"no comment" interview

[sinderella]

when a person is being interviewed and the answer to every question
is "no comment"
is that not the same as saying guilty but cannot yet make up excuses or arrange an alibi?

[Zhukov]

The burden of proof lies with the Police.

An interviewee need not prove,or say anything.

[ummmm]

They are usually advised to say no comment

[hc4361]

Zhukov is partly correct. The caution is - ’You do not have to say anything. However, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’

So, if Mr Ugly Suspect was in fact at home with his wife and the vicar when the evil crime was committed but he says 'no comment' during the interviews, he may not be able to call the vicar to give evidence and provide his alibi during the trial.

[Philtaz]

The courts and jurors make that decision for themselves but interviewing Police Officers generally point out to the suspect that should they make an alibi for themselves some time between the tape recorded interview and the case being heard in court that it would look rather odd that they didn't provide such an alibi at the time of interview.

Look at this video from 1.50 onwards.

http://www.guardian.c...terview-footage-video

[Prudie]

It's perfectly acceptable in the US - it's the Fifth Amendment of the Constutution that put simply means you don't have to say anything unless in court.

[DaisyNonna]

So it is loaded against the accused?

[hc4361]

Not at all.
If the accused uses his right to say nothing during interviews the burden is on the police to provide the evidence of guilt.
Apart from confirming his identity and his plea the accused is not obliged to say anything in court, either, but that is risky as non-co-operation can give an adverse inference.

[DaisyNonna]

exactly

[exdc]

Hi

"is that not the same as saying guilty but cannot yet make up excuses or arrange an alibi?"

That is exactly what happened before the current Caution was introduced (a sensible piece of legisation). Investigators use three variations of the Caution atdifferent stages and there are a further two 'special warnings' that can be used in certain circumstances when an accused fails to answer questions during interviews etc.

[boxtops]

what are the variations, exdc? I can only ever recall hearing on TV the standard type of wording mentioned by hc above.

[exdc]

Hi boxtops

The 'standard' one as HC states is used when a person is 'interviewed' by police (or investigator) about their suspected involvement in ANY offence. (the definition of interview is one or more questions regarding suspected involvement in an offence etc).

If a person is charged with an offence or reported for summons etc, a slightly different Caution is used to warn the accused again that any defence may be harmed if they do not mention ......:
'
You do not have to say anything but it may harm you defence if you do mention NOW anything you later rely on at court'

A third one, which is the old Caution, 'You do not have to say anything but anything you do say may used used in evidence', is used when an accused is re-interviewed after Charge. So NO inferences can be drawn from silence or refusal to answer questions at this stage.

(please note these answers are in there most basic format )

[exdc]

No comment interviews are likely to arise in various situations but some of the common ones are 1. Police give solicitor insufficient disclosure or withholding evidence prior to accused being interviewed. 2. lack of evidence (say in a domestic where no complaint yet made by victim) 3. The village idiot who thinks they are gaining a tactical advantage or belives they are causing the investigator some diffulty.

Of course, there are other situations.

[exdc]

Sorry, i should have mentioned that the old Caution,(see previous posts) is also used when police interview the accused who has been denied a solicitor after requesting one

[cathfromsaron]

'it will harm your defence' if you later rely on something which you could have answered in the interrogation, apparently!

[grffindoor2011]

My views - Saying 'No comment' will make me vote guilty regardless. If you are innocent, then you would be screaming and shouting from the rooftops.

Just as 'ignorance is no defence' is the worst piece of law, a solicitor advising 'no comment' is the worst piece of advice.

[Zhukov]

so,griffindoor2011..What say you to "A person that defends themself,in Court,has a fool for a Client?"

[Trotbot]

I was interviewed under caution once and wished I had said no comment a few times. The officer was a nasty little bully, and tried to twist everything. Next time I would state facts, including all references to my defence, but refuse to be drawn into childish debates.

I have also interviewed people under caution and been amazed at the unprofessional approach of my co-interviewer, starting off interviews about commercial matters with frankly racist slurs against the interviewee's country of birth.

[FranticTraveller]

Absolutely not! It means you protect yourself by not acknowledging anything that's being put to you, therefore the onus is upon the police/CPS, etc,, to present their case without any dialogue having come directly from you.

Certainly from a human-nature perspective, your interviewer may go away thinking that you're guilty as sin, but that's his problem. You've said virtually nothing that could incriminate you..

Mazel tov!

[birdie1971]

^ “.... It means you protect yourself by not acknowledging anything that's being put to you...”

You cannot 'protect' yourself by saying nothing as this doesn't help your defence. Regardless of the onus of responsibility, it would be extremely foolish for a person not guilty of the crime they were being accused of to give a 'no comment' interview.