30 years ago

[lawlessone2009]

The overall point Lawlessone is that you know next to nothing about this case,as do we all, so even if you were a qualified solicitor, you still wouldn't be placed to advise: you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to gain by saying anything other than NO COMMENT.


Have a solicitor present but go NO COMMENT.

What's the point if you're just going to disregard any legal advice as NO COMMENT is all you need to know

One of the main points is to highlight that times have changed. The OP could very well receive a knock at the door tonight and then, wrongly, feel obliged to answer some questions during an informal chat (formal interview) down the station. He may then find himself feeling compelled to give his version of events which could very well end up in a charge being thrown at him.

He is here early enough to be warned not to speak to the Police. His story as he has put forth would be a 'No Comment' interview. The story could be more complex that it appears but I'm sure the Police won't give him a couple of hours to discuss his version of events with a solicitor before the formal interview commences. He will no doubt get a duty solicitor who will sit there and let him talk away as if there is no tomorrow.

A solicitor does not stop you incriminating yourself. He/she will also not be aware of the direction the Police questioning is headed. By all means take some legal advice but do not expect it to save your bacon even when faced with a completely false allegation.

As for 'adverse inference'... That'd only matter IF there was a trial. It can be talked away by a competent solicitor/barrister and fully explained. I wouldn't see it damaging a defence although the law would like you to believe that it does. They WANT you to talk after all as it makes their job a little easier.

On a side note. got a little joke:

The three biggest lies in the world are:

"All I want is a kiss"
"The cheque is in the mail"

and







"I'm with the Police and I'm only here to help you..."


(From: The Big Bad Wolf - James Patterson)



On a side note. My mate was found innocent due to lack of evidence... Hell, if he'd talked maybe he'd be doing a couple of years in a lovely concrete room just now... If the OP fancies reading a lot of psychology books and the likes maybe he'll get himself up to speed enough to be able to answer questions in a manner where he neither answers the questions nor incriminates himself but instead somehow manages to satisfy the Officers asking the questions so that they don't ask any more... It can be done.

[Faith]

I do not want to get drawn into this, some of your posting is beginning to border on the ranty and erratic.

All I would say to the OP (and the only legal advice we should be giving here) is this:
IF you have to speak to the police, get a solicitor and take their advice...be it no comment or full interview.

[lawlessone2009]

Okay.

Me, spade, dig...

My 'opinion' is all I am sharing. It's what I would do in the circumstances. Sorry for not being clear. Read my posts as my opinion, read others as their opinions and then make up your own mind. All I would say is don't blindly follow the advice of a solicitor.

It could actually be worth seeking the opinion of a solicitor just now just in case something does happen. Not just any solicitor mind, a specialist in the area of sexual offences. Keep their name and number handy 'just in case'. You could give your entire version of events to them so that they are pre-prepared and have advised you on what to say and what not to say.

Just an idea and it gets away from me giving abstract opinions.

You never congratulated me on my joke, Faith!

[Faith]

It could actually be worth seeking the opinion of a solicitor just now just in case something does happen. Not just any solicitor mind, a specialist in the area of sexual offences. Keep their name and number handy 'just in case'. You could give your entire version of events to them so that they are pre-prepared and have advised you on what to say and what not to say.

THIS is good advice

[lawlessone2009]

THIS is good advice

My joke, my joke, my joke!

I thought it was a cracker but you're ignoring it!


I do sometimes give good advice, just that I like to hide it in amongst all the bad advice... The OP did indicate that he had sought advice a long time ago, maybe now is a good time to seek it again.

[Rights Fighter]

One of the main points is to highlight that times have changed. The OP could very well receive a knock at the door tonight and then, wrongly, feel obliged to answer some questions during an informal chat (formal interview) down the station. He may then find himself feeling compelled to give his version of events which could very well end up in a charge being thrown at him.

He is here early enough to be warned not to speak to the Police. His story as he has put forth would be a 'No Comment' interview. The story could be more complex that it appears but I'm sure the Police won't give him a couple of hours to discuss his version of events with a solicitor before the formal interview commences. He will no doubt get a duty solicitor who will sit there and let him talk away as if there is no tomorrow.

Yes times may well have changed - but it is still not a good idea to give a no comment interview without the advice of a solicitor because:

(I apologise for the shouty capitals but poor Lawlessone does not seem to have grasped the point) :


IT WILL GO AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. THE JUDGE WILL GIVE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE DIRECTION TO THE JURY.

THE CROWN WILL HAVE A BEAN FEAST WHILE CROSS-EXAMINING THE DEFENDANT AND IN HIS CLOSING SPEECH.

BY THE TIME THEY HAVE FINISHED THE JURY WILL BELIEVE YOU HAVE REFUSED TO GIVE ANSWERS BECAUSE YOU ARE GUILTY.


All the suspect can do is to say to questions he doesn't know the answer to "I don't know because I do not know the details of what has been alleged. The reason I do not know that is because I have done nothing wrong".

[lawlessone2009]

Yes times may well have changed - but it is still not a good idea to give a no comment interview without the advice of a solicitor because:

(I apologise for the shouty capitals but poor Lawlessone does not seem to have grasped the point) :


IT WILL GO AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. THE JUDGE WILL GIVE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE DIRECTION TO THE JURY.

THE CROWN WILL HAVE A BEAN FEAST WHILE CROSS-EXAMINING THE DEFENDANT AND IN HIS CLOSING SPEECH.

BY THE TIME THEY HAVE FINISHED THE JURY WILL BELIEVE YOU HAVE REFUSED TO GIVE ANSWERS BECAUSE YOU ARE GUILTY.


All the suspect can do is to say to questions he doesn't know the answer to "I don't know because I do not know the details of what has been alleged. The reason I do not know that is because I have done nothing wrong".

Man... I'm doing bad...

What court case? One word against another... Accused opens his mouth and admits being 'wherever' could well be enough to get a charge on the sheet.

Anyway... Your last couple of sentences are spot on...

Judges love to infer whatever takes their fancy. Is it correct? Does a jury NEED to listen to a judge? Nope... It's the defences job of making the jury aware of this, the jury after all being the ones that decide if there is any guilt. Not 'talking' in an interview doesn't make you guilty as there could be numerous reasons for this one being not trusting the Police.

I do however bow down to your SHOUTING. It is correct and the OP should value your informed opinion.