Ch3: Police station advice Flashcards
What does s.37 PACE provide?
It sets out the grounds for detention.
What does s.58 PACE say?
All suspects are entitled to consult with a solicitor who will examine the circumstances of the suspect’s arrest and provide the suspect with the appropriate advice.
Which COP sets out the proactive role of the solicitor at the police station? And what are set out in the NFG?
COP C NFG 6D
- to protect and advance the legal rights of their client
- avoid the client in giving evidence which strengthens a prosecution case
- Intervene in order to seek clarification
- challenge an improper question to their client or the manner in which it is put
- advise their client not to reply to particular questions.
Which COP provides for the police to remove the solicitor from the interview and who has the authority to do so?
Only a superintendent can require a solicitor to leave the interview.
COP C 6.9 says that improper behaviours include:
- writing down answers for the client to give in response to those asked by the interviewing officer
- answering questions on the client’s behalf.
Who is entitled to legal advice at the police station?
Any person, irrespective of whether they are under arrest and regardless of their means, is entitled to legal advice and assistance if they are questioned by the police.
What is the CDD and what does that mean to that person’s legal representation?
It is a call centre which will give telephone advice to people detained at the police station who will not then be able to consult a solicitor of their choice unless they pay privately.
What is the procedure if a suspect requests a particular solicitor?
The police will call the Defence Solicitor Call Centre who will contact the firm of solicitors that the client has requested.
If the client does not request a particular solicitor, the DSCC will contact the duty solicitor.
What is the legal authority for an inference to be drawn by the jury or magistrates?
s.34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
What is the extend of drawing an inference from a suspect’s silence?
It must be proper - s.34 CJPOA
- An acceptance that his defence as presented in court is true but he chose not to reveal it in his interview
- An inference that his account in court is untrue and he is in fact guilty.
What are the three possible application when the jury/magistrates draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence?
- The explanation given at trial has been fabricated since the time of the interview
- The defendant withheld his account at interview as he knew that it would not stand up to police questioning
- At the time of the interview the defendant had not reasonable explanation which would refute the prosecution case against him
What does s.37 CJPOA provide for inference to be drawn under?
When a suspect fails to account for his presence on arrest at a particular place at or about the time the offence was allegedly committed.
What safeguard does s.38 CJPOA give to a defendant?
No defendant may be convicted solely based on an adverse inference.
What does Code C para 6.6 and Annex C say?
No adverse inference can be drawn where the suspect has not been allowed access to legal advice.
When would a prepared statement be appropriate?
- To raise facts of a defence but avoid the stress of interview, particularly if the client is vulnerable, intellectually challenged or is not going to create a good impression in interview
- To raise facts of a defence but control the evidence supplied to police/prosecution.
Which case provides legal authority where inferences can still be drawn in a prepared statement?
R v Knight 2003
What are the advantages of a prepared statement?
Suspect controls information supplied to police/prosecution
Protected from self-incrimination and providing police with incriminating evidence to use against the suspect.
Suspect does not give a poor or damaging account that can be used against him
Disadvantages of a prepared statement
The CoA made it clear in R v Knight that a pre-prepared statement is not an inevitable antidote to later adverse inferences.
Handing in a statement itself does not always prevent inferences.
Where D maintains at trial the account that he gave in his prepared statement, no adverse inference should be drawn.
It may be necessary to make a further prepared statement as more evidence is disclosed.
Advantages of answering questions
- More likely to avoid adverse inferences if raises all facts of defence which are later relied upon at trial
- If going to make admissions - then co-operation in interview can be raised as a mitigation point
- If the case goes to trial then the jury might consider that his version is more credible as he mentioned it from the outset
Disadvantages of answering questions
- Interview questions and answers can be used as evidence against the accused
- Accused may give a poor/damaging account
- Loss of control over how much information is supplied to police/prosecution.
- Selective silence creates poor impression with judge and jury.
Advantages of silence
- Suspect takes control of information (or lack of) supplied to police/prosecution
- Suspect is protect from self-incrimination and providing police with incriminating evidence to use against him
- Suspect does not give a poor or damaging account that can be used against him
Disadvantages of silence
Risk of adverse inference if matter proceeds to trial
What are the factors set out in R v Argent [1997] for ‘circumstances existing at the time’?
- What disclosure had been made to the suspect, or their lawyer, by the police
- What information the prosecution can demonstrate the suspect knew at the time of questioning
- The condition and circumstances of the suspect
- Any legal advice that the suspect received
Where can you find the legal authority for an accurate record should be made of an interview?
COP C 11.7
Where can you find the legal authority for carrying out caution in an interview?
COP C 10.1
