Just as an anecdotal thing, I’ve come to the conclusion that whenever dealing with the police it’s best not to offer any information unless specifically asked, and even then to give as little information as possible. In the once accident I had, and for a subway ticket I got (the former of which was possibly partly my fault, the latter of which I was innocent) I gave a detailed account of what had happened but was found at fault, the latter of which my account was actually misrepresented. In the other accident I had, I simply pointed to the accident scene, sighed, and let the policeman figure it out for himself, and it worked out to my benefit. I guess more elaborate testimony seems suspicious to them.
In the Australian system using such would enable a decent defence lawyer to argue “threat, promise or inducement”
Some great scenes in that show. And yeah, if you’re smart, don’t talk. 
Former prosecutor, current magistrate here. Be polite but firm in declining to talk, and get a lawyer ASAP.
You also have to be REALLY clear in saying that you want a lawyer right that minute and that you don’t want to answer any questions without one. “I think I want a lawyer” isn’t enough.
The UK police caution has this sentiment built-in…
“You have the right to remain silent; but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
There was some controversy when this was amended a few years back, as it removed the absolute right to silence.
I’ve seen this explained as:
*"You don’t have to say anything - that’s your right. You can answer all of my questions, some of them or none of them, it’s up to you.
But. There is a “but” attached to that.
If this ends up in court and you then come up with a perfectly reasonable explanation of what has really happened, the court can choose not to believe what you say, because they will want to know why you didn’t give that version of events here and now in this interview.
This is your interview, and your opportunity to explain what has happened. In relation to the last part about ‘anything you do say may be given in evidence’ - this interview is being tape recorded, and any notes I take have to be kept and both can be given to the court if needs be, whether it goes against you or in your favour".*
Just to add another question into the mix…(coming from a college student not too fond of dealing with police).
When does your right to remain silent actually kick in? If cops come into a house I am in at a party and ask me questions and things am I required to answer same when pulled over, or at a traffic stop do I have to answer their questions or do I have the right to remain silent?
See post #8, above. It depends on the circumstances, but there are a few questions you must answer.
My attorney and a good friend who happens to be a cop have each given me the same advice. They suggest that if questioned, I identify myself. If I am driving, I should provide the officer with the necessary documents (license, registration, insurance card). Anything further requires advice of counsel. Period.
Post #8 Does answer my question in theory. But in practice, after handing the police you license/registration/insurance in a car if you don’t answer there questions they get mad at you and start yelling and eventually ask you to get out of the car (personal experience). But I am completely within my rights to not answer their questions? That doesn’t seem to be how the police like to go about it.
In 1988 or '89 I was pulled over for speeding, late at night, within the city limits. The posted speed limit was 25 MPH. The conversation went something like this:
OFFICER: Do you know the speed limit back there?
ME: 25 MPH, Sir.
OFFICER: How fast do you think you were going?
ME: 30 MPH, Sir.
OFFICER: I’ve got you on my radar at 35.
ME: Huh. My speedometer said 30.
OFFICER (assuming I’m arguing): If you’d like I can take you back and show you the reading.
ME: Oh, I’m not going to argue with the radar, Sir. I’m just saying that my speedometer read 30 MPH. However, this is an old car [it was a beat-up, 1973 Oldsmobile Toronado] and I’ve only had it for a couple weeks [the truth]. It’s possible that the speedometer is inaccurate.
OFFICER: All right, well, slow it down and be careful. Have a good night.
ME: Thank you, Sir.
It’s interesting to note that in that instance I also happened to be drunk off my ass, and yet the officer didn’t ask if I’d been drinking, gave no indication that he suspected I might be drunk, and gave no reason other than speeding for pulling me over. And then he sent me on my way with just a verbal warning. I’m not sure how I got out of that one. My only explanation was that I was polite enough, cooperative enough, and articulate enough that, even if he smelled alcohol, I didn’t appear to be intoxicated (this is entirely possible - I had more than one bartender tell me that they were glad that I usually cut myself off because they could never tell when I was drunk).
Keep in mind that a simple traffic infraction, such as speeding or an improper left turn is not a criminal offense (unless it’s to such a degree that it falls into “negligent” or “reckless” driving) - at least here in Washington state. Being uncooperative by refusing to answer questions really accomplishes nothing beyond giving the officer reason to think that maybe there’s something more going on than a lead foot.
Wow, that’s a tough one there. Basically, they’re saying, “this is your only legal chance to tell your side of the story, whether it be good or bad, incriminating or not.”
Yeah, I agree. . . what if I, an American used to only dealing in absolute silence in the American system, am abroad in the UK and get picked up by your Five-Oh. Can my silence actually be used against me?
Tripler
. . . not that I plan on doing anything there, mind you. . . :dubious:
I did just that.
Thanks, zeno. It was very enlightening.
Context is everything… lots of detail here but key points are:
- there may be no conviction based wholly on silence
- there is a “reasonableness” criteria to meet
- what it is reasonable for an accused to mention depends on all of the circumstances, including the accused’s “age, experience, mental capacity, state of health, sobriety, tiredness, knowledge, personality and legal advice”
- If a defendant states that he remained silent on legal advice, the question for the jury is whether silence can only be attributed to the accused having no satisfactory answer to the charge against him
What word equivalent to ‘attorney’ do you use in the UK when you want a lawyer - a barrister or that other noun that I can’t think of?
Solicitor?
That’s it. TY
But this also assumes you could be placed at the crime. For instance, I sign in to my job with my thumb print. I log into a phone system with a code, my computer with a code, my voicemail with a code, and I"m on camera coming in and out of a building. if I keep silent when clearly I can be placed at another scene miles away, it looks like I have something to hide.
If I am clearly at work and have a solid alibi, refusing to answer won’t look good, so why not answer in that case.