[JD6]

Having just watched 24 Hours in Police Custody, it got me wondering when people are arrested and interviewed, why they reply no comment to each question. Why not just say nothing at all and sit there blankly or even close your eyes? Surely that’s going to make the job of the police harder, and they’ll get bored of asking questions more quickly with zero reaction?

I’m particularly interested in the police perspective.

[savgeax]

A no comment interview is quicker. By saying nothing... You have to allow them to sufficient time to speak.... And could indicate they are thinking about it.

[73henny]

Obviously anyone who continues to answer questions like that is guilty. No need for court costs.

[Nobby Clark]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Obviously anyone who continues to answer questions like that is guilty. No need for court costs.

This.

Sadly, I'm not in politics otherwise this would become law.

[chris-c]

As much as it seems cut and dry I had to change my mind on this last year whilst on jury duty.

If you was to just get told a few seconds of the case you'd ALL have thrown the book at this guy. Just looking at him he was guilty of something and there was CCTV evidence of him doing something which the police didnt make him aware of but in his police interview his lawyer told him to answer everything with NO COMMENT.

His lawyer has studied law and knows what is best for his client.

As a jury we unanimously declared NOT GUILTY for the case. He clearly wasn't the sort you'd like to be associated with but the police were totally one sided and all of the evidence cleared the guy.

If he sat there and told you what happened you'd either go "yeah right..." or just say "GUILTY" but when you saw what happened you can see why it happened and that changes everything quickly.

I thought jury duty would be a good skive off work but it made me re-evaluate my views on a number of things.

[Nobby Clark]

Originally Posted by chris-c

His lawyer has studied law and knows what is best for his client.

.

[chris-c]

Originally Posted by Nobby Clark

At no point did I say it was the "right" thing to do just what should be best for his client.

The bonus of our legal system is that everyone gets a "fair trial" which means they get representation that will help them.

I watched a number of interviews and read a fair bit from Shannon Smith around the abuse she got and the personal conflict she had defending her client.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by Nobby Clark

This.

Sadly, I'm not in politics otherwise this would become law.

Guilty until proven innocent?

[Nobby Clark]

Originally Posted by Hooded

Guilty until proven innocent?

I can go with that.

[xenon]

It's a cornerstone of English Law that it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt not for the defendant to prove innocence. Although a jury might draw their own conclusions from a no-comment interview the onus is not on the defendant and nor should it be. The defendant does not have to incriminate himself; that's down to the Crown.

[Kal101]

Originally Posted by xenon

It's a cornerstone of English Law that it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt not for the defendant to prove innocence. Although a jury might draw their own conclusions from a no-comment interview the onus is not on the defendant and nor should it be. The defendant does not have to incriminate himself; that's down to the Crown.

Unless it’s a speeding offence.!!

[xenon]

Originally Posted by Kal027

Unless it’s a speeding offence.!!

Quite so. I think there had to be a special amendment to compel the driver to fill out a form admitting they were driving.

[Nobby Clark]

Originally Posted by Incontinentia Buttocks

Don't be ridiculous. Have you never received a NIP in the post?

Nope.

Originally Posted by xenon

It's a cornerstone of English Law that it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt not for the defendant to prove innocence. Although a jury might draw their own conclusions from a no-comment interview the onus is not on the defendant and nor should it be. The defendant does not have to incriminate himself; that's down to the Crown.

No 5hit sherlock. Perhaps a few more emojis in posts these days.
Besides, I'm governed by Scots law and believe me 95% of Glasgow is guilty.

[xenon]

Originally Posted by Nobby Clark

No 5hit sherlock.

It was pertinent to the OP's question: if it's beneath your intellect I can only apologise.

[chris-c]

Originally Posted by Nobby Clark

Nope.
No 5hit sherlock. Perhaps a few more emojis in posts these days.
Besides, I'm governed by Scots law and believe me 95% of Glasgow is guilty.

Nobby I didnt spot your location. I was going to comment that in the trial I sat on I think we would have taken the third option if it was available to us. The third option is a bit shit though. It's one or the other surely.

I'd have just taken it for the easy way out

[SteveChester]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Obviously anyone who continues to answer questions like that is guilty. No need for court costs.

You could be completely innocent of course, just exercising your legal right of silence.....

[TouringPleb]

Originally Posted by JD6

Having just watched 24 Hours in Police Custody, it got me wondering when people are arrested and interviewed, why they reply no comment to each question. Why not just say nothing at all and sit there blankly or even close your eyes? Surely thatÂ’s going to make the job of the police harder, and theyÂ’ll get bored of asking questions more quickly with zero reaction?

IÂ’m particularly interested in the police perspective.

A good investigator will still ask questions even if it's a no comment interview or they just sit in silence.

I once asked 115 questions during a no comment interview.

[Nobby Clark]

Originally Posted by xenon

It was pertinent to the OP's question: if it's beneath your intellect I can only apologise.

Clearly above your understanding of sarcasm but never mind. No need to get all cocky about it.

Originally Posted by chris-c

Nobby I didnt spot your location. I was going to comment that in the trial I sat on I think we would have taken the third option if it was available to us. The third option is a bit shit though. It's one or the other surely.

I'd have just taken it for the easy way out

I’ve served in the high court and delivered a not proven verdict. While it is, in effect a not guilty verdict, it does basically state “ we know you are guilty but it’s not beyond reasonable doubt.” It allows for a retrial if new evidence comes to light and for that case to be referred to if similar occurrences happen so the accused has to keep his nose very clean.

[73henny]

Originally Posted by Incontinentia Buttocks

You have to make allowance for the Scots. The subtlety sometimes gets lost in the translation. That and their naturally dour demeanor. I blame the weather

Says the bloke from tropical and intellectual Manchester.

Originally Posted by SteveChester

You could be completely innocent of course, just exercising your legal right of silence.....

You could be. But only an innocent nutter would raise suspicion about themselves.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

A good investigator will still ask questions even if it's a no comment interview or they just sit in silence.

I once asked 115 questions during a no comment interview.

Do any of your interviewees say literally nothing, not even ‘no comment’ and perhaps close their eyes and pretend to sleep?

Even in a no comment interview, there must be some value to you in assessing the reaction to your questions? I’m sure you can tell when you’ve hit a nerve. So I wondered why they don’t go completely blank and not interact at all.

[SteveChester]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Says the bloke from tropical and intellectual Manchester.

You could be. But only an innocent nutter would raise suspicion about themselves.

Not really - you don't have to prove your innocence it's the other way around.

[73henny]

Originally Posted by SteveChester

Not really - you don't have to prove your innocence it's the other way around.

I'm well aware of that. But you'd have to be deluded to say 'no comment' when the question was 'where were you at 10pm on .....?', and the actual answer 'I was 100 miles away with x number of people who can vouch for me'