Should You Say No Comment in a Police Interview?
Saying No Comment in a Police Interview - Will This Go Against Me?
Getting it right at the police station is extremely important, it can be the difference between being charged with an offence and your case being no further actioned. At Eventum Legal we truly believe that the police station interview
is the most important stage of any criminal case and, in addition the pre-charge engagement
between us and the police prior to decisions being made as to whether our client is charged. Unfortunately, bad advice at the police station can lead to charges being authorised against a suspect, and ensuring you have approached the interview in the best possible way is crucial.
At Eventum Legal
we represent clients on a private basis, which means we can spend a considerable amount of time with our client preparing for an upcoming police interview, offering support and tailored advice. We can also get to know our client, their background and take a full detailed account away from the police station environment. By way of a response to a police interview the accused has three options:
1. No comment - you do not answer the questions
2. Comment - you answer questions and give your account
3. Prepared statement - provided during the interview, usually written by your legal representative and signed by you
4. Prepared statement - provided after interview
The advice we give to clients on the best way to approach their interview varies depending on the circumstances. We take into consideration many factors including, the facts of the case, pre-interview disclosure provided by the police, any learning difficulties the client has, any vulnerabilities the client has and their overall emotional health at the time of the interview.
Our lawyers have many years experience in assessing clients ability to handle police interviews, the police deploy various tactics during an interview and our awareness of those puts us in the best place to provide you with the specialist advice required.
Your Right to Silence
Prior to your interview we will have already advised you in relation to your right to silence and the police caution. It is an important right in law which is recognised as being enshrined into the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
You do not have to say anything to the police in relation to the allegations against you, however, sections 34-37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
(CJPOA 1994) place important limitations on the right to silence, and as the caution states, remaining silent may harm your defence if you later rely on something at court that you could have relied on during your police interview. As a result the jury may draw against you what we refer to as an adverse inference.
What is an Adverse Inference?
The court may be entitled to draw such inferences as appear proper, which includes a negative response to the defendant's silence in their police interview. There are three main adverse inferences under the CJPOA 1994:
Section 34 - fails to mention facts which they later rely on in their defence at trial which they could reasonably have been expected to mention at the time of the interview.
Section 36 - fails to account for the presence of an object, substance mark or mark on an object.
Section 37 - fails to account for their presence at a place at or about the time of the commission of the offence
There are various ways in which the jury or Magistrates may respond when hearing an account in court that was not advanced during the interview including that the defendant has subsequently made a story up between their interview and court proceedings to fit the evidence. They may choose to believe the defendant's account at court or not. It would also be quite acceptable for the prosecution to ask a defendant why they did not provide their account in interview.
Adverse inferences may be avoided if the defendant is able to provide a plausible explanation as to why they did not give their account in police interview.
Benefits to saying 'No Comment' in Interview
The obvious benefit to not answering questions is that the accused prevents self incrimination. By answering questions and getting into discussions with the police about a suspected offence can lead to you strengthening the prosecution case, therefore remaining silent may be in your best interests as it could lead to the prosecution having insufficient evidence to charge you. This could apply whereby a complaint has been made but there is no official statement from the complainant, thereby the only evidence in the case may be your police interview.
It is very important that before the decision to make no comment is made that you discuss your case with your legal representative, so they can take an informed decision, using their expertise on the potential harm this could bring to your case.
Should I Provide a Prepared Statement?
A prepared statement can be provided during your interview, this is usually drafted by your legal representative having received your instruction, and then signed by you. It will be read out to the police during the interview usually straight after the caution is given.
The benefits of a prepared statement allow the accused to remain in control of the interview and the information that they give to police. By providing a prepared statement the accused is answering to the allegations in so much as they know about them and this can help to avoid criticism further down the line.
In addition the police not have provided sufficient disclosure, which could mean they are holding information back to surprise you during the interview. By providing a prepared statement our lawyers would make it clear that you are providing the statement in response to the disclosure provided by police.
A prepared statement can also be provided after the interview, although we will take it beforehand and leave the document on your file. We can use this either before or after charge to avoid an adverse inference being drawn, we can in fact say to the court our client did provide this account to his lawyers prior to his police interview or shortly afterward.
Do I Need a Lawyer For my Police Interview?
It is essential prior to any interview that you seek legal advice, even where you have nothing to hide. Time and time again I have seen clients approach interviews alone and subsequently be charged with an offence, despite their innocence.
By seeking representation on a private basis you have the time with your lawyer away from the police station, to discuss your case and obtain their expert advice. We will carefully plan the best approach to your interview and liaise with the police beforehand so we are certain that you are placed in the strongest position possible.
Get Legal Advice Now in Relation to a Police Interview
If you are facing the prospect of a police interview then speak to one of our lawyers today, we offer advice 24 hours a day 7 days a week to those facing allegations of sexual abuse and or domestic violence. We work on a fixed fee basis and make our services as affordable as possible for our clients. We operate only on a fixed fee basis so that our clients have allocated to them the specialist care and time they deserve and what is required to properly prepare their case for police interview.
We Can Help With
Do you want to know more about sexual harm prevention orders? Read our latest article to learn more. Eventum Legal can help with SHPO's.
Have you been charged with indecent image possession? Do you want to know how many cases get dropped? Read our latest article to learn more.
Understanding the difference between “consent” and “reasonable belief” can be key if you are being investigated or prosecuted for a sexual offence, where these two issues can arise. These are not just technical legal terms; they are real-world concepts that can affect the outcome of serious sexual abuse cases. At Eventum Legal, our aim is to help people grasp these important ideas so that they know where they stand, whether they’re seeking justice, facing an accusation, or just wanting to be informed. Consent and the Law: What Does It Mean? When it comes to sexual activity, the law makes it very clear that “consent” isn’t just about saying yes or no. Consent means agreeing by choice, having the freedom and capacity to make that choice, and being able to change your mind at any time, even if the sexual activity has begun. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that a person consents if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to do so. In practical terms, this means no one should be pressured, forced, or tricked into sex. If someone is too drunk, too scared, or otherwise unable to decide, they cannot legally give consent. This applies also to issues with mental capacity where someone may not have the understanding or ability to give informed consent. When establishing whether consent or reasonable belief applies, the courts examine everything that happened, how the people involved acted, what was said, their relationship, and whether any threats were made. It’s not about just hearing a yes or no, but about whether the agreement was truly given, freely and knowingly, at the time. Reasonable Belief: The Other Side of the Coin While “consent” focuses on the person on the receiving end of sexual activity, “reasonable belief” is about the perspective of the person accused of the crime. UK law says it’s not enough for someone to claim they thought the other person was consenting. The belief that consent existed must be reasonable; it must meet the standard of what a reasonable person would think in those circumstances. This comes down to two questions: did the accused genuinely believe the other person was consenting, and would a reasonable person, knowing what the accused knew and considering everything that happened, have reached the same conclusion? It’s not a defence to say, “I just thought it was okay,” if evidence, actions, or common sense didn’t back that belief up. Courts look at whether the accused checked for consent, paid attention to what was happening, and took steps to make sure everything was agreed upon. How the Law Applies These Concepts The distinction between consent and reasonable belief matters because everyone is responsible for ensuring that consent is present, not just assuming or hoping it is. The prosecution in a sexual offence case has to prove that there was no consent or that the accused did not have a reasonable belief that consent existed. To judge this, courts examine the context: Were both people sober and able to make decisions? Was there clear, positive agreement? Did one person ignore signs of hesitation or discomfort? In cases where someone is very intoxicated or unable to communicate, the law presumes that there is no consent, and it is challenging for anyone to claim a reasonable belief otherwise. However, where alcohol is in question the issue can become complex as we all have difference alcohol tolerances, what may be too drunk to one person, could be different to the other. Therefore, working to establish the intoxication and affect is crucial for lawyers in some cases. In cases where it can be proven that that someone was too drunk to speak or move, and the accused says they thought there was consent just because the person didn’t say “no,” the court is unlikely to accept that as reasonable. The law expects people to check in with their partner, look for positive signs, and stop if there’s any doubt. Clearing Up Common Myths Many misunderstandings exist about how consent and reasonable belief work in real life. One myth is that if someone doesn’t say “no,” they must have agreed. The absence of a “no” is not the same as a “yes.” Another myth is that if two people are in a relationship or have had sex before, consent is always assumed. Every sexual act requires consent, every time. Some people also believe that as long as they honestly thought there was consent, that’s enough. But the law sets a higher bar: the belief has to be reasonable, meaning it must be backed up by what happened and what a reasonable person would think. In our digital age, misunderstandings can easily happen through text or online communication. Courts are aware of this and look at all available evidence, including messages and social media, to determine what happened. Other avenues of evidence exploration can include CCTV footage and witnesses. Why These Legal Standards Matter The way UK law approaches consent and reasonable belief has changed over time. In the past, people could argue they had an “honest” belief in consent, even if it wasn’t reasonable. That changed with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which now requires honesty and reasonableness. This protects people from harm and ensures that the law takes the experiences and choices of everyone involved seriously. These rules are designed to keep people safe and ensure everyone’s rights are respected. The law encourages open communication, respect, and responsibility. It expects everyone to look for clear signs of agreement and to stop if there is any doubt or hesitation. What To Do If You’re Involved In A Sexual Offence Case Suppose you’re facing a situation involving consent or reasonable belief and you as the accused want to prove that either of these legal requirements existed, then you must seek legal advice and engage with specialist lawyers who can navigate the complexities of the key legal issues in sexual offence cases. These cases can be stressful and complex, and every detail matters: what was said, what was done, and what steps were taken to ensure everyone agreed. At Eventum Legal, we specialise in helping people understand their rights and responsibilities. We listen, explain your options in straightforward language, and support you throughout the process, always with respect and confidentiality. Whether you’re seeking justice, defending your reputation, or simply want to know your rights, we’re here to help. Frequently Asked Questions What is the difference between consent and reasonable belief? Consent is when a person freely agrees to a sexual act. Reasonable belief is whether the accused genuinely and reasonably believed that consent was given, based on all the facts. Can someone be convicted if they misunderstood consent? Yes, if their belief in consent wasn’t reasonable. The court looks at the whole situation, not just what the accused thought. How can I protect myself or prove consent? Open communication and ensuring everyone is comfortable and willing are the safest approaches. If you’re worried about misunderstandings, keep records of conversations. Where can I get help or advice? Contact Eventum Legal for confidential, expert support tailored to your needs.
