What now?

[Eebygolly]

In 1999 I was aquitted of indecent assault on a daughter. Things move on and have been fine.

I have another younger daughter who I thought I got on fine with. She was asked by Social Services and Police at the time in 1999 if there was anything wrong or if anyone had been touching her and she said no. She would have been 10/11 at the time.

For the last eight years we have looked after her children and they have stayed overnight or for weeks at a time with not a hint of anything being wrong. We have spoilt the grandchildren something rotten and paid for nearly everything they have needed including furniture and holidays.

She has been seeing a councillor for 'bad dreams' in which she claims that I am raping her.

A few weeks back daughter started shouting at my wife claiming that I was 'a nonce'. I didn't really put it down to anything other than a temper burst. She has also got a new partner who I am convinced is geeing her up for this. They have had a baby recently and we have been effectively pushed out the front door. She refuses to let us see the kids now.

Yesterday I had a visit from the police who asked me to get in touch with their CID 'about rapes that allegedgly took place from 1995-2003 (The child would have been seven!) who asked me to the local station go 'to put my side of the story'. He emphasised that I would not be arrested.

To me this seems to be two bites of the cherry and a contintinuance of the case from 1999 which I thought was dead and dusted.

What am I likely to be asked at this interview? Why am I not being arrested?

[Casehardened]

Hi and welcome to the forum,

Difficult to know what you will be asked (except the obvious!) but as you will know from the previous occasion, it is important to be legally represented even though it is only a 'chat'. As this stage a duty solicitor will be fine unless you know of a firm that you would prefer to use.

The temptation is to elaborate on your answers but try to avoid this, be brief and concise.

As it is a historic allegation there is no need to arrest for the usual purposes of carrying out a search and collecting DNA & fingerprints.

[Eebygolly]

What now 2

Thanks for the input. Would the witness statements from the 1999 case be allowed to be used as fresh evidence? Would the witnesses be allowed to make make new statements basically saying the same things? At what point do I say that the police are simply having two bites of the cherry and are they?

[Casehardened]

Would the witness statements from the 1999 case be allowed to be used as fresh evidence? Would the witnesses be allowed to make make new statements basically saying the same things? At what point do I say that the police are simply having two bites of the cherry and are they?

As you were found not guilty on the 1999 allegation this draws a line under it and it should not be possible to use any evidence presented at that trial against you (undoubtedly, should this present allegation go to trial, the prosecution will try to refer to it, but the defence should knock them back)

Having said that, there is no reason why the same witnesses in the 1999 allegation cannot be called again to give evidence in the current one, but the implication that the 1999 allegation adds corroboration to the current one should not be made

As this stage a duty solicitor will be fine unless you know of a firm that you would prefer to use.

On further reflection I will amend my above advice to suggest that you have a solicitor who specialises in defending false sexual allegations sitting in on the chat/interview; ideally the one who represented you at the 1999 trial, if this is possible.*

In the interview it will be more than tempting for the police to refer to the previous allegation but my understanding is that they can't ask the same questions again, so it would be good to have a solicitor who understands this. (have a look at this thread which has startling similarities:
http://www.daftmoo.org.uk/mooforum/s...advice-welcome )

*Just noticed that you've posted a request for a suitable recommendation in the specialist solicitor's thread

[Eebygolly]

What now

Thanks, That will give me a slight problem as she was adamant to both police and social services that there was nothing going on in 1999 or prior to that year and her response was put in writing by one or both of these agencies but I can't remember which, I was so glad to get the not guilty that I just burnt all paperwork after the case. I can't make this important point without refering to the 1999 case though.

I did try to contact the original solicitor but he no longer practises. Shame as I am sure he would rip this rubbish to shreds.

[Eebygolly]

Feeling a bit gutted. Haven't slept for weeks and today should have been the interview day so I was looking forward to putting over my version of events and hopefully taking a bit of the weight off my mind and then hopefully getting some sleep. Been trying to use sleeping pills and beer but it's not really working.

Police called me this morning and said they would have to put off the interview as they have an urgent violent robbery case to sort out so I will have to wait a few more days. I don't think he was bull-sh*tting me so will just have to lump it. Trying hard to stay focused but calling the solicitor to make new appointments was very hard.

The lack of sleep is setting me back thinking black thoughts again. I'm twenty minutes from the local railway station which gives me twenty minutes to change my mind. It's only my OH's unwavering support that is holding me up at present. Instead of police stations we spent the day looking at motorhomes for when it's all over but not really much point in buying one yet.

[lazy lass]

Feeling a bit gutted. Haven't slept for weeks and today should have been the interview day so I was looking forward to putting over my version of events and hopefully taking a bit of the weight off my mind and then hopefully getting some sleep. Been trying to use sleeping pills and beer but it's not really working.

Police called me this morning and said they would have to put off the interview as they have an urgent violent robbery case to sort out so I will have to wait a few more days. I don't think he was bull-sh*tting me so will just have to lump it. Trying hard to stay focused but calling the solicitor to make new appointments was very hard.

The lack of sleep is setting me back thinking black thoughts again. I'm twenty minutes from the local railway station which gives me twenty minutes to change my mind. It's only my OH's unwavering support that is holding me up at present. Instead of police stations we spent the day looking at motorhomes for when it's all over but not really much point in buying one yet.

Please don't think dark thoughts, you have support of your OH and the support you have on here. It is hard waiting,wondering,worrying, and frustration. Don't give up, be strong for yourself and others. We are all here for you. There will be desperate times,but nothing deserves the thoughts you are having, you are not alone.

[angstman]

What am I likely to be asked at this interview? Why am I not being arrested?

You have not been arrested because for the police to have done so, would have compelled them to bring charges within a limited time - not sure what that period is - you'd need to look at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) - or just Google it. However, you have been interviewed under caution, same as I was. This provided unlimited time for the police to conduct further enquiries and most importantly, to collect evidence. They are 'case building'. This can go on for months, sometimes years, I'm afraid.

What you are likely to be asked is anyone's guess, questions the police think are pertinent to the case. You must have legal representation at this stage, because 'anything you do say may be taken down and used in evidence against you' What that really means is that 'anything that you later rely on in court' can be used in evidence against you if it is contradictory to your police statement. That is why most solicitors recommend that you make a 'no comment' statement throughout - it is impossible to contradict yourself if you say nothing, other than to provide your name and address etc.

Unfortunately a no-comment statement sometimes can be construed as having a negative inference in court. For this reason some solicitors will recommend that you make a 'prepared statement'. For this reason it is advisable that you find a solicitor who is experienced in these matters, just like I didn't. At this stage you are a frightened and vulnerable target for any unscrupulous solicitor to take money off you, be careful. I have forked out 8.5k in solicitors fees so far and I still haven't been charged in nearly a year (watch this space). Hope this helps...

[Rights Fighter]

Some solicitors will advise to go no comment, just to make the interview shorter. Not good advice.

Going no comment can and usually will go against you at trial. Saying you had legal advice to go no comment in most cases will still result in a negative inference in the judge's directions to the jury. The jury would be told that you still have the choice to answer questions regardless. Depends on why the advice to go NC is given.

A good solicitor will usually advise a no comment interview only if there has been no disclosure whatsoever, and the police are on a fishing expedition.

If the "disclosure" is sparse is when it might be considered to present prepared statement. It's usually best to answer all questions as honestly as possibly and as succinctly as possible. Try not to waffle.

If you " fail to mention anything that you later rely on in court" that too can go against you. Sometimes. It depends what it is you fail to tell them in interview that you rely later on in court.

A trial I assisted with and attended in 2012, after the guy came out of the police interview, brain all over the place, mashed........ later on when he had had time to reflect, he remembered stuff he could have said. For instance he rented the alleged scene of crime (a garage) a few years after the supposed offences are supposed to have started. He also remembered other stuff which he put at trial.

Of course prosecution suggested that he deliberately made bits up to fit what he was confronted with a trial. He did very well in the witness box and explained to the jury that one minute he was sat in his van, waiting for his daughter to come out of school, the next he has handcuffs on and taken off to the police station and interviewed about the most terrible offences, that he had not committed.

He said that his head was everywhere, he was in shock, feeling sick and terrified. It was only afterwards did he realise, on reflection, that he did have some answers for the questions he couldn't reply to, due to his state of mind. The jury believed him. I was very chuffed to see defence counsel making use of the proof of evidence I helped the defendant with.

This is not about justice, guilt, innocence, truth or lies. It's a pantomime and a game where both parties should play to win. I deal with appeals all the time where sadly, defence have not played to win and have just given lip service.

Every case is different. What happens for one person is not necessarily the same as what happens to the next one.... the police do not always play by the rules (PACE) as we know and they get away with it. Sometimes, neither does the Crown.

[angstman]

Going no comment can and usually will go against you at trial. Saying you had legal advice to go no comment in most cases will still result in a negative inference in the judge's directions to the jury. The jury would be told that you still have the choice to answer questions regardless.

There are still a good many solicitors, certainly some of those I have spoken to - good solicitors, who will advise 'no comment'. It seems to be a debatable point, but yes, other solicitors will advise on a prepared statement. Giving 'honest and succinct' answers is OK in relatively 'simple' cases but in a complex case such as my own, any answer would have had to have been qualified, there are no succinct answers. There is also the danger of providing the police with too much evidence, which you will later rely upon as part of your defence (from my solicitor's mouth, a very senior and and experienced solicitor at that). It is possible to give away your defence strategies.

The police rely on the naivety of the individual - 'come in for an informal chat - we've heard her side now we want to hear yours', that is exactly what I was told. I went in the following day with absolutely no idea of what they were talking about. I asked them naively whether or not I required a solicitor. Actually they were good enough to provide me with a pretty reasonable solicitor. The 'disclosure' was half a side of A4, accusing me of multiple offences supposedly committed nearly 40 years ago.

At that point I could only have made a 'no comment' statement because I hadn't got a clue as to what it were referring to. It's took me another 6 months to fully remember the details. If I end up in court, my 'no comment' statement may well count against me, I'll have to wait and see, but yes I agree...

This is not about justice, guilt, innocence, truth or lies. It's a pantomime and a game

[Rights Fighter]

Yes I know many "suspects" do waffle, hence the suggestion at keeping answers succinct.

I've sat through trials where experienced sols have advised no comment, but still the negative inference is implied. In defence closing speeches I've heard this: "he could have gone no comment, or prepared a statement before the interview, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, but he chose to answer the questions as best he could under the circumstances. And I suggest to you that that is because he had nothing to hide......"

Yes - the "come in for an informal chat" friendly cop routine. Never trust that line! They should still tell you that you have a right to free legal advice - and that should be taken up. I've visited too many people in prison who said:

"I didn't do it so I thought I didn't need a solicitor. I thought they would see it is rubbish and end it".

"Then I was charged. I was shocked, but then I thought "I know have the chance to prove that I am innocent".

"Then I was convicted. I wish I had told my family as they would have been material witnesses. They were present at many of the alleged offences. I can use them to appeal".

Answer. Actually. You can't. The witnesses would have been available at trial and YOU chose not to use them. This is not fresh evidence so it is not admissible.


In the 13/14 years I've been in this sorry business I have only known two cases (that I was personally involved with) where evidence that was available at trial but not used, was allowed at appeal, and the convictions were quashed. And appealing convictions in these cases is getting more and more difficult.

What should happen and what does happen are completely different animals.

[Rights Fighter]

I asked them naively whether or not I required a solicitor. Actually they were good enough to provide me with a pretty reasonable solicitor. The 'disclosure' was half a side of A4, accusing me of multiple offences supposedly committed nearly 40 years ago.

At that point I could only have made a 'no comment' statement because I hadn't got a clue as to what it were referring to. It's took me another 6 months to fully remember the details. If I end up in court, my 'no comment' statement may well count against me, I'll have to wait and see, but yes I agree...

You should not have had to ask whether you required a solicitor. They should have said that you are entitled to free legal advice. Did they do that?

I can fully understand why the duty advised "no comment" in your case, given they were only notes on half an A4 sheet. I doubt that would attract a negative inference given the circumstances.

Yes of course it took you several months: a) to recover from the trauma and b) to reflect on the allegations and the circumstances.

This is what happened with a member whose trial I assisted with in 2012. I worked closely with him up to an during the trial. When it was put to him that he had added stuff later, which he had not told the police, he explained it to the jury, as I previously mentioned.

How a defendant gives evidence is important. I know this sounds daft, but it's important that the jury "likes" the defendant. How he behaves in the dock and in the witness box is taken into account. Body language can be important.

[angstman]

How a defendant gives evidence is important. I know this sounds daft, but it's important that the jury "likes" the defendant. How he behaves in the dock and in the witness box is taken into account. Body language can be important.

Yeah, I'm planning on shaving off my full black beard and removing my eyepatch and 'hook' hand prosthetic...

I'm kidding... No I know you're right, I'll just have to try and be charming...any advice? Maybe get a good night's sleep...actually that's a real worry...

[angstman]

They should have said that you are entitled to free legal advice. Did they do that?

Their words were 'It's up to you..'

to recover from the trauma and b) to reflect on the allegations and the circumstances.

I've thought about nothing else ever since...thought I was going mad at times...

[Rights Fighter]

Maybe get a good night's sleep...actually that's a real worry...

I know that one..... Actually, no I don't as I don't get a good night's sleep due to various "cases" whizzing around in my head.....

Their words were 'It's up to you..'

They should have explained to you that you are entitled to free legal representation. It's not a question of "it's up to you" at all. Fortunately you took them up on that.