Hello and welcome to this webinar presentation on behalf of Data Law. My name is Colin Beaumont. On this essentially is number fun. You of a series of six webinars each an hour long in relation to advising suspects at the peace stage in strange, I've tried to give each particular weapon are a thema. I don't know whether or not you've seen the previous fall yet in the series, I can tell you that the 1st 1 at the theme was in relation to the gathering of information have lost you at the police station. The theme of the 2nd 1 was in relation to adverse influences. The theme for the 3rd 1 was samples on the theme for the 4th 1 was advising clients in relation to sexual offenses. The theme of this particular hour long webinar is the interview obviously a very important part or advising clients at the police station stage. So let's have a look at slide number two Now I'm sure you would, but of course, you must take your client through the procedure at the interview in your pre interview consultation clearly let him or no the actual format. At the interview, I let him or know what's going to happen to young tapes or the DVD, whatever it is. Once the interview has finished, I don't know whether or not this interview is going to be visually recorded as well as audio recorded. No doubt that something you find out and that your client know in advance on inform your client if he or she had never bean in the peace station before that you will be with them throughout the interview. It's a very small point, but it's a very important point. I remember missing it out once on the client said to me rather anxiously, Will you be there with me, Mr. Both sitting obvious point to forget. Obviously, introduce yourself and you would explain your legal qualifications. Another important point. Do let your client no. In the pre interview consultation that the right to stop an interview rests with either your client. Call the police. You, as the legal adviser, have no right to stop an interview. No doubt if you wanted to talk to your client in private, you would ask for the interview to be stopped. But you're right. Under the case of practice, Mr Call for the interview to be suspended and in order that you give your client some further legal advice in private, the client being entitled to receive legal advice from you in private. So again, it's a small but important point. Impress upon the client. If you're asking for the interview to be suspended because you want to give your client some legal advice than the client should ask for the interview to be stopped, you might want to practise some interview questions in the event off, agreeing in advance that it will be no comment. It depends. Obviously, every time is different. If you're dealing with an own client of the firm who's well versed in interview techniques, you don't need to spend it'll for a lot of time on it. We've all had trying to upset with what I never talked to the peace. Do I? We don't They don't so they could be good as gold, don't they? In a no comment interview, of course, at the opposite end of the spectrum you might be there is the police station Dukie, solicitor with a client who has never been in trouble in her life before. She's as nervous as hell that you might as it were. Want to do some practice before the interview starts in relation to know comment. Obviously, you explain the caution in full your break it down. You don't have to say anything you don't. You can go no comment toe all of their questions if you want to. But of course, it may harm your defence on. We'll look a influences later during this particular webinar, the final part of the caution. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Of course, meaning that the tape may be played include Now it's a matter for the client is to when they want to have their first no comment. You know, the school where, nor were normally all asked to identify ourselves are we know that the client is then given the caution there. Asked whether not they understand it, they might be more than happy to say yes. I fully understand the ocean and thereafter to go. No comment. Do every question that's put. If you've got a particularly nervous client, you might once he or she has said yes, they understand the course in it. That's what they want to say. You might at that stage say something like this will now be a no comment interview. I hope you will respect my client's decision to go. No comment. Gosh, I can't think of a clearer signal to a client in the interview that from that point onwards, your expectation is that they dive old. Nothing apart from it's like doing. Sometimes I find it very difficult to go. No comment. You could that if you your judgment call. That's where you're being faint. The fact that you are to go yes, hollowed after it is allowed, some clients find it very difficult to go. No comment. You could suggest that they all knew you could suggest that they go in there on they say nothing at all. You could suggest that they don't even look at the police, who are asking the questions that they look at the ceiling, that they look at the floor that they look atyou on. Go mute from the very beginning. It's a bit disconcerting for the police. I suppose. It's been unearthing. They're gonna ask your client out there. Do you understand the corpse? Your will? If they're Butte, I don't want to say anything all day. We know what will entail. Don't weigh. The officer would spend the next 10 minutes explaining in some detail the nature. The corps. Soon the officer will probably ask you, as the legal families are. Have you explained the caution to your client in consultation? Does your client fully understand the caution to which the standard responses are? Officer, It's not for me. Is it to die? Vote. What took place during me on my client in private concentration. In a case of conspiracy, being mute might be a very good idea. You do not know, do you? How long the police have had him on her and all the others are under surveillance. You feel idea of knowing whether we'll know the cars of being the subject of bugging whether or not the houses have bean the subject of bugging. You do not know whether or not they have lots and lots and lots of tapes with all the voices of these people on them. Of course, if you're playing, start talking in the interview, even though it's merely no comment or yes, I do understand the caution you're now laying your voice down in the interview you're giving something that for an expert to, as it were, have a listen to the interview, have a listen to the tapes and then given opinion as to whether or not it is indeed the same voice that's being used. Always something to think about. Is anything conspiracy. There's a lot to be said for going view. You might have something worth saying. Well, if you've got something worth saying, you could always like it down on Read it out as a pre prepared state. Good idea to tell the client in advance what you can and cannot do for them in the interview. You can't answer the questions on their behalf we can. I think it's a great shame, really. How much easier life would be if we could answer those questions because we know the nuances and the niceties of Giresse and self defense and consent was, of course, the decline doesn't you can't write the answers down for them to read out. Gosh, I could accused of doing that once because I was writing and see no comment before the client had actually said no comment, said the opposite told me off in the interview when I said, I apologize, Officer. I should wait my client to give the appropriate no comment response. People writing N. C in my notes. Stifel. It's just remind ourselves what our goal leaves at the police station. And of course, it's the vote in the interviewers for help. Our role at the police station is to protect and advance the legal rights of the client on the coast of practice. Acknowledge that this may in bowl advising the client, not toe. Answer the questions. You're perfectly entitled in advance of the interview toe. Advise the client. Look, you have nothing worth saving. You may welcome. No comment. Tow away the questions that particularly so answering their questions strengthens the prosecution case against your client. Gosh, he or she could strengthen the prosecution case against them without you being there, your phone is to protect and advance the legal rights on occasion. This would involve with we don't know, advising the client no to talk at war. Or if purity is talking. You can always advise the client during the currency of the interview. No, to answer particular questions. Yeah, you can continue to advise your client, even though the interview is taking place. If you don't consider it to be inappropriate question, you can turn to your client and say, I'm advising you now not to answer that particular question. The response if you don't want want so it is no comment, and you couldn't do that a number of kinds during an interview. The police don't particularly like it, but what can I say? Your role is to protect and advance the legal rights of your time. No. You, of course, may into you if you want to seek clarification during the interview of the questions that are being put. But think carefully. Do you want clarification? Do you want obfuscation? Instead, go if a number of questions have rolled up and your clients if he says no or yes, sometimes that's absolutely fine by me because it's a poor interview on the poor. The interview, the work more worthless. It is as an evidential documents. Yeah, so sometimes you don't want clarity. You want obscurity. You may intervene in order to challenge on improper question to you apply humane to be in order to challenge the manner in which the questions are being. I'm sure you know these things. They're all set out for you in code C. Notes for guidance. Six D. Yeah, this is a true story. A chap once came up to me and said, Hmm, I think I got an interview wrong recently and I said Why? He said, Well, what happened? Waas. I had a lengthy consultation with the client, tried to the interviews, starting which was fantastic. But there I wanted to advise the client further. During the actual interview on, the officer said, No, shut up, you had your turn. It's now miter to put the questions to your plane. Maccido. Interesting. What did you do? And he said, Well, I'll be honest. He said I wasn't really sure what my position Waas So I didn't really say anything much after that. Well, what can I say? At least he had the courage to make that admission to it to me. I directed him to Cove. See notes for guidance. Six D. It sets out in some detail what you can and cannot do for a client whilst in interview, we've all got to learn it's not right. You may advise your client during the interview not to answer particular questions you may give your client but the legal fund ex during the interview If you want to, you may wish for the interview to be suspended in order that you can give your client some advice. He private Remember your client has a right to receive advice from his lawyer in private. Under pace, I think off the top of my head, it's sexual. 58. You may be advising the client not to talk about his character in the interview. You might be advising the client, not talk about matters what you deem to be here say, Let's take the character first. If they want to start talking to your client about his previous convictions, do you think he should be talking about his previous convictions in the interview? I personally don't if you look at coat see again in some cope c 11.1 a. The interview is, of course, in relation to a constable questioning a suspect about their involvement or suspected involvement in Anna Bends. In other words, it's an opportunity for the police toe put their case to the client. It's not really an opportunity for the police to talk about his previous convictions And so you might well be advising a client when he's asked anything about previous convictions during the currency of the interview. There'd be nothing wrong with you. Say I'm advising you now Know to answer that particular question, I don't think your convictions such as they are, are relevant to the matter in hand. The officer, major and man is so with his mind interview. I'll ask that question as many times as I like. To which my response would be officer. Of course, you may ask it as many times as you like. I will give the same advice to my client during the currency of this interview. Every time you ask that question, What about hear, Say, Well, it may well be that I don't know. It's body cam 40 which we know is here. Say the substance may well consistent Kylie of body cam footage because the complainant hasn't made a formal statement in the proceedings and will therefore no be a witness. The only witnesses at world, of course, be the police officers in the case. Now, it seems to me that in this current climate, the cold her likely to receive that evidence anyway even though it is hearsay, it's still admissible under the Criminal Justice Act at 2003. Section 1141 D See also section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. So even though intellectually you know that it's hear, say, so what if the client has something worth saying in relation to it than the client should be advised to say it. He might dispute the contents off the body cam footage. So I take so having gone through the things that we are are permitted to do for our clients and interview, let's dwell for a little while, shall we? On the things which are no nos, you may not engage in unacceptable conduct during the interview and examples of unacceptable conduct or set out under the sea answering questions on the suspect behalf. Well, I'm sure you wouldn't providing written replies for the suspect to quote, but again, I'm sure you wouldn't. The officers must be allowed to put proper questions to your client. You should know, interrupt an officer who is trying to put a question apart from anything else. It is roomed. Don't talk when the office is a talking. If you do the whole thing, he's gonna get completely out of hand. Allow the question to be put. There's nothing wrong with turning to your client afterwards. The question having Bean put on advising him not to answer it. And you can do that as many times as you like during mean tonight. Seven. You should really interrupt a client who's trying toe. Answer a question of sure. I'm sure you probably be guilty at that. That doesn't knowing police officers, doesn't it? When your client is trying to answer, but you're not letting them, you're talking over them and advising them further to go. No comment. I don't know why they're trying to answer the question. It was agreed before this interview started that he would go No comment. No. Should you discreetly kick your client under the table when he or she has decided? Toe answer. Question it. Having Bean agreed beforehand that this would be you call me now. Is this conduct that I myself have ever indulged? A. Well, there's a lawyer's answer to that. No comment. Interviews get out of hand when everyone is talking at the same time, but from anything else, it is rude to talk over people. The officer must be allowed to put the question. You are allowed to advise that the answer from the client is no comment. But of course, the word no comment must come from your plane. I know you. Please peace, Please. This is important. This is very important. Remember, come across as being reasonable in the interview. You are deemed to be a lawyer in the police station, and you should behave as one. You may think you may think, join a piece station, but you know it's worth while remembering his name because everyone else may have concocted. But when you enter the interview room, you are in cold. That interview may be played in full to the judge and jury being full to a district judge or in all to the bench of Magistrates. Clearly, if it's, um, it's visually recorded as well, not only are you going to be concerned with what you say, how we used a ball you are saying in, but you're going to be concerned about your demeanor on the demeanor of the client. So, please, if the penny hadn't dropped before, can we hear it hit the floor. Now when you go into that interview room, you're in court. How much better if you and your client come across as being entirely reasonable during the interview? The more so if the officers of coming across as rather unreasonable in the interview at night are you minded to intervene when the officers are belittling your client's account? Because I know I would. Are you minded to intervene when your client is successfully? No commenting. The interview, for my view, for what it's worth, is no. I would not intervene. You wouldn't have a big out of May. For this reason, no comment is something of a mantra. The first no comment. It's the most difficult, the king easier than the first, the 20th easier than the 10. I think I'd be tempted to let all back behavior assuming, of course, the client was coping well with his no comic interview. I'd be tempted to allow the state of affairs to continue. Obviously, you've got to make contact with decline. We the body language of decline that the clients quite happy with is no comment interview. It's not something I'm going to interrupt that question. Maybe put for the sixth time. Will I say, Officer, you've asked that question six times at No. One. My client, he's just Well, I want him to be. He's no commenting the interview Quite fine play. I don't care how many questions how many times they put the same question. I do care if my client is answering their questions on and they're trying to frame the same question or be in a slightly different way with a view to eliciting a different answer. That's when you intervene. You say, Well, hold on it, Sir, you put that question to my client and these aren't said it already. Can we move on? Well, I don't think I have, and I intend to put that question a different way. Well, you can put that question a different way, Officer. Let's see how we go. I might be advising him not to answer your amended question. He having dealt with it already? Bullets. Let's press on office. It see, How is this being proactive in an interview When it is, um, is it a good thing? Well, sometimes it's a necessary thing to be proactive in interview, but do do be careful, not to go own titi. Yeah, do be careful to be reasonable, even though sometimes you're called upon to be a little bit more proactive than perhaps you like May I always liked a bit of a quiet nice in the interview. Now, if you're proactive, responses in the interview continue. Offices may threaten to exclude you. Dealt with code C. Pablo 6.9. Yeah, What's the threshold test? Who, excluding legal adviser from an interview? Well, no, unsurprisingly, it's pretty high. The case is it. The officers are unable properly to put questions to the suspect. Well, clearly, they are properly able to put questions to the suspect because you are allowing the questions to people. You are simply on occasion, presumably reminding the client off his right to silence all advising the client not to answer particular questions during the currency of the interview. So, even though you'll be threatened with exclusion most of the time, this test will not have Bean remember what the Court of Appeal said. In the very famous case of Miller, they said it is an exacting duty to represent clients at the police station. On it is a duty which the court of appeal. Expect the legal adviser to discharge Courageous laid courage is required. And if you don't have the relevant amount of courage Well, think carefully about getting involved in advising clients in serious matters at the police station. Slight 11. If it really gets out of hand, the officer will stop the interview. This is the code of practice. Come see. The officer should consult on Officer No below the rank of superintendent if the superintendent is readily available otherwise on Officer, not below the rank off, Inspector. Now the officer who is consulted will have the final decision on the matter as to whether or not you are excluded. And you should be allowed to make representation zones to that particular officer on the point off whether or not you are to be executed. No. If you're ever confronted with this situation, why not consider the following? Yeah, inviting the officer to listen to the interview thus far on the former view as to whether or not you cross the red line. Have you crossed the Rubicon? Are you really doing things that you are not permitted to do for a client? During the interview? I suspect you're probably known. Oh, well, both you can invite your officer to listen to the interview. You could also invite the officer to sit in on the actual interview itself when it re commences. So there you are. Something to think about. Okay, lets sir turn now to slide number 12. I'm sure that many legal advisers over the years have been threatened with exclusion, and I'm equally certain that very few have actually being excluded. This is a power game that's being played out, Noting easy is it. It's two o'clock in the morning. You're on your own. There's no one to call the officers of Big, Difficult client. Is it the easiest of people to deal with? Um, sometimes life at the peace station is quite exactly the movement is a serious step. The suspect should be given the opportunity to have another solicitor, another legal adviser from your firm. It's an important boy, isn't it? It's not the Your client is being denied access to legal advice. He or she can have a lawyer. They just can't have you. Why? Because a decision has been taken that you might could be removed from the interview, and you will play no further part in the proceeding where the officer on Dusty some lead that removal is required. Then a superintendent or above should consider at sending a report to the solicitors at regulation authority on due to the legal aid agency. And assuming I assume that you're I presume that you're dealing with a alleviated client site. 30 the client has a right toe. Have you present during the interview? So 99.9% of the time that right is going to be allowed on. You will be present with your client during the interview. He is a very important right and can therefore only be denied a client in the most exceptional of circumstances that those off set out in Annex B or Code C delay it, allowing access to legal advice. If the interview takes place without a lawyer being present, would you believe the old caution applies? There can be no adverse inferences from such an interview. It's going to be very rare for someone to invoke Annex B or C. Essentially, it's someone of the rank of superintendent, all who has taken the view that access should be denied to a named solicitor or a named legal adviser for a period not exceeding 36 hours. He client having me arrested on being detained in respect, haven't indicted matter. Now what do the concerns of the superintendent? Well, they listed in Annex B. The superintendent may have concerns that other people still at large that might be notified if that named lawyer were allowed to come and deal with the matter at the police station. All he, she contended, his concern that evidence that make up missing if that named lawyer is invited into the police station to deal with the matter Now the code dust say that this may happen through inadvertence on the part of the solicitor, but I suspect that as far as the piece of concern, it's not really he had Burt. It's easy, each some sort of collusion between that particular lawyer in that particular client. They will. It's going to be too many exception. I would have thought that the superintendent takes the view that the lawyer named on the client are in some way going to collude earned one with one another in some sort of them act designed to pervert the course of justice. If the client somewhat unusually, is interviewed. Whilst the solicitor has Bean denied access, then there can be no adverse inferences from sitting interview. Contrast this with the client changing his mind. Gosh, a much more familiar tale dealt with in code C parable 6.50. It's all being set up. You had a chap with the client go with the phone. He's agreed, like a good to wait for you. But of course, what happens? You get there with police station and he's already got into the interview Without you. In those circumstances, come see. Parable 15 says that your client should be informed that you have arrived at the station and are willing to represent him if that's what he wants. A slight 14 a se He may have a change of heart. If you're on the phone, who, then there's no duty on the part of the police to tell your plane that your arm, the vote unit and that you want to talk to him? So if you're on the phone he might wear have gone into the interview on, the police are not even going to interrupt that interview and let your client know that you're there ringing the station. If you look a TKO, see six point bean. The crucial words are a part of viability station, so the code is only of use to the client. If you're physically at the station, you know. So in no circumstances the client should be involved, that you're there and you're willing to represent him. Even if he's being interviewed at the time, the interview should be interrupted and your client informed that you are there and you are willing to represent him. Gosh, sometimes your client may wish to carry on and see you often. Interview has finished. Yes, my heart was sick. If the police officer smiled at me and said, Yes, we had a word with Mr He's decided to carry on in the interview now without you. Here, have a word with you. Went to finished. Here's what sort of damage you're doing to yourself, Luke or Wayne in the interview. What are you saying? That perhaps you shouldn't be saying your dwelling house burglar. I hope you're not making admissions. Basically three strikes mandatory minimum sentence. Three years. The evil that's clients will use me a much rather the client in the world. That's day two. Yes, we better. We better stop the interview. I think I really would have work Mr Beaumont before we go on any side. 15 Opening statements, Classic opening statements in an interview on opening statement about the inadequacy of the disclosure trying to the interview. Starting. Yes, you might have Bean given little or nothing by way of disclosure in the matter. In those circumstances, I think it's probably fair that you might want Talita whinge at the opening of the interview as he poppy. Sir, I don't think you've given may sufficient an adequate disclosure. I don't think you've given me sufficient information upon which to advise my client properly. Now, whilst the tape is playing with DVD or whatever it is, whilst it's running, shall we just put on the record, please? What little information you have given me in relation to this won't take very no, will it? And then you can. If you want to just relay at the information that's being provided to you thus far, no doubt your client is being set up to go. No comment, No comment, no comment, no comment, no comment, because you want to learn about the disclosure during the currency of the interview. But there's nothing wrong with that. If you've not been given sufficient, inadequate disclosure that matter if you can't advise your client as to whether to talk. No, I don't see why he should be talking in that first interview. No comment, No comment, no comment. Keep your powder dry. Find out what display view is. You can always have another chat. Once you've got your disclose, your no need to interrupt that interview. Let the interview go on, Get me Disclosure. Have another chat with decline. If he's got something worth saying, you can always call for another interview and he could lay down his defense if he wants. Gosh, it the piece Say no, you can't have an interview. You could always draft the written statement and read it out in the event giving charged. How about an opening statement about your clients? Unfitness for running to you? Well, yes, that might be a good idea on occasion. Something like, I don't think this interview should be taking place. I didn't think my client his fate in the interview. I don't think my client will understand or appreciate the significance of his answers. I don't think my client will understand the questions you are going to put to him during this interview on Bond. For good measure, I don't think my client will ever, ever. I understand your caution. That's a decent opening statement. Is Newt? Remember? You're not going to be able to prevent the interview taking place. Are you all you're doing there by making that opening statement about your clients? Unfitness for the interview is, of course, setting the groundwork, possibly for an application for exclusion of the admissions that it going to be made during the interview when the matter is accord evidence unfairly obtained or compressions unfairly obtained. C sections 76 78 of Pace. Does it say you're not going to be able to prevent me to you taking place? Nor are you going to be able to prevent the client from talking if you she is unfit people. You are unfit in my experience. 10 to 2. They don't tend to be able to cope with no comic interviews. No, whose decision is it as to whether or not an interview is going to take place? Well, of course, it's the police who will make that by decision. No doubt your client has been seen by the doctor by the FMI. Who's declared your client fictive, detained and 15 interviewed Well, that they've taken that you an interview will take place. Comb E all you're doing with your opening statement there is building something. It's not 60 no harm in making an opening statement, but do be careful not to go overboard on there by way, legal professional privilege. The case to read in this particular area is the case of bounder. Google it. If you want to have enough show, do not give a reason in the interview as to why your client is going. No comment, please. Even if that reason is as slim as the inadequacy of the disclosure about his authority for the proposition that any reason given in the interview may well wave legal profession. Now the reason may inadvertently be given by you or your client. Just so we understand the point. If you were to say interview, this will be a no comment interview. Please respect that that will not wave legal professional privilege. If your client were to say, I'm going no comment on the advice of my brief that will not wave Negro College, bounding tells, is that you've got to do something more to lift the veil of privilege. You've actually got to go into the INS announce of what advice was given by the lawyer in private consultation on, and why was the advice accepted? Let me give you an example. If you were to say something like my clients get, have no comment interview. There are other people still at large, and he's worried what they might do to him if he talks in this interview. In those circumstances, I would say you have most certainly wave or lifted legal professional privilege. It would equally be true if you're kind of said something like this in the interview. Well, I'm gonna go. No comment. My lawyers told me there's no evidence against me toe. He can't even understand why I've being arrested. You can't even understand why I'm a suspect. And on that basis I'm going to accept its advice, and I'm going to go No common. I'm not answering any of your questions again. Can you see how you've now given a reason as to why the no comment interview is taking place on such a reason they wave legal privilege. Now. What happens if legal privilege is waived? Well, it simply means, of course, that trialling the defendant can be cross examined or that part of the police station consultation, which would otherwise remain private. That part of the consultation in which the advice was given to have a no comment interview, a mere assertion by your plane that he's going going on legal advice is okay. The legal If I the same to an interview, no comment on my advice. It's OK. It's a giving of a reason that may inadvertently wave legal privilege. So don't do eat having a whinge about the inadequacy of the disclosure if you want to get your clients set up. Daddy. No comment interview. But don't link the two Commenting on your client's demeanor in the interview will not waive privilege. You could say my client does not look well. My client is clearly distress. My client is very cheerful. None of that waves legal professional privilege on. And even if legal professional privilege is way believed, we have the case of Aural Seaton that's s E. A T O N, which is authority for the proposition that even if privileges weighed, it doesn't open up all communications between the lawyer and the client. It doesn't even open up the whole at the police station consultation. But it does open up that little part in which the lawyer had bunnies. The client on the reason why the lawyer advise the client on the reason why the client chose to accept the lawyer's advice to go? No. If you start airing things like that in an interview or airing things like that during the trial, expect the prosecutor to be able to question your client further opponent, as the Court of Appeal have said, You can't have your cake and eat it. You either opening or lift being the veil. Slight 18. The interview. Continue. What to do when your client starts talking. He having agreed to go no comment way Different people do different things. It may be that you've agreed to go no comment because your client has nothing worth saying. So you've set him up nicely, but no comment interview, But he's now talking. But what is he doing in talking? Is he saying he didn't do it because, of course, if he's saying you didn't do it, that might be problematic, because you might have advised him to go. No comment, because he made admissions to you and you didn't think there was any benefit in him making those admissions to the police. When he starts talking and saying he didn't do it, that might be problematic. You might, as it were, have to get him out. Tell him about your professional difficulty and you might have to leave him. It might be that he's just nervous. And he's answered one question. Now you could turn to him in the interview you like and say You've always said that question. Do you want to answer their questions? You can answer that questions if you want to. If you don't want to answer their questions. The responses. No comment that might green back on track with a no comment interview. He might answer the next question, in which case you might turn around and say, You've answered that question as well. Do you want to answer their questions if you don't want to answer their questions? The response is no comment. Show ever break, kill you and I have another chat. Don't be too hard on the blind. Obviously, you're she may simply be nervous just very Occasionally you'll get the client starts talking and you get having a agreed that you will go no comment on then he doesn't want to break because the police tactically turned to you, applying to say, Well, it's your interview is and did Do you want it stopped or do you want to carry on? Well, if the client says, Well, oh, Cariou, my view is you can't stop them talking. They're probably talking to their debt. Truman. They might be saying things as it were by way of admissions that you don't think they should be making you much. Rather, you had a break on, got your client back on board with no comment interview. But what can you do? I won't leave such a client. He's no acting in his best interest, but it's his choice. Have raised him to go home, and he wants to stop making admissions in the interview. To his detriment. That's a matter for him would have toe pick it up as best we can. Once the interview finish slide. 19. What to do when you plant refuses to talk in the interview and has a defense? Well, obviously, you've got to deal with the adverse influences point with him. No need to fall out with the client. He might have perfectly good reasons for not wanting to talk to the peace. Get him to sign on endorsement of your notes. His choice not to put his defense you could consider, couldn't you as a middle powerful, most grafting a written statement setting out the basis of his defense, which he could read on a lie you could read at the beginning or the end of the interview. And I say at the end of the interview, just because you've drafted a written statement which might be a jolly good idea if you're happy with disclosure and he's got a decent defense and you think he should be talking, but it doesn't want to. But there's no army reading out a statement setting out his defense. Would you really doubt beginning, or would you read it out at the end when read it out at the beginning? If you want to your mind, you might just want to check that the police haven't kept anything back, which might materially conflict with the client's account. In the statement, if you're worried that they might have kept something back, I see no reason why you shouldn't as it were. Hold on, hold fast on. Read that statement out at the very end of the interview if you want to. Oh gosh, you might have read it out because things may come out during the interview, which materially conflict with the contents of your written statement. Whatever word about the adverse inferences shell way, he or she is deciding not to put their defense when you think they've got a jolly good defense and all to put its Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Adverse inferences may be cool where your climb relies upon back six as part of his defensive trial. Those facts that were known to him at the time when he was interviewed, which, for reasons best known to himself, he chose not to mention at first inferences may be drawn in the sense off the court may say to it so. Well, if this is the truth, why didn't he say this to the peace when he was interviewed. It may be that this is something he's had time to think about between the time being interviewed on the time of his trial. It may be something which he was not willing, tohave, scrutinised or questioned upon at that very early stage in the investigation, in which case the court may simply decide that the defense is less believable. Less plausible. I suppose that's what's meant by drawing an adverse influence. Section 36 of course, of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That's the special warning section in relation to objects, substances or marks at those objects, substances or marks being found Onley suspect at the point of arrests or near the suspect at the point of arrest. As we know, we call it a special warning section. Don't way account account for these car keys with three found in the bushes. But we say you were trying the car handles of doors account for the blood on your T shirt. We say it's the blood of the victim. You blast. If it's not. Now, you try to tell us who's bloody seed account for this balaclava, but what have you got a bannock lover in the height of summer on gloves. Why have you got a Stanley knife? Why have you got a tall You got this thing? Thank you. 2nd 37 That equipment of Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That, of course, a gay in Just likes 18 36 requires an arrest. It's a special warning section account in this interview for your presence, Attal near the scene of the crime. What were you doing in the street adjacent to a Keisha Avenue at four AM in the morning when one of the houses in the occasion street had been burgled? We think that you were there because you were trying to burgle all that house or indeed, with others had burgled the house. Of course, it's going to be that much worse for the client. I would have thought if he or she has property on them at the subject of the burglary, because then you're going to get special warning not only under section 37 but under section 30 six. I take the point. You can't have special warnings unless your client was arrested at or near the scene of the crime or arrested, and he's now being asked to account for objects. Substances hallmarks. They both require an arrest. Section 34 does not. But while the rest Section 34 course is an adverse influence from a failure to mention, in fact, and it doesn't matter that he's a volunteer at the P Station today on was never arrested in the incident. Now what does the client want to do? Well, that's really a matter of a client. Didn't live. If the guy has got nothing worth saying that it really doesn't matter whether it's a question under Section 34 35 or 34 36 or 37 it's just know nothing worth saying no. Yeah, what you could do is answer or of the questions if you want to. You could answer none of the questions if you want to, and deal with matter by means of a pre prepared step. Doesn't seem to me to be the only three viable options in a piece station. Finally slide 21. Save me from the client. He wants to answer some, but no, a lot of the questions. Those interviews are just a gimmick mare and they play out really badly in cool. So don't go there. Save me from the client. He wants to come clean. Give his identity in the interview and dozen. God, don't never get there, will you? Don't go into the interview if your client is given bolts details without your client. Firstly, having given his true details to the peace save Me from the client starts lying to the peace in the interview, he having made full admissions to me, I would consider myself to be professionally embarrassed. I would call for the interview to be suspended. I would have a chat with my client and I would leave. But I would, of course, inform him that he did have a right toe. Another lawyer, not the same firm. Obviously, on that, he really you're not to go back into the interview without a lawyer being present. Some ways don't do that. Some lawyers wait until the interview is concluded in its entirety, and then they leave at the end of the interview. No telling the peace while they go. Well, if that's the camp you want, you want to go into that absolutely save me from the client wants to admit it just to get a call shown? No, I don't know. I need to get a course. And if you didn't do it, tell the police you didn't do it. That course you might come back to haunt you in due course. By way. Bad character Save Me from the client wants to give a false impression of himself in the interview. Saved me from the client who starts attacking the character of someone else in the interview. Both of those, of course, may lead. Do the crown making a successful application toe. Have your clients that character for part of the try. Well, there you are. We've come to the end of the hour on we've come to Webinar number five. There's only one that further webinar to watch. So all that remains of the moment is to me to thank you on behalf of data Law for being with me for the last hour. Hope you've enjoyed it. Hope it's useful. I look forward to your company again in the near future. Or webinar number six. Thank you
00:59:29
