have been very open about it in private.
On my solicitor's advice, I managed to successfully negotiate my way through a 'no comment' interview last year. It's extremely difficult when you're used to normal, rational, intelligent conversation - but then you're not going to have that with a police officer under the best of circumstances. I wish I'd seen this video beforehand. Throughout my experience, the two officers interviewing me responded by looking at each other, rolling their eyes, huffing and puffing and looking at me as if I were an imbecile. Before the interview, they were in no rush to inform me that I was entitled to a free solicitor (I had no idea; this was a first offence) and when I politely asked a police officer whether he thought that would be the best thing to do - while acknowledging that he had to remain impartial and wasn't there to give legal advice - he shrugged and mumbled, "Don't suppose it'd do any harm." In retrospect, he was clearly hoping I'd pass on the offer. Had I not opted for a solicitor, I'd have had absolutely no idea what the implications of a no comment reply might be, would certainly have thought it would cast me in a bad light and in fact would probably still be talking to them. Thank you for an excellent, informative and concise video, and I shall be checking out the others.
Thank you for sharing your experiences with the officers in your case. It’s so true that outside of a police station interview context people generally are used to having a conversation and exchanging views and probably missed that human interaction during periods of the declared public health emergency. But a police interview isn’t a normal conversation setting but about a suspect being given an opportunity to respond to a serious allegation against them. And to say ‘no comment’ or to remain silent seems rude and a sign of guilt. But then as mentioned in other videos in this series is sometimes the right thing to do as is sometimes answering questions is the right thing to do. I am sure the Solicitor (lawyer) advised you properly. The message from your experiences for me is to get a Solicitor (lawyer)- it’s free and they are there to help, provide support and work a strategy to get you the best outcome.
" Before the interview, they were in no rush to inform me that I was entitled to a free solicitor (I had no idea; this was a first offence" Sorry but if this happened in the UK after the introduction of the Police And Criminal Evidence act 1984 revised 2019, that's absolute tosh. After arrest & detention you have a set of automatic rights, 3 of which are explicity reiterated to you by the custody sgt upon arrival at a custody suite, after detention is authorised or by the officer who has arranged a Voluntary Attendance. 1/ Access to free and independent legal advice, and to communicate privately with a solicitor, whether in person, in writing or by telephone, 2/ The passing of intimation whereby someone chosen by yourself is told that you have been arrested and where you are being detained. 3/ See a copy of the Codes of Practice, the regulations relating to your detention under PACE Code C.. As stated there are also other inaliable rights that arrest and dtetention or VA confer, all of which are contained in Code C. Only under certain and infrequent circumstances are these denied.or differ slightly. i.e. Delay of intimation requires rank of inspector or above to authorise and the reasons why must be stated to you and recorded on your detention log or when PACE code H applies for persons detained under the Terrorism Act.
@@Derakor This absolutely does NOT reflect my experience, and at the time I was completely ignorant of the correct procedures which should have been applied. The full extent of the advice I was given regarding legal help was exactly as described above. I hope that compared to your dealings with the law my account does sound like "tosh", but unfortunately that is precisely what happened to me.
@@Derakor You are absolutely correct in the Uk as a suspect is being booked in the rights as explained clearly by you are given to the suspect by the custody Sgt. Unfortunately I hear from time to time some clients mention - the right to inform family is delayed without good reason - poss due to a lack of police in custody due to police cuts/illness - right to legal advice is discouraged I have not been present to hear the conversation between the client and the investigating officers to corroborate the account where rights are undermined. I have been present when custody Sgt make clear ref to the rights you mention as per PACE. However, I have experienced huge delays just trying to get thro to custody to speak to clients and far too often told to call back when I do get through to custody due to a shortage of staff to take the client from the cell to the phone. All of us working in the CJS need to encourage legal and ethical culture which would be helped with - increase in numbers of those working in custody to cope with numbers, - overtime pay for police and - CPS lawyers present so decisions can be made quicker rather than delay in sending papers via email. I think all these actions will help suspect rights being embedded at the station and pressures on the police generally being reduced significantly. Thank you for your comment.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 I experienced delays myself firsthand when I was arrested. One of the officers, when I asked for my Family solicitor, responded by saying, I paraphrase 'That might take a while, if we just get the interview done you'll be out in no time", I politely declined and waited in holding for about 5hrs till he arrived. NEVER speak to police without representation.
Thank you for sharing this useful video. Very sensible advice. Never agree to any form of police interview without a solicitor present, even if the officer describes the interview as an "informal chat."
Thanks for leaving a comment - please check out the other videos in the series on police interviews. There are no informal chats when interviewed under caution.
Here’s the thing about the “ it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something that you later rely on in court” In short no it won’t because if what you put forward is absolutely cast iron like you were on holiday at the time with 10 other people and you can prove it then they can’t draw an adverse inference, and if what you put forward is plausible but not provable , they won’t pay any attention to it anyway regardless of whether it’s true or whether you mentioned it in interview or not
Even though it's entirely legal to go no comment some police react like you're doing something wrong and get real snarky. Their frustration is often very visible lol.
Tip for anyone during the rapport building phase, use it to get things out of the officers. They will take as a sign things are going well and its a rug pull when it becomes clear that it didn't, because a hot meal and drink or time in the yard to get some fresh air will help mentally fortify you for the possible ordeal to come and they will be less likely to provide anything more than law demands when you refuse to go along with them and probably won't after they get anything they want anyway.
If police inform you they intend to interview you for a criminal offence simply decline to be interviewed. If in a police cell decline to leave it. You cannot be compelled to participate in an interview.
@@communitylegaleducation8438More importantly, it would also mean that under those conditions no adverse inference could be drawn at court. No adverse inference can be drawn against questions that were not asked. But in practise the police will bring the interview to you in the cell, and will mobilize equpment to do so.
@@crimebodge7274 yes they may still interview in the cell. The caution states " it may harm your defence of you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court" - so all they need to do is question you.
@@crimebodge7274 There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police station. I've managed to go straight to a courtroom of law via a police station after conditionally accepting an interview where the conditions were not met (no interview)... Any supposed adverse inferences are insignificant when compared to the presumption of innocence, mark my words.
I have no intention of being arrested or interviewed for anything, however this is incredibly useful to know. Whether guilty or innocent, ALWAYS give no comment. If you're guilty, with a lack of evidence, they have nothing on you and will be forced to let you go; If you're innocent, you don't run the risk of the police manipulating and twisting your words leading to a wrongful conviction. Giving a no comment interview is not an admission of guilt, it is your right. NO COMMENT. NO COMMENT. NO COMMENT.
You’ve missed one trick. They often try to get you to give your name or name & address again, but that’s all been done at the start of the interview. Anyway great video. This makes the boys in blue go mad! Ha ha 👍
Why is giving that info bad? They know you know it and they know that info too. I don’t get why you don’t want to help out, plus what about if they see it as a sign of guilt, why else would a person not answer questions?
@@kylethedalek it’s a trick to get you to start talking! It’s up to the police to prove your gilet, not for you to incriminate yourself. Ps they do say that in the interview “by saying no comment you’re implying gilet!” No comment! Ha ha! 👍
@@kylethedalek because you’re guilty as sin!ffs If you answer questions you’ll incriminate yourself! 😇 by the sound of things you need to watch some more videos on ‘never talk to the police’ I’ll leave that with you…. You’ll soon see why.✌️
Guys the best approach you have is not to say no comment. Don't listen to this man who likely works along side the police. Your best option is to say at the beginning "I am using my right to remain silent" Don't answer to anything they say. No comment is still no attempt at defending yourself or denying what they allege. Whereas remaining silent is your right and can't be used against you.
Those tactics and questions were pretty much all used in an episode of 24 hrs in police custody (or whatever its called, channel 4 program). The copper said all the stuff about what will the jury infer and its not your solicitor in court, its you, he only gives advice etc. The guy was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, gave a no comment interview and was the only person from about 6 or 8 charged to get a not guilty.
Never do the Police's job for them. Information is what they thrive on, especially that extracted in an interview. They do not have your best interests in mind and when they have you in the interview room it's all about how much you have to lose and how much they can take from you. Whether that be in fines or prison time, but it is a loss situation for you no matter what and only a win for them. It is always best to just keep your mouth shut and endure the initial detention and interviews for the 12 or 24hrs or however long rather than say something that can have consequences that could add months or even years to a prison sentence. Yes you might also be innocent but to the police that is an irrelevance when you are in their custody and you will still spend the same amount of time in there, guilty or innocent.
They are not paid to be your friend.I don't trust them but treat them respectfully.(It took me some maturing to realise that gobbing off at them was just making things more difficult for me).Speak respectfully and keep your guard up and never, ever trust them.They're not paid to be your buddy.
@@soloperformer5598 Can't argue with that.I rarely have any contact with them.I've had my house my busted for weed on 3 occasions but on 2 occasions good lawyers got me off and on the third occasion I wasn't in the house at the time at my bros were solid and did everything they could to keep me out of it, bless 'em. The only time I seem to have contact with them now is if I'm walking in the early hours 'cos I wear all black and usually have a hoodie up.In those circumstances when I really have nothing to lose I find that name, address & DOB doesn't put me at any risk and just gets them off my back quicker.I know I don't have to and I don't always but sometimes I just want the encounter over as quickly as possible and answering those 3 questions leads to alot less further questions.It all depends on the situation and as a result I've heard coppers suggest stopping me (in summer when they got their windows cracked) and the other copper said he's stopped me before and I'm no bother.So a little cooperation to start with has led to a lot less interaction over time.There are some absolutes in these matters but there are some where responses are best handled depending on the situation in my own experience.I understand your viewpoint entirely though.I don't trust 'em and the only times I've ever called 999 is for ambulances.I want as little to do with them as possible and in my small town my strategy has appeared to pay off in the long run.
Just playing devils advocate here, and I won't provide specifics, but there have been occasions where the old bill have chucked me a bone, believe it or not they're only human and some of them are actually good, decent folk, 🤝 🍻 ETA before hitting the post button, I've also met my fair share of a**holes in uniform, but I've also met my fair share of a**holes not in uniform, people 'gonna people, I guess, 🤷🏻♂️
In most states that I've lived in, you are also legally required to give them, if requested, (even if you're a pedestrian,) your name, address, account of your current action, and (again, if requested) a list of weapons currently on you. Some cities have even tried to make it mandatory for you to _volunteer_ a list of weapons on your body, though I'm not sure if that's gotten very far.
Big difference between laws and policing here in the UK to in the states though. It is now illegal to own pretty much any weapon, even in the home. Knuckle dusters, crossbows, many types of knives, telescopic cosh were outlawed altogether in the last couple of weeks. I'm pretty sure if you are caught with a bladed article you can get a 6 month mandatory sentence although I don't know if it has to be a second offence before it becomes active as I know people who have been caught and not sentenced. Now an American will no doubt wonder how we are supposed to defend ourselves and my answer would be that we generally don't worry about having to defend ourselves as we aren't in any mortal danger 99.9% of the time. If we are burgled the assailant is unlikely to have a gun and a baseball bat is as much home defence as most people really need in the UK.
When someone is in court is this the Also I am coming from the angle of freedom of speech opportunity to tell the judge "warts and all". No holds barred
I recall a TV show many years ago and the officer described his least effective interview. He said it was a teenage girl who stared at the ceiling and didn't say a single word. After some hours he had to let her go.
Fascinating insight into what was effective in a police interview from a police officer perspective. Would love to know what the facts were to that case.
I heard of one person who was arrested and according to their Dad they faked being asleep in the cell for the duration, they couldn't wake him up as that could apparently be classed as assault so when the time ran out and he woke up they had to let him go. I think this loophole has been closed0
I heard of an alleged IRA man interviewed by British Police.. He just stared at the corner of the ceiling.. He was acquitted in Court but convicted years later of a separate terrorist offence... So he was probably guilty of the first charge but his professional tactic worked.. So if I am arrested I will emulate him. A barrister I once met at a party said to me "never talk to the Police.. The prisons are full of innocent people who thought they could make things better by talking to them..."
The one thing you completely forget to mention is you dont even have to attend the interview. Even if arrested you can sit in your cell and not move. They would then have to interview you in the cell and I can assure you they dont want to do that. Rather than saying no comment say 'My solicitor has advised me to remain silent'
Also remember not to say anything before or after the interview. I got a lift home off of the police I just gave a no comment interview to and I started having a teary breakdown on the way back and they took advantage of this to get me to talk a little bit (they have mics in the cars).
Correct, only traffic cars. But now police have body worn cameras that are always on anyway. There is specific mention in law about significant comments made immediately before or after arrest. Very good point
@@georgel3657Yeah I'm pretty sure if you said "I killed Miss Scarlet with the lead pipe in the dining room" before they arrest you that can still count as a confession, unless you can prove you were playing Cluedo at the time.
You simply stay in your holding cell and refuse to be interviewed. there is no law states you must even agree to interview when arrested and held at a police station.
The best advice this guy gives is have a lawyer ALWAYS. Some of the tactics presented here are out of date. Deciding on No comment or not is not that simple.
I can't emphasise this enough. I was in the army. The RMP's searched my room and found some amphetamine. I kept my mouth shut for 2 hours when they tried every trick in the book to get me to confess to 'dealing'. Imagine having your employer, police and landlord rolled into one person. It went on for 3 months. They then told me I failed a piss test and had tested positive for 'something'. If I would only confess, before it became 'official' they would go easy on me. Turns out they didn't have probable cause to enter my room. Oh dear. Turns out the piss test came back negative. Oh dear. Turns out there only shot to get me court martialled was a freely signed confession. Which they didn't get. Oh dear. They refused to pay compensation. But I felt depressed afterwards, so I got compensation from them due to the way they handled the case. Thanks for paying for my car. Obviously, I have no idea how the amphetamine found it's way into my room. It'll remain a mystery to this day.
Appreciate very much that you have taken the time to share your experiences. I think one the lessons I take is that in the absence of “ hard evidence”, is a “forced confession”, can be in itself be the grounds to convict. In your situation and experiences standing against such pressure to confess to a crime you did not commit with the promise of leniency was truly heroic.
@@kmmining1359 No, the wording is what it says, to inform you that if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in Court then the Judge may allow the prosecution to point this out to the Jury and suggest that you made it up afterwards once you'd seen all the evidence against you. I've seen this happen. After all, if it's the truth why not say so when questioned?
@@kmmining1359 no it's a warning about unconsidered statements made without thought or understanding. not contractual meaning as there is no contract in place or discussion, it is the legal definition of MAY and SHALL one being a possible outcome and one a definitive
Just say nothing. Neither name etc. If/when it gets to court tell them you were silent because you have good historical reasons to believe that the police will not conduct a genuinely impartial or fair investigation. Trust, that is the truth. They will absolutely not hesitate to destroy the life of an innocent man and that is exactly how they get off.
The police may or may not have evidence you do not know about, but before they present that evidence they will try to build up a timeline of events to fix your defense. They do this so they can pick your defence apart when it is compared to the evidence. Three reasons for this; they expect suspects to initially lie anyway, you are more likely to speak the truth after being caught lying because you are now in panic mode, and you look bad in court because you initially provably lied. So, 'no comment' for general questions, and 'no comment' or 'I cannot possibly answer that question until I have seen the evidence' for specific questions. That way, when they present the meat of their evidence, you have a clean slate and nothing to trip you up other than the evidence itself. Remember, *most of the time their evidence on its own is not enough to get you to court*; they need something else from you. For example, someone punched your neighbour and it is all on CCTV, but it is blurry, so they need you to say you hate your neighbour/there's money involved/there's a simmering border dispute' - none of which don't sound like you incriminating yourself by answering! The worst thing is, if you admit 'you are in dispute with your neighbour, and yes, you do wear a white shirt and a black track suit on occasion', then you might be done for it even though he was actually punched by his wife, who wears a white shirt and black track suit, and looks like a man.
In the US the Supreme Court ruled that simply remaining silent does not mean you've exercised your 5th amendment rights. You need to specifically tell them that you're exercising your 5th amendment rights to not speak.
The other day a family member had two police come to the door, apparently something online flagged up, incident image which was viewed, not produced. They asked to go to the police station, and gave a voluntary interview and seized the mobile phone. Apparently it’s been locked away and still no word from the police and that was at least a few days ago now.
Thanks for sharing the account. Consider applying to the court for order for release - check out the playlist on Police Entry/Search powers - there is one about applying to the court for the return of property seized.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 I contacted the police today, and they said they will contact the officers involved in the case, but I really don’t know why it’s taking so long and not being informed of the case ?
@@matthewsmith2787 Multiple reasons may be given. But if there is no joy then consider taking steps to list the case at court - See the short explainer below ruclips.net/user/shortsb7q9Cfz-mj8?feature=share
if you are genuinely innocent but still give a 'no comment' interview then you will have given the officers a strong signal that you are in fact guilty. They will investigate you harder as a result. If, instead, you had told them the truth without being pushed for it then they would have investigated that and, quite possibly, proven you were innocent. This allows them to move on to other suspects efficiently.
I don't quite understand the "no comment" after each question. Why not just say, "I won't be saying anything during this interview", and then stay silent?
Either method works - but it is better to stay silent for those at risk of talking after saying no comment. Police officers also like to hear no comment so they can move onto the next question.
The first issue with NC interviews is that if a suspect has a defence and it is not put fwd during the police interview then an adverse inference may be drawn at any subsequent trial. The second issue is that where a person has committed the offence, a NC interview will deny them the opportunity to be eligible for a police caution for a low level offence. The third issue with NC interviews is that the guilty person may be denied good mitigation. Some of these issues have been explored in other posts. Thank you for commenting.
ALSO: When you're at a station, being held/questioned, is your home safe from intrusion by police officers, if no formal charge/s have happened?...telling a suspect that would be another way of wearing them down, to make them believe that officers are currently in your home.
Police shouldn’t be making false claims that your home is not secure because the door is left wide open or threats that the police while at your home will damage items. Police do have wide powers of search and seizure prior to charge eg S8 and also S17,18 and 32. In many cases while a suspect is waiting to be interviewed a search is being done of the home or places the suspect may be connected to. Eg cases involving stolen goods, drugs or terrorism.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 Well, no...what I mean is...under what circumstances would the police feel the need to invade my home? Can they only do it if they can show, later, that there was due cause - I might have been arrested for a crime for which there would be no reason to search my home. I'm wondering how often powers are abused, to search a suspect's home (in their absence) while they are held at the police station. Also...what methods are used to force a DNA sample from suspects? I've heard that things get pretty violent, at times, with help brought in from other officers to do the holding and the taking of the DNA sample.
@@ianmcklatchie4390 this sounds like very old Gene Hunt era information, an officer using physical force to get a DNA sample would be in a world of trouble and searches have to be quite meticulously logged and justified in reports. If a search isn't entirely valid they're just giving your solicitor free ammo. And they couldn't very well deny having conducted a search if they are presenting evidence found during it.
@@boiledelephant The police are allowed to use force, to secure a DNA sample. Your nose is held and, to open the suspect's mouth, pressure is applied to the front of the throat. A friend was arrested, for political reasons, and he described it to me. It's barbaric and there is no limit to the number of officers there are, involved in getting that sample. Getting that sample is not considered to be part of the search, so no details of what they get up to, to get it, is recorded, anyway. It's down to your word against theirs, in the end.
Best not to say anything at all under any circumstances. A good faith but mistaken witness may claim to have seen you in the area shortly after a burglary for example and on its own that means nothing. But if you had told the police (truthfully) that you couldn't have done it because you were miles away at the time of the offence, now they have a credible witness to say you were lying about your whereabouts, unless you can prove otherwise. So don't even tell the truth when you're innocent.
@trixiek942 Even if they're looking to rule you out (which tbf will often be the case) if you just happen to say something truthfully that doesn't tally with something else they heard they may decide they need to reconcile that mismatch. Suddenly you've now got a problem proving you told the truth about something they didn't even ask you about. I don't think very highly of police generally but what I'm saying here doesn't depend on the police doing anything poorly, it could be just sheer bad luck. ✌️
Questions on arrival at the police station, while standing at a "counter" or "desk", with the arresting/accompanying officer - simple ones like name, address, date of birth, etc.. What should be done about those? Answer them, honestly?...or, "No comment"? I love this stuff and people need to know these things.
I think your referring to the booking in process at the custody counter and questions asked by the police sgt or custody officer over name, welfare check and rights being offered. Rule of thumb don’t lie and know that finger prints, DNA and photos can be taken by reasonable force. I had one case when a suspect lied to the police re their name when booked in but in consultation told me their real name. A poss offence is committed of obstruct. They then told me they would not allow me to give their real name and continue with the false name at the police interview . I had to withdraw from acting for professional reasons without giving the police the reasons. This is because lawyers can’t be involved in misleading the police re names (which is what would have happened when they would have given the false name during the interview) or else we would end up sharing the same police cell!
@@communitylegaleducation8438 thank you, knew someone who was a police officer, now days, dont know about your experience, get solicitor to read an statement saying will be saying nothing in the interview, and then (fake) fall asleep and snore really loud in the interview, and normally within about 5 mins put back in your cell
No, you don't have to answer any of those questions. The chances are the police already know you as they affected the arrest, therefore the questions are redundant. If they don't know who you are and you refuse to answer you can be held until you are brought before a magistrate. Refusal to reveal identity is a common tactic by FotL.
The first thing you must do is apply the correct mindset. Always remember that the investigator or interrogator, whichever, is far more corrupt and crooked than yourself, they're just using the bully tactics and not a moral high ground. I used to say,, "No comment" to every first question then repeat the John Major comment,. "I refer you to the previous answer". Don't forget, the only person who can decide if you go to jail or not is yourself so do not incriminate yourself.
If you say nothing at all and your solicitor says nothing at all not even his name then interview is ended and they can't ask questions that would be inadmissible in court. The police then state in court that you refused to be interviewed and your 200 no comment answers are not there to make you look bad. Best you can do is say nothing from when you here the words you are under arrest until you return home this gives your accusers no more ammo.
@@fix-and-drive-diy-repairs Anything I say can be used against me in a court of law. Nothing I say can be used to my benefit, since it's all just hearsay. And if something I say, even if it's truthful, doesn't line up with their evidence, I can be charged with lying to police on top of whatever else they may or may not have on me. Sorry if I don't feel like talking to the police when it can only harm me. Watch the lecture called "Don't talk to the police" hosted by a lawyer and an officer at a law school for more reasons not to talk to the police.
@@Daylight.0 the likelihood of someone being wrongfully accused is very small. Prisons are not full of innocent people. Crime is on the rise and videos like this don't help!
I know that when you're younger and is interrogated by the police, you think that if you say what you think they want to hear, they'll let you go. Easy to fall for the "friend" trap. But if you are there it's not because they like you. They have a job and the job is to get you to talk so they can get promoted if they're lucky
incorrect, the police do not use figures for promotion. It's illegal and I would ask you, if you have proof of this to inform the IPCC of it. Police promotion is done by examination of laws and a period of probationary work up to two years
@@fogg2007Yes, but lots of wrong convictions have occurred.. Mainly by abuse of interviews... A recent police case was a lonely loser who an attractive undercover police officer pretended to befriend.. She offered him sex if only he would say he was a murderer (of a real victim killed near his home)... She said it would 'turn her on'... Out of desperation for sex he might have thought 'I will say I did it.. And get sex with the stupid mad cow'... Luckily the guy denied it was him that had killed.. If he hadn't? OK, it wasn't an interview but taped phone calls.. But it shows what the Police are like.. No police officer has been demoted nevermind sacked for the attempted set up..
‘All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.’ Act 2 Scene 7 As you like it
Momentum of compliance which many Police Officers are trained on - in the context of police interviews once a suspect starts to answer questions, its harder to then to remain silent to other questions asked.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 or simply a basic human instinct of clarifying if a person has understood the question ? People want to talk. Particularly those that are innocent and want to get their side of the story across. It’s a natural human instinct to want to articulate your point. You seem to be advocating that everything is a trick or a trap (although you did say the officer may genuinely be concerned etc) Could it be possible it’s not training and just a question ? 🤷♂️
Why should you be interviewed by the police when they should be investigating the case and getting the evidence to solve the case. helping them by being interviewed is not ever going to help you just refuse to be interviewed by telling them that they can’t drag you into the interview room I never allow the police to interview me whatsoever the situation is.
The police utilize the Prevention of Terrorism Act for the most trivial of reasons. Watch out for that. Another tactic the police use is to direct questions at people you are with, unfortunately there's not much you can do about mates who can't keep their gobs shut for 2 minutes. Having a solicitor present is always a basic essential, *BUT* I would caution people against saying anything to their solicitor: If you reveal incriminating evidence to your solicitor, your solicitor cannot lie for you in court or to the police. If you say "I did it" to your solicitor, your solicitor cannot claim that you are innocent after an admission of guilt. Also, be aware that the duty solicitor spends an awful lot of time gossiping and buddying-up with the local rozzers. They are PALS. You're not.
This is very easy. (UK law) When the police tell you to go for your interview you simply tell them to "fuck off" you are under no legal requirement to enter to interview suite.
It is not an 'offence' to not answer police questions under s164 or s165, or under any of the countless variety of provisions that compel you to provide your details to the police (none of which you have listed). A requirement to provide details is not a requirement to 'talk to the police'. You can just as easily provide documents that show your date of birth, name and address. Saying 'no comment' at interview is laborious and needless, and advantages nobody. It is a practise beloved by solicitors. Interviewees would be in a better position to outwardly refuse to be interviewed and if the police persist, remain totally silent throughout. The biggest problem with your video is that you don't even mention how a no comment interview or silence at interview could potentially result in an adverse inference and how to overcome this. Reducing interview tactics to 'no comment' is an over simplification of how you can protect yourself at interview, and it is propogated by solicitors and those who have very little experience of being on the receiving end of a police investigation.
Firstly - thank you. You are a fearless pioneer in educating people about police powers and their rights. I am sure many thousands of people over the years have benefitted from your knowledge and experiences but also the way you break down the issues and highlight the use and also misuse of powers. I certainly have benefited from your channel. In relation to offences under 164/165 you are right to say that providing/showing the necessary doc would satisfy the sections although the wording which you are v familiar with refers to ‘give’ name/address and under certain circs would be an offence not to provide limited details. Lawyers should not just advise their clients to say no comment as a matter of course but each case is fact specific and there are occasions when lawyers will/should advise their clients to answer questions. This video is part of a series of videos on police interviews - i apologise for not publishing other videos yet which tackle adverse inferences from no comment interview. Hopefully these will be published in the next couple of weeks. Thank you again for your channel and posting your videos as well as sharing your views here.
It's believed that there are serious safety concerns with your mental health. No comment. Do you have anger issues? Please speak to my regular physician about that. I wish to speak to my solicitor. The rest of the interview is no comment. No comment. No comment. In other words, don't say anything. If you are asked for an explanation, You always say I wish to remain silent. It's not your job to offer evidence. It's your job to stay quiet and it's the judges job to decide whether the evidence against you is definitive or not. And if there were so many serious concerns about your mental health, for example, You wouldn't be questioned about it. You'd be in hospital.
Thank you for your observations. When dealing with a suspect who has serious mental health condition the starting point is silence during the whole detention period incl the interview and after. While the police may accept the suspect is fit to be detained and fit for interview, defence lawyers would in my observation object and make representations for release and to postpone any interview.
I would like to know the narrator's opinion on whether it is better to say "no comment" to each question presented by an officer, or simply choose, by their right to remain silent? Sounds to me like a solicitor might prefer the "no comment" approach as it will make the interview go quicker.
If the NC is advised there are advantages of the suspect saying NC rather than remaining silent, these incl - the interview seems to be quicker. The Officer knows when to move to the next question. - the Officer feels less offended. - the suspect knows what to say to every question But there are disadvantages of actually saying NC. These incl - the suspect might start to talk - the pauses in saying NC might indicate to the Officer the suspect is reluctant to say NC and wants to talk - the suspect might say NC and nod there head at the same time which is a confusing response.
Thank you very much for your free advice my brother. I appreciate your honest and forthright opinion very much and so will others. @@communitylegaleducation8438
They're looking for a chink in your armour. A well-known interrogation technique applied to prisoners of war. The minute you break the no comment mantra they've found a vulnerable spot which, before you even know it, can be exploited.
Rebuttable presumptions in criminal law are somewhat controversial in *that they do effectively reverse the presumption of innocence in some cases.* For example, in the United Kingdom, Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes several rebuttable presumptions about mens rea and consent to sexual activity.
Please note, this Video only applies I the United Kingdom ( Britain). It may apply in other Commonwealth nations but but not all. So always insist on a Lawyer being Present, and follow his advice Just like a POW, Name Rank and address Nothing Else. In the US, claim "The Fifth" (Amendment) or in the Military "Stand Mute" ( == No Comment). All the tricks and deceptions are common the world over. Some (most) countries dropyouinthe slammer, no lawyer, no defence.
I tried to give a no comment interview before and they just concluded the interview there and then. Sadly I didn’t get the job.
Years ago someone I know was arrested at their home on a potentially serious but also spurious charge. The decent police officer refused to put this person in the back of the van and gave them a lift in the passenger seat to the police station. He said one thing on that journey. “Do not reply to what I am going to say but when you are interviewed the ONLY thing you say is ‘no comment’ and I will be driving you back home in an hour”. Decent guy and he spoke the truth.
Thank you for sharing this positive policing experience.
I know someone who was ''driven home'' by a nice copper (now ''off duty'') who asked "'just between you and me', did you do it''? ... NO COMMENT.
@@dhenbhoy I have heard this happens quite often.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 really? Would be questionable and easily suppressed due to lack of caution or representation
@@fogg2007 true - but still I’ve heard it happens.
After an experience with a very malicious, petty cop (and his "good" colleagues who stood there whilst their colleague threatened to invent charges), my solicitor gave me his card, scrawled his mobile number on top and told me to ring him 24/7 if ever stopped by the police in any way. He advised me to politely state "More than happy to answer all of your questions as long as my solicitor can be party to the conversation" whilst dialling the number. I've not needed it but after the experience of being a law abiding, honest person mistreated & degraded by police, I don't care if they want to ask me directions, what time it is or whether I saw who committed a crime, I dont trust them as far as I can spit and I'm not helping them. The police are not your friend, they want convictions for their end of year reviews and they don't have a crap who they get them off.
Exactly right. Listen to and follow EVERY SINGLE THING this man says as it's the best free advise you'll ever receive.
I do not expect to end up being questioned by a policeman. Even so, I have found your advice very interesting and valuable. Thank you.
Thank you for the comment.
It could happen to someone you know, kids, grandchildren, neighbors, friends etc. js
Well unless you don't leave the house and even if you don't, there is every chance you may break the law. We all do it in some way every day, as there are so many laws. We'll at least you know what to say if police coming a knocking on your door, for a crime you or a family member have been accused off...
@@EastonUlsterThe police had a warrant for my next door neighbor. They couldn't locate him so they knocked on my door to interview me. I tried to help them as best I could. They weren't satisfied and arrested me for obstructing justice. They later admitted what they did was wrong but tied me up in the court system for over a year to dodge a unlawful arrest lawsuit. It's best not to initially engage in a conversation even with the best of intentions.
@@clutchcargo5259 Did you complain about this treatment?
remember : there are lots that are found guilty because of their own statement, but very few that are acquitted because of it.
Don't forget to say "no comment" in a Scouse accent, for added authenticity.
I'm scouse it went well hahahaha no comment 😅
Well if you do then they definitely need to go down
Nockkhhh chkkkomntt
Daydoodoedontdaydoe
No khomment
Wait until the tape starts running and just say "Ow! Stop hitting me officer"
Genius
Pretty sure most interview rooms have cameras for that reason.
Andy, look up the word perjury.
@@mark-ish 😂
Or take inspiration from The Office, I'm cutting Phyillis' arm off with a chainsaw😂
This is such a simple concept and believe me it works , there is nothing you can say at all that will help you , opening your mouth will only get you in trouble
I went 'No comment ' during my recent interview with the police. Needless to say I never got the job.
The one time I was in a police interview this was the advice given to me by my lawyer.It worked a treat.They had nothing and were going hard for self incrimination."No comment" all the way down the line even when they asked me if I knew one of the people I house shared with.All charges were dropped and we were out free within just over an hour.Make it your religious mantra in a police interview situation.I'm not a lawyer but it cut down their options to absolutely nothing in the absence of any hard evidence.Sound,sound advice.
Thank you for sharing your experiences
Agree. They try every trick in the book. Good cop bad. They try being nice and your mates, they try threats and they try to trick you with roundabout questions, They try to belittle you and rile you up. Best thing always to do especially if you dont know any law is silence
What if they do have hard evidence
@@tjlocustThere are so many conditional factors.I guess it depends on what evidence they have and what crime you're being accused of.The best thing is to follow your lawyer's advice in all interview situations.
@@tjlocust Then you'll be formerly arrested after giving a no comment interview and trying to leave. Then its up to you if you want to continue giving no comment / ask for lawyer
An interview is always for their benefit - not yours
Don't even say 'no comment', tell them from the outset its a no comment interview then sit in silence throughout
Last time I was arrested (well over 25 years ago) only things I said was my name address and age to the desk sergeant, in the interview I wouldn’t even say no comment and the police had to get my solicitor to say I was actually in the room. I just sat and stared making her uncomfortable.
This works even better don't even allow them to get a word out of your mouth, it's their job to incriminate you, don't do it for them, I've been through the system enough to know you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent no matter what you say...
Say nothing and they have to prove your guilt with nothing to go off
I tried the 'No Comment' approach when questioned by my wife as to what I got up to last Saturday night. It resulted in No Nookie, No dinner, No ironing, No cups of tea!
Sorry to hear this. That’s why sometimes lawyers advise their clients to answer questions as this might achieve better results. And whether a person answers questions or not there is always Costa!
Please reread page 1 chapter 1 on being married where it say and I quote "Upon marriage all men become automatically guilty until proven innocent by a jury of her friends. Please note however that should you be found innocent you shall then be guilty of being found innocent while your guilt for the initial charge will remain."
Everyone needs to watch this. Especially people who are not in a life of crime. If that’s you then you are the exact person that is going to start blurting out all sorts of information. I was very naive to the process, thank god I spoke to a lawyer. Anything you say to them from the moment they come into contact with you until you are away from them they will use, not just in the interview.
Ask for a lawyer (not one of theirs on duty) and go NO COMMENT. I’m by far from being an expert but I can’t see any benefit to you by answering their questions
Thank you for your honest advise Mr. Hafezi.
Just say “no comment until full disclosure” as this tells them the reason you are saying no comment until all information they hold is given to you before you comment 👍
Just stay silent. You have the right to remain silent. Don't even say "no comment"
Good strategy - wait for full disclosure and use the interview as part of gaining disclosure - until them remain silent. And decide to comment at the end of the interview. Each case is different-seek lawyers advice.
They tell you it's a right to silence it's rubbish, then it's used against you in court, it's rubbish.
@@garycross2741 I think your referring to adverse inferences from silence. I short video is going to be posted about this in a few weeks.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 them lawyers are just as bad, they will tell you anythink, the law in this country stinks, they will tell you it's you're right to go no comment, then it gets used against you later om on Court, it's s farce.
Having watched interviews on TV.. It seems that staying silent is better than "no comment" when you say no comment another question is fired at you within a second...when you stay silent they have to wait to see if you respond and it seems to effect their flow.
That is very true.
That’s the route I’d take, as I abhor repetition. That’s if I made it to the interview room, I’d prefer to catch up on my sleep.
How about a really long period of silence - then a no comment. Why limit yourself? 😂
"I don't do interviews" also works, especially if it's on a voluntary basis. If they call you and tell you to come down to the police station or any other place( school principal office etc.) "We just want to talk", ..DON'T GO!
Down side of not going to a voluntary interview is the threat of arrest made by the officer. Do you run that risk or just go to the voluntary interview?
@@communitylegaleducation8438 It is just a risk though. If they ask you to go and you say no, perhaps they haven't got enough to arrest you and the voluntary visit will be a fishing exercise to try to put you of balance and accidently /inadvertatly incriminate yourself....even if you have nothing to hide.
@@fifthof1795 understand - two criteria/ conditions for arrest - basically
- reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in a crime
- arrest is necessary
Often police have the first but choose to offer voluntary as second condition not met. But if a person initially offered a voluntary says no then second condition met and they my proceed to PNC and arrest.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 👍Thanks for the clarification.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 make them arrest you, it starts the clock, voluntary interviews give them time to go digging around for other dirt
We are all only “ Bodies in the dock” to police officers. They are never your friend , their only aim is to obtain a conviction - innocence or guilt is irrelevant. I have worked with many, many serving and ex police officers and they have been very open about it in private.
On my solicitor's advice, I managed to successfully negotiate my way through a 'no comment' interview last year. It's extremely difficult when you're used to normal, rational, intelligent conversation - but then you're not going to have that with a police officer under the best of circumstances. I wish I'd seen this video beforehand. Throughout my experience, the two officers interviewing me responded by looking at each other, rolling their eyes, huffing and puffing and looking at me as if I were an imbecile. Before the interview, they were in no rush to inform me that I was entitled to a free solicitor (I had no idea; this was a first offence) and when I politely asked a police officer whether he thought that would be the best thing to do - while acknowledging that he had to remain impartial and wasn't there to give legal advice - he shrugged and mumbled, "Don't suppose it'd do any harm." In retrospect, he was clearly hoping I'd pass on the offer. Had I not opted for a solicitor, I'd have had absolutely no idea what the implications of a no comment reply might be, would certainly have thought it would cast me in a bad light and in fact would probably still be talking to them. Thank you for an excellent, informative and concise video, and I shall be checking out the others.
Thank you for sharing your experiences with the officers in your case. It’s so true that outside of a police station interview context people generally are used to having a conversation and exchanging views and probably missed that human interaction during periods of the declared public health emergency. But a police interview isn’t a normal conversation setting but about a suspect being given an opportunity to respond to a serious allegation against them. And to say ‘no comment’ or to remain silent seems rude and a sign of guilt. But then as mentioned in other videos in this series is sometimes the right thing to do as is sometimes answering questions is the right thing to do.
I am sure the Solicitor (lawyer) advised you properly.
The message from your experiences for me is to get a Solicitor (lawyer)- it’s free and they are there to help, provide support and work a strategy to get you the best outcome.
" Before the interview, they were in no rush to inform me that I was entitled to a free solicitor (I had no idea; this was a first offence"
Sorry but if this happened in the UK after the introduction of the Police And Criminal Evidence act 1984 revised 2019, that's absolute tosh. After arrest & detention you have a set of automatic rights, 3 of which are explicity reiterated to you by the custody sgt upon arrival at a custody suite, after detention is authorised or by the officer who has arranged a Voluntary Attendance.
1/ Access to free and independent legal advice, and to communicate privately with a solicitor, whether in person, in writing or by telephone,
2/ The passing of intimation whereby someone chosen by yourself is told that you have been arrested and where you are being detained.
3/ See a copy of the Codes of Practice, the regulations relating to your detention under PACE Code C..
As stated there are also other inaliable rights that arrest and dtetention or VA confer, all of which are contained in Code C. Only under certain and infrequent circumstances are these denied.or differ slightly. i.e. Delay of intimation requires rank of inspector or above to authorise and the reasons why must be stated to you and recorded on your detention log or when PACE code H applies for persons detained under the Terrorism Act.
@@Derakor This absolutely does NOT reflect my experience, and at the time I was completely ignorant of the correct procedures which should have been applied. The full extent of the advice I was given regarding legal help was exactly as described above. I hope that compared to your dealings with the law my account does sound like "tosh", but unfortunately that is precisely what happened to me.
@@Derakor You are absolutely correct in the Uk as a suspect is being booked in the rights as explained clearly by you are given to the suspect by the custody Sgt.
Unfortunately I hear from time to time some clients mention
- the right to inform family is delayed without good reason - poss due to a lack of police in custody due to police cuts/illness
- right to legal advice is discouraged
I have not been present to hear the conversation between the client and the investigating officers to corroborate the account where rights are undermined. I have been present when custody Sgt make clear ref to the rights you mention as per PACE.
However, I have experienced huge delays just trying to get thro to custody to speak to clients and far too often told to call back when I do get through to custody due to a shortage of staff to take the client from the cell to the phone.
All of us working in the CJS need to encourage legal and ethical culture which would be helped with
- increase in numbers of those working in custody to cope with numbers,
- overtime pay for police and
- CPS lawyers present so decisions can be made quicker rather than delay in sending papers via email.
I think all these actions will help suspect rights being embedded at the station and pressures on the police generally being reduced significantly.
Thank you for your comment.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 I experienced delays myself firsthand when I was arrested. One of the officers, when I asked for my Family solicitor, responded by saying, I paraphrase 'That might take a while, if we just get the interview done you'll be out in no time", I politely declined and waited in holding for about 5hrs till he arrived. NEVER speak to police without representation.
So, never broken the law in my life, binge watch breaking bad over the last week and suddenly this is in my feed. Genius, Thanks for that algorithm.
Not that you know of. There are so many daft laws we could all unknowingly fall foul of.
Hey,,,,, same here 🥴
Thank you for sharing this useful video. Very sensible advice. Never agree to any form of police interview without a solicitor present, even if the officer describes the interview as an "informal chat."
Thanks for leaving a comment - please check out the other videos in the series on police interviews. There are no informal chats when interviewed under caution.
Here’s the thing about the “ it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something that you later rely on in court”
In short no it won’t because if what you put forward is absolutely cast iron like you were on holiday at the time with 10 other people and you can prove it then they can’t draw an adverse inference, and if what you put forward is plausible but not provable , they won’t pay any attention to it anyway regardless of whether it’s true or whether you mentioned it in interview or not
Even though it's entirely legal to go no comment some police react like you're doing something wrong and get real snarky. Their frustration is often very visible lol.
Tip for anyone during the rapport building phase, use it to get things out of the officers. They will take as a sign things are going well and its a rug pull when it becomes clear that it didn't, because a hot meal and drink or time in the yard to get some fresh air will help mentally fortify you for the possible ordeal to come and they will be less likely to provide anything more than law demands when you refuse to go along with them and probably won't after they get anything they want anyway.
If police inform you they intend to interview you for a criminal offence simply decline to be interviewed. If in a police cell decline to leave it. You cannot be compelled to participate in an interview.
Not leaving cell is certainly one option - just means a suspect doesn’t find out important info or try to influence the outcome.
@@communitylegaleducation8438More importantly, it would also mean that under those conditions no adverse inference could be drawn at court. No adverse inference can be drawn against questions that were not asked. But in practise the police will bring the interview to you in the cell, and will mobilize equpment to do so.
@@crimebodge7274 yes they may still interview in the cell. The caution states " it may harm your defence of you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court" - so all they need to do is question you.
@@crimebodge7274 There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police station. I've managed to go straight to a courtroom of law via a police station after conditionally accepting an interview where the conditions were not met (no interview)... Any supposed adverse inferences are insignificant when compared to the presumption of innocence, mark my words.
Oh dear, id iot Crimebodge is here too...🙄
I have no intention of being arrested or interviewed for anything, however this is incredibly useful to know. Whether guilty or innocent, ALWAYS give no comment. If you're guilty, with a lack of evidence, they have nothing on you and will be forced to let you go; If you're innocent, you don't run the risk of the police manipulating and twisting your words leading to a wrongful conviction. Giving a no comment interview is not an admission of guilt, it is your right. NO COMMENT. NO COMMENT. NO COMMENT.
Thank you .
You’ve missed one trick. They often try to get you to give your name or name & address again, but that’s all been done at the start of the interview. Anyway great video. This makes the boys in blue go mad! Ha ha 👍
Why is giving that info bad?
They know you know it and they know that info too.
I don’t get why you don’t want to help out, plus what about if they see it as a sign of guilt, why else would a person not answer questions?
@@kylethedalek it’s a trick to get you to start talking! It’s up to the police to prove your gilet, not for you to incriminate yourself. Ps they do say that in the interview “by saying no comment you’re implying gilet!” No comment! Ha ha! 👍
@@WeeManSham The only issue I have is I would agree why else would you not want to answer a question?
@@kylethedalek because you’re guilty as sin!ffs If you answer questions you’ll incriminate yourself! 😇 by the sound of things you need to watch some more videos on ‘never talk to the police’ I’ll leave that with you…. You’ll soon see why.✌️
@@WeeManSham I’m not the type to hide things it makes it look worst if your innocent or guilty.
And then they will sue it against you later on.
I feel like I need to prepare for something that I haven't done.
...yet!
@@communitylegaleducation8438 it's only a matter or seconds
Guys the best approach you have is not to say no comment. Don't listen to this man who likely works along side the police.
Your best option is to say at the beginning "I am using my right to remain silent"
Don't answer to anything they say.
No comment is still no attempt at defending yourself or denying what they allege. Whereas remaining silent is your right and can't be used against you.
Naz took one punch and went to the cops?? Nobody likes a grass, Naz
Those tactics and questions were pretty much all used in an episode of 24 hrs in police custody (or whatever its called, channel 4 program). The copper said all the stuff about what will the jury infer and its not your solicitor in court, its you, he only gives advice etc. The guy was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, gave a no comment interview and was the only person from about 6 or 8 charged to get a not guilty.
Facts
Never do the Police's job for them. Information is what they thrive on, especially that extracted in an interview. They do not have your best interests in mind and when they have you in the interview room it's all about how much you have to lose and how much they can take from you. Whether that be in fines or prison time, but it is a loss situation for you no matter what and only a win for them. It is always best to just keep your mouth shut and endure the initial detention and interviews for the 12 or 24hrs or however long rather than say something that can have consequences that could add months or even years to a prison sentence. Yes you might also be innocent but to the police that is an irrelevance when you are in their custody and you will still spend the same amount of time in there, guilty or innocent.
Never, ever consider the filth on your side, they ain't.
They are not paid to be your friend.I don't trust them but treat them respectfully.(It took me some maturing to realise that gobbing off at them was just making things more difficult for me).Speak respectfully and keep your guard up and never, ever trust them.They're not paid to be your buddy.
@@jamiewulfyr4607 The simple answer is to not engage in any form of intercourse with them even if they feel you are "legally obligated" to.
@@soloperformer5598 Can't argue with that.I rarely have any contact with them.I've had my house my busted for weed on 3 occasions but on 2 occasions good lawyers got me off and on the third occasion I wasn't in the house at the time at my bros were solid and did everything they could to keep me out of it, bless 'em. The only time I seem to have contact with them now is if I'm walking in the early hours 'cos I wear all black and usually have a hoodie up.In those circumstances when I really have nothing to lose I find that name, address & DOB doesn't put me at any risk and just gets them off my back quicker.I know I don't have to and I don't always but sometimes I just want the encounter over as quickly as possible and answering those 3 questions leads to alot less further questions.It all depends on the situation and as a result I've heard coppers suggest stopping me (in summer when they got their windows cracked) and the other copper said he's stopped me before and I'm no bother.So a little cooperation to start with has led to a lot less interaction over time.There are some absolutes in these matters but there are some where responses are best handled depending on the situation in my own experience.I understand your viewpoint entirely though.I don't trust 'em and the only times I've ever called 999 is for ambulances.I want as little to do with them as possible and in my small town my strategy has appeared to pay off in the long run.
@@soloperformer5598 Simple answer is, don’t be a dodgy so’n so, then you won’t be in and out of the police station, it’s not rocket science!🙄
Just playing devils advocate here, and I won't provide specifics, but there have been occasions where the old bill have chucked me a bone, believe it or not they're only human and some of them are actually good, decent folk, 🤝 🍻
ETA before hitting the post button, I've also met my fair share of a**holes in uniform, but I've also met my fair share of a**holes not in uniform, people 'gonna people, I guess, 🤷🏻♂️
In most states that I've lived in, you are also legally required to give them, if requested, (even if you're a pedestrian,) your name, address, account of your current action, and (again, if requested) a list of weapons currently on you. Some cities have even tried to make it mandatory for you to _volunteer_ a list of weapons on your body, though I'm not sure if that's gotten very far.
Big difference between laws and policing here in the UK to in the states though. It is now illegal to own pretty much any weapon, even in the home. Knuckle dusters, crossbows, many types of knives, telescopic cosh were outlawed altogether in the last couple of weeks. I'm pretty sure if you are caught with a bladed article you can get a 6 month mandatory sentence although I don't know if it has to be a second offence before it becomes active as I know people who have been caught and not sentenced. Now an American will no doubt wonder how we are supposed to defend ourselves and my answer would be that we generally don't worry about having to defend ourselves as we aren't in any mortal danger 99.9% of the time. If we are burgled the assailant is unlikely to have a gun and a baseball bat is as much home defence as most people really need in the UK.
When someone is in court is this the Also I am coming from the angle of freedom of speech opportunity to tell the judge "warts and all". No holds barred
no saying anything does not count cps rule are the paperwork is the living individual one must take control of it and represnt it
@@guybaxter9491 thank you
I recall a TV show many years ago and the officer described his least effective interview. He said it was a teenage girl who stared at the ceiling and didn't say a single word. After some hours he had to let her go.
Fascinating insight into what was effective in a police interview from a police officer perspective. Would love to know what the facts were to that case.
I heard of one person who was arrested and according to their Dad they faked being asleep in the cell for the duration, they couldn't wake him up as that could apparently be classed as assault so when the time ran out and he woke up they had to let him go. I think this loophole has been closed0
I heard of an alleged IRA man interviewed by British Police.. He just stared at the corner of the ceiling.. He was acquitted in Court but convicted years later of a separate terrorist offence... So he was probably guilty of the first charge but his professional tactic worked.. So if I am arrested I will emulate him. A barrister I once met at a party said to me "never talk to the Police.. The prisons are full of innocent people who thought they could make things better by talking to them..."
What if you just start asking the interviewer questions instead?
JAIL
What to do is instruct your solicitor to inform the interviewer that,you,their client intends to say no comment to all questions.
“Would you like me to remove the handcuffs?”
“No comment”
The one thing you completely forget to mention is you dont even have to attend the interview. Even if arrested you can sit in your cell and not move. They would then have to interview you in the cell and I can assure you they dont want to do that. Rather than saying no comment say 'My solicitor has advised me to remain silent'
Also remember not to say anything before or after the interview. I got a lift home off of the police I just gave a no comment interview to and I started having a teary breakdown on the way back and they took advantage of this to get me to talk a little bit (they have mics in the cars).
Correct, only traffic cars. But now police have body worn cameras that are always on anyway. There is specific mention in law about significant comments made immediately before or after arrest. Very good point
@@georgel3657Yeah I'm pretty sure if you said "I killed Miss Scarlet with the lead pipe in the dining room" before they arrest you that can still count as a confession, unless you can prove you were playing Cluedo at the time.
@trixiek942I would have thought it's inadmisssable in court if you haven't been cautioned, but I may be wrong.
You simply stay in your holding cell and refuse to be interviewed. there is no law states you must even agree to interview when arrested and held at a police station.
From across the pond, it is wonderful to have a Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Toss those ‘Inferences’ into the Channel.
The best advice this guy gives is have a lawyer ALWAYS. Some of the tactics presented here are out of date. Deciding on No comment or not is not that simple.
@@drhaykey totally agree - choosing whether to say NC is not that simple. Check out the other posts
No comment with head down... Excellent!!!
I can't emphasise this enough.
I was in the army. The RMP's searched my room and found some amphetamine.
I kept my mouth shut for 2 hours when they tried every trick in the book to get me to confess to 'dealing'. Imagine having your employer, police and landlord rolled into one person.
It went on for 3 months. They then told me I failed a piss test and had tested positive for 'something'. If I would only confess, before it became 'official' they would go easy on me.
Turns out they didn't have probable cause to enter my room. Oh dear.
Turns out the piss test came back negative. Oh dear.
Turns out there only shot to get me court martialled was a freely signed confession. Which they didn't get. Oh dear.
They refused to pay compensation. But I felt depressed afterwards, so I got compensation from them due to the way they handled the case.
Thanks for paying for my car.
Obviously, I have no idea how the amphetamine found it's way into my room. It'll remain a mystery to this day.
Appreciate very much that you have taken the time to share your experiences.
I think one the lessons I take is that in the absence of “ hard evidence”, is a “forced confession”, can be in itself be the grounds to convict.
In your situation and experiences standing against such pressure to confess to a crime you did not commit with the promise of leniency was truly heroic.
The warning "But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in Court" is pretty clear.
Thank you for the reminder - a short video on the caution on its way.
The wording in the caution is to frighten you. Learn the legal contractual meanings of the words "May" and "Shall"
@@kmmining1359 No, the wording is what it says, to inform you that if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in Court then the Judge may allow the prosecution to point this out to the Jury and suggest that you made it up afterwards once you'd seen all the evidence against you. I've seen this happen. After all, if it's the truth why not say so when questioned?
@@kmmining1359 no it's a warning about unconsidered statements made without thought or understanding. not contractual meaning as there is no contract in place or discussion, it is the legal definition of MAY and SHALL one being a possible outcome and one a definitive
No comment.
It's far better to get it in your head to remain silent then you don't even have to think about an answer,,,,,, they get far more upset.
Never speak to the police under any circumstances.
It's that simple.
Just say nothing. Neither name etc. If/when it gets to court tell them you were silent because you have good historical reasons to believe that the police will not conduct a genuinely impartial or fair investigation.
Trust, that is the truth. They will absolutely not hesitate to destroy the life of an innocent man and that is exactly how they get off.
Fuck ... I accidentally said my name and address at the beginning of the tape
The police may or may not have evidence you do not know about, but before they present that evidence they will try to build up a timeline of events to fix your defense. They do this so they can pick your defence apart when it is compared to the evidence. Three reasons for this; they expect suspects to initially lie anyway, you are more likely to speak the truth after being caught lying because you are now in panic mode, and you look bad in court because you initially provably lied.
So, 'no comment' for general questions, and 'no comment' or 'I cannot possibly answer that question until I have seen the evidence' for specific questions.
That way, when they present the meat of their evidence, you have a clean slate and nothing to trip you up other than the evidence itself. Remember, *most of the time their evidence on its own is not enough to get you to court*; they need something else from you.
For example, someone punched your neighbour and it is all on CCTV, but it is blurry, so they need you to say you hate your neighbour/there's money involved/there's a simmering border dispute' - none of which don't sound like you incriminating yourself by answering! The worst thing is, if you admit 'you are in dispute with your neighbour, and yes, you do wear a white shirt and a black track suit on occasion', then you might be done for it even though he was actually punched by his wife, who wears a white shirt and black track suit, and looks like a man.
You have given this a lot of thought - thanks for sharing your views on whether to answer questions and police tactics.
Good advice. Plod wouldn't be asking questions if they had the answers!!, tell em nothing!!
In the US the Supreme Court ruled that simply remaining silent does not mean you've exercised your 5th amendment rights. You need to specifically tell them that you're exercising your 5th amendment rights to not speak.
Do you have a link to that decision? How would it matter, if you remain silent you are silent. They cannot force you to talk in any case.
The other day a family member had two police come to the door, apparently something online flagged up, incident image which was viewed, not produced. They asked to go to the police station, and gave a voluntary interview and seized the mobile phone. Apparently it’s been locked away and still no word from the police and that was at least a few days ago now.
Thanks for sharing the account. Consider applying to the court for order for release - check out the playlist on Police Entry/Search powers - there is one about applying to the court for the return of property seized.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 I contacted the police today, and they said they will contact the officers involved in the case, but I really don’t know why it’s taking so long and not being informed of the case ?
@@matthewsmith2787 Multiple reasons may be given. But if there is no joy then consider taking steps to list the case at court -
See the short explainer below
ruclips.net/user/shortsb7q9Cfz-mj8?feature=share
Please make a video on the census and the legalities of it and their wording on their letters
Just ignore it. It's a contract that you don't have to enter.
if you are genuinely innocent but still give a 'no comment' interview then you will have given the officers a strong signal that you are in fact guilty. They will investigate you harder as a result. If, instead, you had told them the truth without being pushed for it then they would have investigated that and, quite possibly, proven you were innocent. This allows them to move on to other suspects efficiently.
I don't quite understand the "no comment" after each question. Why not just say, "I won't be saying anything during this interview", and then stay silent?
Either method works - but it is better to stay silent for those at risk of talking after saying no comment. Police officers also like to hear no comment so they can move onto the next question.
Nice upload, my friend.
Extremely well-presented.
I have to say that I always loved no comment interviews. Less for me to transcribe afterwards and I usually had enough to charge anyway.
@@alpercino2172 In some parts the police don’t transcribe - they summarise the interview at first instance,
The trouble with no comment interviews is that you are also not denying you have committed the crime
The first issue with NC interviews is that if a suspect has a defence and it is not put fwd during the police interview then an adverse inference may be drawn at any subsequent trial.
The second issue is that where a person has committed the offence, a NC interview will deny them the opportunity to be eligible for a police caution for a low level offence.
The third issue with NC interviews is that the guilty person may be denied good mitigation.
Some of these issues have been explored in other posts.
Thank you for commenting.
@@communitylegaleducation8438very good advice
Very helpful video. Could you add links of the other videos you referred to in the description?
ALSO: When you're at a station, being held/questioned, is your home safe from intrusion by police officers, if no formal charge/s have happened?...telling a suspect that would be another way of wearing them down, to make them believe that officers are currently in your home.
Police shouldn’t be making false claims that your home is not secure because the door is left wide open or threats that the police while at your home will damage items.
Police do have wide powers of search and seizure prior to charge eg S8 and also S17,18 and 32.
In many cases while a suspect is waiting to be interviewed a search is being done of the home or places the suspect may be connected to. Eg cases involving stolen goods, drugs or terrorism.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 Well, no...what I mean is...under what circumstances would the police feel the need to invade my home? Can they only do it if they can show, later, that there was due cause - I might have been arrested for a crime for which there would be no reason to search my home. I'm wondering how often powers are abused, to search a suspect's home (in their absence) while they are held at the police station.
Also...what methods are used to force a DNA sample from suspects? I've heard that things get pretty violent, at times, with help brought in from other officers to do the holding and the taking of the DNA sample.
@@ianmcklatchie4390 this sounds like very old Gene Hunt era information, an officer using physical force to get a DNA sample would be in a world of trouble and searches have to be quite meticulously logged and justified in reports. If a search isn't entirely valid they're just giving your solicitor free ammo. And they couldn't very well deny having conducted a search if they are presenting evidence found during it.
@@boiledelephant The police are allowed to use force, to secure a DNA sample. Your nose is held and, to open the suspect's mouth, pressure is applied to the front of the throat. A friend was arrested, for political reasons, and he described it to me. It's barbaric and there is no limit to the number of officers there are, involved in getting that sample. Getting that sample is not considered to be part of the search, so no details of what they get up to, to get it, is recorded, anyway. It's down to your word against theirs, in the end.
Having sat as a juror manu times I know it sounds better than no comment
Great advice. Thanks.
Best not to say anything at all under any circumstances.
A good faith but mistaken witness may claim to have seen you in the area shortly after a burglary for example and on its own that means nothing.
But if you had told the police (truthfully) that you couldn't have done it because you were miles away at the time of the offence, now they have a credible witness to say you were lying about your whereabouts, unless you can prove otherwise. So don't even tell the truth when you're innocent.
@trixiek942 Precisely. If you say nothing there's no 'your word' in the first place.
@trixiek942 Even if they're looking to rule you out (which tbf will often be the case) if you just happen to say something truthfully that doesn't tally with something else they heard they may decide they need to reconcile that mismatch. Suddenly you've now got a problem proving you told the truth about something they didn't even ask you about.
I don't think very highly of police generally but what I'm saying here doesn't depend on the police doing anything poorly, it could be just sheer bad luck. ✌️
Questions on arrival at the police station, while standing at a "counter" or "desk", with the arresting/accompanying officer - simple ones like name, address, date of birth, etc.. What should be done about those? Answer them, honestly?...or, "No comment"? I love this stuff and people need to know these things.
I think your referring to the booking in process at the custody counter and questions asked by the police sgt or custody officer over name, welfare check and rights being offered.
Rule of thumb don’t lie and know that finger prints, DNA and photos can be taken by reasonable force.
I had one case when a suspect lied to the police re their name when booked in but in consultation told me their real name. A poss offence is committed of obstruct.
They then told me they would not allow me to give their real name and continue with the false name at the police interview . I had to withdraw from acting for professional reasons without giving the police the reasons. This is because lawyers can’t be involved in misleading the police re names (which is what would have happened when they would have given the false name during the interview) or else we would end up sharing the same police cell!
@@communitylegaleducation8438 wow that is good to know, give real name of course so dont make it awkard for your solicitor but just give no comment
@@Scouser89Liverpool22 Your point is well made and in less words than my efforts.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 thank you, knew someone who was a police officer, now days, dont know about your experience, get solicitor to read an statement saying will be saying nothing in the interview, and then (fake) fall asleep and snore really loud in the interview, and normally within about 5 mins put back in your cell
No, you don't have to answer any of those questions. The chances are the police already know you as they affected the arrest, therefore the questions are redundant. If they don't know who you are and you refuse to answer you can be held until you are brought before a magistrate. Refusal to reveal identity is a common tactic by FotL.
Thanks, very well explained.
Heard a no comment interview was best but whenever I do it I never get the job.
Very informative. Thanks!
New to this channel.
No idea why it was in my recommended, but none the less..
Quite Interesting content.
The first thing you must do is apply the correct mindset. Always remember that the investigator or interrogator, whichever, is far more corrupt and crooked than yourself, they're just using the bully tactics and not a moral high ground. I used to say,, "No comment" to every first question then repeat the John Major comment,. "I refer you to the previous answer".
Don't forget, the only person who can decide if you go to jail or not is yourself so do not incriminate yourself.
If you say nothing at all and your solicitor says nothing at all not even his name then interview is ended and they can't ask questions that would be inadmissible in court. The police then state in court that you refused to be interviewed and your 200 no comment answers are not there to make you look bad. Best you can do is say nothing from when you here the words you are under arrest until you return home this gives your accusers no more ammo.
Best advice for criminals!
Just imagine a criminal who broke in your house is watching this video!
Don't forget that your lawyer works for the court!
Best advice for innocents! Just imagine an innocent man who could be sentanced to life is prison due to a mistake in testimony is watching this video!
@@Daylight.0 if you are innocent, there is nothing to hide! Cooperate with the police, you need them when you are in trouble!
@@fix-and-drive-diy-repairs Anything I say can be used against me in a court of law. Nothing I say can be used to my benefit, since it's all just hearsay. And if something I say, even if it's truthful, doesn't line up with their evidence, I can be charged with lying to police on top of whatever else they may or may not have on me. Sorry if I don't feel like talking to the police when it can only harm me. Watch the lecture called "Don't talk to the police" hosted by a lawyer and an officer at a law school for more reasons not to talk to the police.
Lmao
@@Daylight.0 the likelihood of someone being wrongfully accused is very small. Prisons are not full of innocent people. Crime is on the rise and videos like this don't help!
"Upon the advice of council, I have been advised to remain silent."
Memorize that sentence, and say it over and over.
I'm going to save 7:56 of your life - say "no comment" after each question. You're welcome.
I know that when you're younger and is interrogated by the police, you think that if you say what you think they want to hear, they'll let you go. Easy to fall for the "friend" trap. But if you are there it's not because they like you. They have a job and the job is to get you to talk so they can get promoted if they're lucky
incorrect, the police do not use figures for promotion. It's illegal and I would ask you, if you have proof of this to inform the IPCC of it. Police promotion is done by examination of laws and a period of probationary work up to two years
@@fogg2007 OK. Fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong about the promotion. But they sure aren't your friends
@@fogg2007Yes, but lots of wrong convictions have occurred.. Mainly by abuse of interviews... A recent police case was a lonely loser who an attractive undercover police officer pretended to befriend.. She offered him sex if only he would say he was a murderer (of a real victim killed near his home)... She said it would 'turn her on'... Out of desperation for sex he might have thought 'I will say I did it.. And get sex with the stupid mad cow'... Luckily the guy denied it was him that had killed.. If he hadn't? OK, it wasn't an interview but taped phone calls.. But it shows what the Police are like.. No police officer has been demoted nevermind sacked for the attempted set up..
That sounds like a bad fan film script, what country and when, I need to look it up.
@@fogg2007 England, Richmond.. His name was Colin Stagg..
Immediately upon police asking their first question simply say I refuse to answer questions without my attorney present....
you are brilliant, please keep up the great advice tont
Solicitors are just another cog in the wheel. It's all one big theatre.
‘All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.’
Act 2 Scene 7 As you like it
@@communitylegaleducation8438 👍😁👏👏👏
Do you understand my questions isn’t a ‘tactic’ 😂
It’s a genuine question to check the person understands the question.
Momentum of compliance which many Police Officers are trained on - in the context of police interviews once a suspect starts to answer questions, its harder to then to remain silent to other questions asked.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 or simply a basic human instinct of clarifying if a person has understood the question ?
People want to talk. Particularly those that are innocent and want to get their side of the story across. It’s a natural human instinct to want to articulate your point.
You seem to be advocating that everything is a trick or a trap (although you did say the officer may genuinely be concerned etc)
Could it be possible it’s not training and just a question ? 🤷♂️
Why should you be interviewed by the police when they should be investigating the case and getting the evidence to solve the case. helping them by being interviewed is not ever going to help you just refuse to be interviewed by telling them that they can’t drag you into the interview room I never allow the police to interview me whatsoever the situation is.
It's very simple and easy you say no comment.
Very informative , thank you.
Thank you for leaving a comment.
@@communitylegaleducation8438 no comment
The police utilize the Prevention of Terrorism Act for the most trivial of reasons. Watch out for that.
Another tactic the police use is to direct questions at people you are with, unfortunately there's not much you can do about mates who can't keep their gobs shut for 2 minutes.
Having a solicitor present is always a basic essential, *BUT* I would caution people against saying anything to their solicitor: If you reveal incriminating evidence to your solicitor, your solicitor cannot lie for you in court or to the police. If you say "I did it" to your solicitor, your solicitor cannot claim that you are innocent after an admission of guilt.
Also, be aware that the duty solicitor spends an awful lot of time gossiping and buddying-up with the local rozzers. They are PALS. You're not.
This is very easy. (UK law) When the police tell you to go for your interview you simply tell them to "fuck off" you are under no legal requirement to enter to interview suite.
All you have to say after first question is I intend to exercise my right to silence in full to any of your questions..
It is not an 'offence' to not answer police questions under s164 or s165, or under any of the countless variety of provisions that compel you to provide your details to the police (none of which you have listed). A requirement to provide details is not a requirement to 'talk to the police'. You can just as easily provide documents that show your date of birth, name and address.
Saying 'no comment' at interview is laborious and needless, and advantages nobody. It is a practise beloved by solicitors. Interviewees would be in a better position to outwardly refuse to be interviewed and if the police persist, remain totally silent throughout.
The biggest problem with your video is that you don't even mention how a no comment interview or silence at interview could potentially result in an adverse inference and how to overcome this. Reducing interview tactics to 'no comment' is an over simplification of how you can protect yourself at interview, and it is propogated by solicitors and those who have very little experience of being on the receiving end of a police investigation.
Firstly - thank you. You are a fearless pioneer in educating people about police powers and their rights. I am sure many thousands of people over the years have benefitted from your knowledge and experiences but also the way you break down the issues and highlight the use and also misuse of powers. I certainly have benefited from your channel.
In relation to offences under 164/165 you are right to say that providing/showing the necessary doc would satisfy the sections although the wording which you are v familiar with refers to ‘give’ name/address and under certain circs would be an offence not to provide limited details.
Lawyers should not just advise their clients to say no comment as a matter of course but each case is fact specific and there are occasions when lawyers will/should advise their clients to answer questions.
This video is part of a series of videos on police interviews - i apologise for not publishing other videos yet which tackle adverse inferences from no comment interview. Hopefully these will be published in the next couple of weeks.
Thank you again for your channel and posting your videos as well as sharing your views here.
am i obliged to answer that .
Always go no comment until you’ve seen the summary of facts!
It's believed that there are serious safety concerns with your mental health. No comment. Do you have anger issues? Please speak to my regular physician about that. I wish to speak to my solicitor. The rest of the interview is no comment. No comment. No comment. In other words, don't say anything. If you are asked for an explanation, You always say I wish to remain silent. It's not your job to offer evidence. It's your job to stay quiet and it's the judges job to decide whether the evidence against you is definitive or not. And if there were so many serious concerns about your mental health, for example, You wouldn't be questioned about it. You'd be in hospital.
Thank you for your observations. When dealing with a suspect who has serious mental health condition the starting point is silence during the whole detention period incl the interview and after.
While the police may accept the suspect is fit to be detained and fit for interview, defence lawyers would in my observation object and make representations for release and to postpone any interview.
I would like to know the narrator's opinion on whether it is better to say "no comment" to each question presented by an officer, or simply choose, by their right to remain silent? Sounds to me like a solicitor might prefer the "no comment" approach as it will make the interview go quicker.
But that might not always be in the best interests of the accused.
If the NC is advised there are advantages of the suspect saying NC rather than remaining silent, these incl
- the interview seems to be quicker. The Officer knows when to move to the next question.
- the Officer feels less offended.
- the suspect knows what to say to every question
But there are disadvantages of actually saying NC. These incl
- the suspect might start to talk
- the pauses in saying NC might indicate to the Officer the suspect is reluctant to say NC and wants to talk
- the suspect might say NC and nod there head at the same time which is a confusing response.
Thank you very much for your free advice my brother. I appreciate your honest and forthright opinion very much and so will others. @@communitylegaleducation8438
Why is it bad to say “yes” yo the question of “Do you intend to answer no comment to all the questions?”
They're looking for a chink in your armour. A well-known interrogation technique applied to prisoners of war. The minute you break the no comment mantra they've found a vulnerable spot which, before you even know it, can be exploited.
Rebuttable presumptions in criminal law are somewhat controversial in *that they do effectively reverse the presumption of innocence in some cases.* For example, in the United Kingdom, Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes several rebuttable presumptions about mens rea and consent to sexual activity.
Please note, this Video only applies I the United Kingdom ( Britain).
It may apply in other Commonwealth nations but but not all. So always insist on a Lawyer being Present, and follow his advice Just like a POW, Name Rank and address Nothing Else.
In the US, claim "The Fifth" (Amendment) or in the Military "Stand Mute" ( == No Comment).
All the tricks and deceptions are common the world over. Some (most) countries dropyouinthe slammer, no lawyer, no defence.
Excelleng vid. Common law should be part of the curriculum.
Thank you. And totally agree - important to improve everyone’s legal knowledge and starting at school is a great idea.
Just refuse to be interviewed no inference can be taken from that
The issues from 1987..
How to give a “no comment” interview? Simple, say no comment to every question
@@alanthompson7859 or remain silent