3 ms·

If the police invite you for a voluntary interview then you're absolutely free to refuse. The police also have wide discretionary powers to arrest without warr

by pmyteh 4y ago

If the police invite you for a voluntary interview then you're absolutely free to refuse. The police also have wide discretionary powers to arrest without warrant. One of those grounds is to allow "prompt and effective" investigation of a suspected offence. And PACE Code of Practice G expressly suggests "won't come to be interviewed unless arrested" is one case when this might apply. So, in practice, if you refuse the 'voluntary' interview then you may well face a compulsory one, plus a bonus arrest record.

voisin 4y ago
Can you come to an interview and refuse to answer questions? It seems crazy that the onus for an interview is on the person to attend and show they have done nothing wrong rather than the police to prove via other evidence that you meet some standard as to necessitate being interviewed.
- pmyteh 4y ago
  You can, but it's not always a good idea. The 'caution' here (our equivalent to the US's Miranda warning) is "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention in questioning something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence". The intent is to prevent 'ambush' defences (introduce an alibi at trial, for example, giving no opportunity to investigate it) but it has the consequence that a "no comment" interview can be tactically risky. (And that we have no real right to silence, of course!) In principle they shouldn't be arresting you unless they have sufficient grounds for suspecting an offence, though there are the usual accountability problems in enforcing that. The recent case of ST is a good illustration of that[0]: a 14-year old was arrested at dawn on a flimsy case of participating in the robbery of a mobile phone at school. The arrest was mostly to search his room, as well as to ensure attendance at interview, which is legal under PACE, but he was willing to attend voluntarily, as well as to agree to the search, and the timing of arrest and decision to hold in custody rather than immediately bail were also probably unlawful. He sued for false imprisonment. He lost the case because the first instance judge decided that 'whilst the arrest and detention were "reprehensible", the way the police powers had been exercised "lamentable" and it was doubtful that the actions would be "justified in the court of public opinion", there had nevertheless been reasonable grounds to suspect the Appellant of an offence of robbery and there had been reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest and detention were necessary.' (This was overturned on appeal to the High Court, but it does show what a high bar there is for holding to account the use of powers of arrest). [0]: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1280.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1280.html

by pmyteh 4y ago

voisin 4y ago

Can you come to an interview and refuse to answer questions? It seems crazy that the onus for an interview is on the person to attend and show they have done nothing wrong rather than the police to prove via other evidence that you meet some standard as to necessitate being interviewed.

pmyteh 4y ago
You can, but it's not always a good idea. The 'caution' here (our equivalent to the US's Miranda warning) is "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention in questioning something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence". The intent is to prevent 'ambush' defences (introduce an alibi at trial, for example, giving no opportunity to investigate it) but it has the consequence that a "no comment" interview can be tactically risky. (And that we have no real right to silence, of course!) In principle they shouldn't be arresting you unless they have sufficient grounds for suspecting an offence, though there are the usual accountability problems in enforcing that. The recent case of ST is a good illustration of that[0]: a 14-year old was arrested at dawn on a flimsy case of participating in the robbery of a mobile phone at school. The arrest was mostly to search his room, as well as to ensure attendance at interview, which is legal under PACE, but he was willing to attend voluntarily, as well as to agree to the search, and the timing of arrest and decision to hold in custody rather than immediately bail were also probably unlawful. He sued for false imprisonment. He lost the case because the first instance judge decided that 'whilst the arrest and detention were "reprehensible", the way the police powers had been exercised "lamentable" and it was doubtful that the actions would be "justified in the court of public opinion", there had nevertheless been reasonable grounds to suspect the Appellant of an offence of robbery and there had been reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest and detention were necessary.' (This was overturned on appeal to the High Court, but it does show what a high bar there is for holding to account the use of powers of arrest). [0]: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1280.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1280.html