YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN

SILENT...
A Guide to (Not) Talking to the Police
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRO! 5

1. REASONS NOT TO TALK TO THE POLICE! 6

WHO DO THE POLICE WORK FOR?! 6

YOU DON’T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE! 8

THE MORE YOU TALK, THE MORE YOU RISK! 9

YOU CANNOT TALK YOURSELF OUT OF AN ARREST! 10

YOUR WORDS AS INTEL! 11

2. YOUR SILENCE WHEN THE POLICE STOP YOU! 13

STOP AND ACCOUNT! 13

STOP AND SEARCH! 14

SILENCE WHEN DEALING WITH PCSOs! 15

STOPPED IN A VEHICLE! 16

3. SILENCE AFTER ARREST! 17

YOUR RIGHT TO DECLINE AN INTERVIEW! 17

CAN YOUR SILENCE BE USED AGAINST YOU?! 18

SILENCE Vs WRITTEN STATEMENT! 20

COMMENT OR NO COMMENT?! 21

THE POLICE CAN’T FORCE YOU TO TALK! 22

THE POLICE MUST NOT LIE TO YOU! 23

SELF-INCRIMINATION! 24

4. EVEN WHEN REPORTING CRIME, SAY LITTLE! 25

5. HOW TO (NOT) TALK TO THE POLICE: A SUMMARY! 26

CHOOSE YOUR SILENCE WISELY! 26
 3

6. TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE! 27

ABOUT CRIMEBODGE! 28

REFERENCES! 29
Case Law! 29

Police Code of Conduct! 31

 4

“Silence is the ultimate weapon of power.”

Charles de Gaulle

“Silence is true wisdom’s best reply.”

Euripides

! "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not
! mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court"

Police Caution
 5

INTRO

Understanding the law, even the basics, is a form of self-defence. Possibly

the most important self-defence there is. However, until basic law is taught
as mandatory in our schools, it is upon the public to educate themselves on
what to do when it comes to encountering and ‘surviving’ the police.

Over the years I have written hundreds of articles on the subject - both
humorous and informative - for the CRIMEBODGE website. In this Ebook I
expand on one of the most vital and commonly misunderstood aspects of
dealing with the police: Your right to silence.

In compiling this document I have strived to ensure that all the information
within it is accurate and up to date. Wherever practical I avoid using complex
legal jargon, and instead of quoting swathes of legislation I keep a basic list
of the most relevant sources for the back of the book. All of which I would
encourage you to read and research for yourself. (See Reference)

Everything contained within this work is written in good faith, with the
intention of helping the reader get a more comprehensive grasp on their
right to silence, particularly as it applies to British law. I do not advocate
criminality of any kind, nor suggest that the information contained within
should be used to help the lawless evade detection or defeat justice. Nor
would I ever knowingly mislead, misinform or impart irresponsible advice.

All I would ask is that you apply your own discretion and common sense to
any situation that may involve exercising the advice outlined here.

Other than that, I would invite you to visit the CRIMEBODGE website where
we are always happy to amuse, entertain, inform and assist.

Rob. W
Crimebodge.com

© Content and artwork by Rob.W (2014)

 6

1. REASONS NOT TO TALK TO THE POLICE

Whatever the circumstances, encountering and communicating with the

police can be as daunting as it is unavoidable. What should or shouldn’t we
say when speaking with them?

After all, they only want to hear our side of the story so they can catch the
bad guys right? And surely only those with something to hide would refuse to
speak to the police? Besides, if you DON’T answer their questions couldn’t
you land yourself in greater trouble if the matter went to court?

However, as far as practical advice goes, not only does it pay to say very little
when encountering the police, in some cases it pays to say nothing at all...

WHO DO THE POLICE WORK FOR?

The police were first established by Robert Peel in 1829 as a law enforcement
agency working strictly with the consent of the people.

Today however such a concept seems quaint.

Ask any serving officer who it is they work for, and you’re almost certain to
get the same answer each time:-

The government.

And regardless of any fanciful notion of democracy or voter’s rights, the

government is most certainly NOT the people.

It is politicians who control the police through agenda and targets.

Agenda set down by the government is predominantly populist, dictated by

the whims of mainstream media and political fashion. They are rarely issues
that affect us all and are instead issues that we are told matter most: Such as
racism, domestic abuse, gay rights, religious intolerance, etc.

The police’s effectiveness at tackling agenda is communicated through their

targets. Targets that are also determined by politicians: such as crime rate,
arrest rate, conviction rate and so on.
 7

Agenda and targets are the chief motivating factors of every police force in
the UK. And it is through arrest, prosecution and detection that the police
fulfill their statutory requirements. In other words, their function is to find
the guilty, not detect the innocent.

It is an inescapable fact that a police officer’s allegiance is to the government

and that his proficiency is determined almost exclusively by his ability to
make arrests that lead to successful prosecutions. Without this, his job,
reputation and career are at threat.

Therefore, it stands to reason, that whenever the police engage with

members of the public, their primary reason for doing so - either directly or
indirectly - is to help them make arrests.

And therefore, no matter what you say, no matter how above suspicion you
may think you are, the police will not be listening to you to determine your
innocence, but quite simply to determine your guilt.

Which is why it pays to be guarded over every word you utter...

 8

YOU DON’T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE

We are social creatures at heart and most of us feel an automatic urge to

explain ourselves, especially when we feel we have been misjudged, or
wrongly accused.

However, when it comes to the police, their default stance is nearly always
that of skepticism or just outright suspicion. Hardly surprising when so much
of what they hear on a daily basis is one-sided at best or outright lies at
worst.

But contrary to your fundamental rights the police tend to presume guilt
before innocence and expect people to explain themselves when confronted.

It is not for you to prove your innocence. It is up to the police to prove your
guilt.

Explaining yourself to the police can often be both fruitless and counter-
productive. The more you try to convince them of your innocence, the more
likely it is they will assume you have something to hide.

Don’t ever succumb to police insistence that you ‘explain yourself’. Especially
if you feel intimidated or nervous. Under pressure it’s very easy to have a
lapse of memory or make a slip of the tongue, which could result in you
saying something which sounds like a lie, or is mistaken for an admission of
guilt.

The more uncomfortable you feel in the presence of the police, then the less
you should say. Especially when you have not been given the opportunity to
speak to a legal representative beforehand.
 9

THE MORE YOU TALK, THE MORE YOU RISK

Think about it...

The police arrive at a scene and suspect you of having done wrong. They ask
just a few casual questions and you do your utmost to convince them of your
honesty.

You believe in that police maxim: ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have
nothing to fear.' So you bombard them with facts, justification and back
story, all the while protesting your innocence.

The police meanwhile stand there and nod, maybe jotting down a few key
facts into their notebooks.

Then, later on, back at the station they have to fill in their report. Now it
comes time to remember what you said, and the problem is that there is a lot
of it. So much in fact that the police just jot down what they consider to be
the most important aspects of your verbal statement.

The problem is, they heard so much, it’s difficult to recall precisely what was
said. So, they write down what THEY THINK THEY HEARD. After all if you said
so much it’s not likely YOU will remember much of it either. And what they
can’t correctly recall they are willing to guess at.

And if several officers choose to ‘pool’ their unreliable memory of the event,
before long you may find words and phrases attributed to yourself that you
did not say.

So make it easy on yourself from the start. The more you say, the more there
is for the police to get wrong, forget or alter. And your silence - although
difficult to maintain from the outset - may prove to be your strongest
defence later.
 10

YOU CANNOT TALK YOURSELF OUT OF AN ARREST

If the police approach you with a reasonable suspicion that you have broken
the law, they will arrest you plain and simple. They won’t be interested in
hearing your side of the story with an open mind or a sympathetic ear. If they
are still listening to you it’s probably because they don’t have enough
evidence to make an arrest. Yet.

Never make the naive assumption that you can reason or bargain with the
police. It doesn’t matter how friendly you appear, how much you cooperate,
or how honest you think you are being the police will not be swayed,
charmed or fooled into letting you off the hook.

The police are not your friend or shoulder to cry on. They will not ‘go easy’
once they hear your version of events. Nor will anything you tell them be
considered as ‘off the record.'

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INFORMAL CHAT WITH THE POLICE.

From the moment you start talking, everything you say could be used as
evidence against you. And nothing you do or say afterwards can take back
those words.

When in doubt, stay silent!

 11

YOUR WORDS AS INTEL

All police forces in the UK maintain their own independent databases

consisting of intelligence information. Data collected - usually by word of
mouth - on members of the public that the police have been made aware of.

And you don't have to be a suspected terrorist or an active criminal to have

intelligence files opened in your name. You don't even need a criminal record.
The police will record intelligence on anyone they think worthy of
monitoring.

Intelligence gathering is a common part of a police officer's job, especially

PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers) who use a range of tactics to
extract useful information from the community.

The most common method of which is simply speaking to people.

This could be through conversations with well meaning locals who may
genuinely be looking out for the interests of others. All to often however this
intelligence is nothing more than idle gossip or vicious rumor. And in many
cases the person imparting the information has no idea that what they are
saying could be written down as intelligence. Information that may be
inaccurate, defamatory or even blatantly untrue.

Irrespective of it’s accuracy, and regardless of who said it, the police will
report anything they hear in conversation that indicates criminal activity.
Even if it is just to update existing intelligence records or add further details
to an existing profile, there is no information too trivial for the police to
gather as intelligence, should they deem it significant.

This information can be held indefinitely, could be shared with outside

agencies and could be used as the basis of an investigation should any
allegations be made about the subject later.

Worst of all, much of this data falls outside of the provisions of the Data
Protection Act and cannot be viewed or challenged by the person it is held
against. Therefore most people that appear on these intelligence files will
have no idea of what information is being held on them.

You only have to take a look at the ICO (Information Commissioner’s

Office) website to see what kind of information the police are registered to
 12

handle as data controllers, which in turn reveals the type of Intel they gather.
Such as:-

• Details of your sex life

• Your political opinions: Including political activities

• Details of your finances: Where you bank. If you own credit cards. How
much money you make.

• Employment details: Where you work. Who for. How much you earn. 

• Details about your friends, family members and associates.

• Details of your lifestyle and social activities: Which pubs and clubs you
frequent. Which drugs you may be suspected of taking.

• Your health: Medical information. Your mental health.

This list is not exhaustive. In fact, there is very little information that the
police WON’T consider recording.

The rule being: if it’s significant, it’s intel!

 13

2. YOUR SILENCE WHEN THE POLICE STOP YOU

Although the police are granted certain statutory powers to stop people in
the street or in their vehicles, you do not have to answer ANY of their
questions - except where your name and address is legally required.

Your right to silence in respect of these powers is detailed below:-

STOP AND ACCOUNT

‘Stop and account’ (also known as ‘stop and question’) is when a police
officer or PCSO stops you and asks what you are doing, where you are going
or what you are carrying.

You are not obliged to answer ANY of those questions. Nor are you obliged to
show them any identification or give them your name.

All you SHOULD say is to ask if you are suspected of having committed an
offence, or if they intend to arrest you.

If the answer is no, then you are free to go, and the officer cannot stop you
from leaving. But don’t always expect the police to abide by this!

According to the Home Office, stop and account is used to “to allay or
confirm suspicions about individuals without exercising the police’s power
of arrest.” But stop and account is commonly abused by the police as a
screening process. Stopping random people and asking them questions
simply to establish guilt. And innocent people wrongly believe that if they
refuse to answer, they will be further detained or even arrested.

But although the police have the powers to STOP you, they cannot DETAIN
you unless they have good cause for doing so. Any officer that refuses to give
a reason for detaining you, or prevents you from leaving a stop and account
because you refused to answer their questions is abusing his or her authority
and should be reported.

.
 14

STOP AND SEARCH

A police officer and some PCSOs (the powers of PCSOs vary from force to
force) have the power to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable
grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying something illegal.

The police can even search you without reasonable grounds but only if it has
been approved by a senior officer in advance.

However, before the police can begin their search they are obliged to tell you
the following:-

• Their name, collar number and police station.

• What they are looking for.

• The reason they have picked you to search.

• Why they are legally allowed to search you.

• The name and rank of the senior officer that has granted the authority to
search (if no reasonable grounds have been given).

The police must also provide you with a written record of the search and if
this isn’t possible at the time, they must tell you how you can obtain a copy.

Again, you don’t have to tell them your name and address unless you are
being arrested or reported for an offence. Otherwise you have a right to
remain silent and no suspicion of guilt should be implied from your refusal
to answer questions.
 15

SILENCE WHEN DEALING WITH PCSOs

Although the police often issue FPNs (Fixed Penalty Notices) for summary
offences a large majority of them are handed out by Police Community
Support Officers (PCSOs) - whose powers are limited.

PCSOs are NOT police officers, are not warranted and do not have the power
of arrest. However, when it comes to refusing to talk, it pays to be just as
guarded with a PCSO as you would a police officer.

If you are approached by ANY uniformed official making claims you have
committed a summary offence such as speeding, littering, antisocial
behaviour etc, it would be wise to avoid entering into any debate or
discussion with them. It could be that the official does not have enough
evidence that you have committed the offence and is hoping that you will
self-incriminate.

A PCSO cannot arrest you. Most of them do not have the powers to restrain
you. Some do not even have the powers to DETAIN you. But this varies from
force to force as the powers they are granted are determined by the local
authority, not by the police themselves.

If you are ever in doubt as to what powers of authority a PCSO has, then ASK
them. They cannot exaggerate or lie about the powers they have been
granted and to do so is an offence. Otherwise you should ask to see their
designation card. This is an identification card that PCSOs must carry when
on duty that lists all of the powers they have been granted by the local
authority.

Although many PCSOs do not have the power to detain you, if you refuse to
stay-put when they have reasonable cause to believe you have committed an
offence (or intend to commit one) then your attempt to ‘make-off’ would
become a further offence. Besides which, the PCSO would almost certainly
radio for police assistance who could then come and arrest you.

Remember, when it comes to your right to silence both the police and PCSOs
can only demand your name and address if they intend to report you for an
offence. Otherwise you are not obliged to give them any information about
yourself.
 16

STOPPED IN A VEHICLE

The rules for stop and search, stop and account and fixed penalty notices
also apply to motorists and cyclists. The difference being that you are only
obliged to stop if you are indicated to do so by an officer in uniform.

Again, you are not obliged to answer any questions but you are legally
required to show any vehicle documents when asked. If you don’t have them
at the time you are stopped then you may be asked to bring them to a police
station within 7 days.
 17

3. SILENCE AFTER ARREST

Your right to silence after arrest is commonly misunderstood and often

misinterpreted by both police and solicitors. Particularly the rules of adverse
inference, which many people wrongly interpret as meaning that if they
DON’T answer police questions their guilt will be automatically presumed by
the court.

But as explained below, your right to silence after arrest can still be
maintained without it affecting any subsequent defence in court.

YOUR RIGHT TO DECLINE AN INTERVIEW

If you are arrested and taken to a police station it is likely you will be
interviewed.

This interview will be recorded in a private room in the presence of the

arresting officer who will have a prepared set of questions to put to you.

These questions are for one purpose only: To establish your guilt, not to
prove your innocence.

Once the interview has concluded, a copy of the tapes (or written statement)
should be handed to you. If you are subsequently charged and prosecuted
anything that you said on the recording or gave as a statement, could be
presented to the court as part of the prosecution’s case.

But what few people seem to realise is that you cannot be forced into taking a
police interview. Nor can you even be compelled to enter the interview room
if you decline.

However, the police can bring the interview to YOU, into a cell or consultation
room. Usually by fetching a portable tape recorder or transcribing the
interview by hand.

Again, you are not obligated to speak to the police and your refusal to do so
cannot in itself be used as indication of your guilt.
 18

CAN YOUR SILENCE BE USED AGAINST YOU?

Adverse inference was written into the Criminal Justice and Public Order
Act to prevent suspects from maintaining silence during arrest and then
appearing in court with a carefully improvised defence. Having had months
since their arrest to come up with a story, and perhaps test the prosecution’s
case.

Should the police ask a specific question during interview, such as: “where
were you on the night of the incident?” and you refuse to answer, the judge
(and jury) may take a dim view if you then give a detailed response to such a
question in court.

The judge could instruct the jury to draw an adverse inference from what
you have said. In other words, you’re probably lying.

However, the criteria applied to adverse inference is very strict and judges
are extremely wary of instructing a jury to disregard a defendant’s account
for fear of a mistrial.

The fact is, adverse inference cannot be drawn just because a suspect does
not answer police questions. It can only be drawn if the suspect chooses to
offer facts in court he otherwise avoided disclosing in interview.

This is a subtle but very important point.

The police commonly misinform ‘interviewees’ that refusing to answer ANY

question can be used against them, when in the vast majority of cases, it
cannot.

To clarify, here are some general rules of adverse inference:-

• Adverse inference only applies when you are being interviewed under
caution. If you have not been arrested, then your silence CANNOT be used
against you.

• Even if you have been arrested, and the police ask questions, you have
every right to refuse to answer if you have not been given the opportunity
to have a solicitor present. Again, your refusal to answer police questions
cannot be used against you.
 19

• If the police don’t ask certain questions, your lack of an answer cannot be
used against you. For instance, if the police fail to ask if you are an
acquaintance of a witness, but you state it in court, no adverse inference
can be drawn. If the question was never asked by the police at interview
then there has been no refusal to answer.

• Adverse inference CAN be drawn where a reasonable person would expect

the accused to mention facts which were relevant or might be relevant. Such
as “why were you found with a prohibited weapon in your pocket?”

• Even if you do or don’t answer police questions during interview, if you then
refuse to give evidence in court adverse inference cannot be drawn.

• If you give an account in court that differs substantially to the account you
gave the police, this in itself would not be enough to find you guilty. With no
other evidence to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, adverse
inference alone cannot be used to convict you. Simply put, you cannot be
convicted of an offence solely because you failed to answer questions or
submit information.
 20

SILENCE Vs WRITTEN STATEMENT

Silence during interview is probably the surest method of avoiding self-

incrimination. Furthermore, when a written statement is submitted in place
of a verbal interview then the rules of adverse inference are even less likely
to apply.

The reasoning behind this is that by making a written statement you are
showing a willing to assist with police enquiries, without the risk of saying
something that could be misconstrued or used to your detriment.

Adverse inference cannot be drawn from a subject’s silence when a written

statement has been submitted in it’s place.

However, should the statement fail to include obvious information that

would be reasonable to expect an explanation for, such as: “why were your
hands covered in blood”, then again adverse inference could still be drawn.

The fact remains that the subject cannot expand on the statement he has
given the police should he be brought to court. The overall substance of that
written statement would then have to become the overall substance of the
defence.
 21

COMMENT OR NO COMMENT?

Another common misconception about police interviews is how a subject

should conduct themselves if they decide (or are advised) not to answer
police questions.

As already pointed out, you have a right to decline an interview, but in many
cases it may prove to your benefit to LISTEN to the police, while maintaining
your silence.

The reasoning behind this is simple: by listening to what questions the police
are asking, you may have a clearer indication of the strengths and
weaknesses of their existing evidence, as well as having the opportunity to
find out exactly what allegations (if any) have been made against you.

Regardless of this, solicitors commonly advise interviewees to respond with

“no comment” after each police question, presumably to conclude the
interview swiftly.

But you are not obliged to state even those two simple words.

When the interview begins you don’t even have to state your name. It is your
decision - and your right - to maintain total silence throughout the
interview, and let the police decide for themselves when to move onto the
next question.

Your refusal to state “no comment” will have no overall baring on your
silence should you decide not to communicate with the police in any way.
 22

THE POLICE CAN’T FORCE YOU TO TALK

Don't be fooled by what you may have seen in movies or on TV. The police
cannot ‘sweat’ a confession out of you. They cannot play good cop, bad cop -
interchanging opposing interview styles with different police officers. They
can’t deprive you of sleep or food, make threats, offer incentives or make
deals. They can’t even ask you the same question over and over in an attempt
to ‘break you.'

If the police make any attempt to trick, threaten or bully answers from you
then their actions are likely to be regarded as oppressive. Not only would the
officers concerned be liable to a charge of misconduct the entire interview
could be deemed as inadmissible by the court.

The guidelines for how a lawful interview should be conducted are set out
within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, as well as within the Police’s
own Code of Conduct (See References).

If you believe that the police have acted in a manner that breaches their
authority then you should make a complaint about the officers concerned.
(See Making A Complaint About the Police)
 23

THE POLICE MUST NOT LIE TO YOU

Another misconception people have about police interviews is that officers

can lie to you in an attempt to coerce an admission or confession out of you.

If a police officer tells you something which he knows to be untrue or is

intentionally misleading then this could undermine the entire interview to the
police’s detriment.

A police officer must never attempt to deceive or lie to you in the interview
room. He cannot tell you that ‘your friend has told them everything’. Or that
they have ‘CCTV evidence’ where none exists.

But this often doesn’t stop the police from deploying other underhanded
methods in an attempt to ‘loosen tongues.’ Such as hinting to a colleague
that they are about to interview an anonymous witness who ‘saw the whole
thing’. Or brandishing evidence bags that contains dummy tapes, or blank
media in the hope the interviewee will believe the police have vital audio or
video evidence.

If you ever hear the police make such comments within earshot then ask that
they repeat them. Ask to see the custody sergeant or a superior officer and
repeat the comments that you have heard, demanding that they are entered
onto the custody record or incident log.

If such comments are made within range of CCTV within a police station then
they would be accessible by way of a subject access request. You could
request a copy of any audio captured by the CCTV that references yourself.
 24

SELF-INCRIMINATION

Another common misconception is that of an individual’s rights to not self-

incriminate. Meaning that you have a right to remain silent if to do otherwise
could mean admitting to a criminal act.

This is known as the privilege against self-incrimination (PSI).

However, this absolute right to silence is a universal privilege of American

law. In England, Scotland an Wales your rights to not self-incriminate only
apply within civil cases.

Civil proceedings can be brought against a person by an individual or an

organization; usually in the pursuit of a monetary claim or for compensation.
Such as claims for unpaid parking fines, debts owed, unfair dismissal and
negligence.

Criminal proceedings on the other hand are proceedings brought against an

individual on behalf of the state, for indictable offences (an accusation of
having committed a crime) such as assault, burglary, harassment and theft.

If faced with questions within a civil court that could bring about an
admission of a criminal act - which could in turn lead to criminal proceedings
being brought against you - then you have a right to refuse to answer those
questions.

This right to silence does not apply within criminal proceedings, whereby the
accused could just pick and choose which questions they wanted to answer.
Another reason why adverse inference is so important within criminal
proceedings, but rarely applicable within civil cases.
 25

4. EVEN WHEN REPORTING CRIME, SAY LITTLE

When it comes to reporting crime you may think that showing verbal restraint
matters less. After all, if you are a victim of crime, or a witness to it, then
surely the police will only be speaking to you to bring charges against
someone else?

That may be true in principle, but what would happen if the suspect then
made a counter allegation, naming you?

Any statement that you give to the police as victim or witness could be used
as evidence against you if a counter allegation is made.

This is especially significant when somebody makes a report of harassment.

It’s common for someone accused of harassment to make the same claim
against the victim - often out of spite. Also, because the police can issue
harassment warnings without having to prove the substance of the
allegations, they could easily serve the same warning notice on the victim as
the aggressor.

For the police, counter allegations are an easy way to close some criminal
investigations without having to pursue further enquiries, and for that
reason alone they are often keen to encourage them.

First, the police will take a lengthy statement from the victim. They may then
visit or arrest the aggressor and put those allegations to him. This may result
in them taking a statement from the aggressor and giving them a clear
opportunity to make counter allegations. The police then return to the victim
and use this as a form of bartering. Suggesting to the victim that if they
pursue charges, then the aggressor will pursue charges against them.

A shady practice that the police all too commonly employ to ‘downgrade’ or
dispense of allegations as well as close criminal cases in haste.

It stands to reason that the more you report about someone else, the more
unnecessary information you could impart about yourself. Then, if the
person you report chooses to make a counter allegation you may find
yourself becoming the suspect where you originally saw yourself as the
victim.
 26

5. HOW TO (NOT) TALK TO THE POLICE: A SUMMARY

Like it or not, we will all encounter the police at some point in our lives. Some
more often than others. However regardless of WHY such encounters may
occur, it always pays to be cautious and guarded over EVERYTHING you say
to the police.

CHOOSE YOUR SILENCE WISELY

You may have a right to silence, but there may be some obvious instances
where absolute silence may be impractical, illogical or even impossible. Such
as when there is an immediate risk of danger or you are reacting in surprise
to the police’s presence or their allegations.

The best way to engage the police is in a confident but detached manner. If
you choose to say anything then don’t enter into argument, don’t raise your
voice and don’t make insult. Regardless if they are disrespectful, rude or
threatening don’t let them arouse your emotions and goad you into talking.

Always show a willing to conform to any lawful request a police officer

makes, but politely and strenuously decline to comply with all unlawful
demands.

If you have ever been the victim of police abuse then you may find it very
difficult not to display hostility or express your disapproval. But to do so
nearly always means violating your silence. Besides which the police may
attempt to delay your detention and intensify their scrutiny.

Remember, when it comes to (not) talking to the police, it’s better to offer no
excuse, than a bad one.
 27

6. TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE

The police should treat you fairly and with respect at all times. If during any
encounter with them you believe that they made unlawful demands, or
behaved in a threatening or rude manner, then you should make a complaint.

Although the police complaints system is biased in favour of the police with
few complaints being upheld, the officer concerned will be placed under
scrutiny and his conduct noted against his record. Even if all the allegations
are rejected the details of the complaint will still remain against the officer’s
record for life, and can seriously impede their ability to achieve promotion if
they have subsequent allegations made against them.

Furthermore, if the police reject your complaint or refuse to record it, you
can appeal directly to the Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC), who may subsequently uphold the complaint, or force the police to
reexamine the allegations.

Most importantly of all, complaining to the police sends out a clear message
to both the force and the officers concerned that there will always be
comebacks on those who attempt to alienate the public of their rights.

If the police have unlawfully detained or arrested you, behaved violently or

threatened you, then you may even consider suing them in court. More and
more people who have been let down by the police and the IPCC are
subsequently taking the police to civil court, for settlements of many
thousands of pounds.

Civil court action however is beyond the scope of this Ebook and we would
suggest you seek extensive legal advice before embarking upon such
proceedings.
 28

ABOUT CRIMEBODGE

CRIMEBODGE.com is a website which offers advice, humour and resources on

how to combat the police, bailiffs, local authorities and other authorities..

We have also published a series of ebooks and legal letters, giving useful,
no-nonsense advice on many aspects of the law.

We also provide a low cost advisory service to anyone who needs one-to-one
advice on debt collectors, bailiffs, the police and many elements of civil and
criminal law.

You can visit our website at http://crimebodge.com or you can e-mail us

help@crimebodge.com
 29

REFERENCES
GOV.UK - Crime, justice and the law - Your rights and the law - Police
powers to stop and search: your rights:-
https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

Crown Prosecution Service - Legal Guidance - Adverse Inferences:-

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/

Silence is Golden? - Bedford Row

http://www.25bedfordrow.com/seminar-pdfs/
silence-20is-20golden-20handout.pdf

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 c.33 - Part III - Inferences from
accused’s silence - Section 34
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/34

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) - Code E - Code of practice on
audio recording interviews with suspects:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/117585/pace-code-e.pdf

Data Protection Act 1988

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents

Case Law

Adverse inference from refusal to leave cell for questioning:

R v JOHNSON : R v HIND [2005] EWCA Crim 971 CA (Crim Div) 11/4/2005

Considering the meaning of the words "any fact relied on in his defence" in
section 34(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:
R v WEBBER [2004] 1 Cr.App.R. 514 (H.L.):-
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/1.html#para15
 30

Adverse inference in relation to disclosure before no comment interview:

R v ARGENT [1996] EWCA Crim 1728, [1997] Crim LR 449:-
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/1728.html
 31

Police Code of Conduct

Honesty and Integrity

Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their
position.

Authority, Respect and Courtesy

Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public
and colleagues with respect and courtesy.

Equality and Diversity

Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully
or unfairly. Police officers carry out their duties with fairness and impartiality and in
accordance with current equality legislation. In protecting others’ human rights, they
act in accordance with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Use of force
Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and
reasonable in all the circumstances. There will be occasions when police officers
may need to use force in carrying out their duties, for example to effect an arrest or
prevent harm to others.

Orders and Instructions

Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions. Police officers
abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders. The police service is a
disciplined body and therefore any decision not to follow an order or instruction will
need to be fully justified.

Duties and Responsibilities

Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities. Police
officers do not neglect their duties or responsibilities.

Confidentiality
Police officers treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the
proper course of police duties.

Fitness for Duty

Police officers when on duty or presenting themselves for duty are fit to carry out
their duties and responsibilities.
 32

Discreditable Conduct
Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or
undermine public confidence, whether on or off duty.

Off-duty conduct
Police officers have some restrictions on their private life. These restrictions are laid
down in the Police Regulations 2003. These restrictions have to be balanced
against the right to a private life. Therefore, in considering whether a police officer
has acted in a way which falls below these standards while off-duty, due regard
should be given to that balance and any action should be proportionate taking into
account all of the circumstances.
Even when off duty, police officers do not behave in a manner that discredits the
police service or undermines public confidence.

Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct

Police officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues
which has fallen below the standards of professional behaviour expected.