This PDF file contains interactive links that help you to navigate the document quickly, and to enable

you to gain immediate access to all websites listed. Clicking on any of the items in the main list of Contents (screen page 4) will take you directly to the page listed. To immediately access cross-referred items contained in this practice advice, click on any cross-references shown in purple. To return to the list of Contents, simply click on the line NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED at the foot of each page. Where you see a website address featured in purple, click on it to make a direct link.

PRACTICE ADVICE ON THE RIGHT TO SILENCE

(Revised Edition)

2006
Produced on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers by the National Centre for Policing Excellence

This document is not protectively marked. Disclosure of this practice advice under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) could prejudice criminal investigations. It should be made available to partner agencies but should not be made publicly available, for example, on internet sites. Any application for public access to the document should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Any authority that receives an FOIA request from a member of the public relating to this practice advice should notify the Security and Business Continuity Compliance Team at <SecurityBusinessContinuity@centrex.pnn.police.uk>

PRACTICE ADVICE ON THE RIGHT TO SILENCE (Revised Edition) This document has been produced by the National Centre for Policing Excellence (NCPE) on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). It will be updated according to legislative and policy changes and re-released as required. The NCPE was established by the Police Reform Act 2002. As part of its remit the NCPE is required to develop policing doctrine, including practice advice, in consultation with ACPO, the Home Office and the Police Service. Practice advice produced by the NCPE should be used by chief officers to shape police responses to ensure that the general public experience consistent levels of service. The implementation of all practice advice will require operational choices to be made at a local level in order to achieve the appropriate police response.

All enquiries about this practice advice should be addressed to: Doctrine Development National Centre for Policing Excellence Wyboston Lakes Great North Road Wyboston Bedford MK44 3BY Telephone: 01480 334500 Email: ncpe.enquiries@centrex.pnn.police.uk A printed version of this CD-Rom is available on request from the above address.

Acknowledgments
ACPO and the NCPE would like to express their thanks to all those involved in the drafting of this document and to members of the ACPO Steering Group and the ACPO Guidance Working Group who gave their advice. All of the responses during the consultation phase of this project were appreciated and contributed to the final document. Association of Chief Police Officers (2006) Centrex (2006) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, amended, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of Centrex and ACPO or their duly authorised representative. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Practice Advice on The Right to Silence ACPO Centrex 2006

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Caution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Pre-Interview Briefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Interview Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 The Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Adverse Inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 4 4 5 5 7 7 8 9

3 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, sections 36 and 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 Special Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Prepared Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Appendix 1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix 2 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

PREFACE
This practice advice outlines the provisions of sections 34, 36 and 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) and considers how the legislation has been interpreted through recent case law. It contains practical advice for investigators tasked with interviewing suspects who choose to exercise their right to remain silent. In particular, it considers the use of special warnings required under section 36 and 37 and provides guidance where a suspect submits a prepared statement before, during or after an interview. The CJPOA has provided investigators with a powerful tool to use against suspects who maintain their right to silence in an interview. Since its enactment there have been numerous challenges to this legislation which have produced an extensive body of case law. Investigators must not only fully understand the legislation, but must also keep up to date with the relevant case law as it develops. It is the investigators responsibility to conduct suspect interviews in a manner which is compatible with the legislation. This will not only provide courts with the best available material, but can also allow a judge to invite a jury to draw an adverse inference from a suspects silence or failure to mention a fact on which they later rely in their defence.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

1 INTRODUCTION
A principle of English Law is that a person is innocent until proved guilty. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove their case against a person suspected of committing an offence. A suspect is, therefore, under no obligation to provide material to an investigator or prosecutor which is likely to be self-incriminating or which will assist the prosecution case. A suspect will not commit an offence if they maintain their right to silence by refusing to answer questions about any offence they are suspected of. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) qualifies this general principle. This legislation allows the courts, in particular circumstances, to draw an adverse inference or conclusion from a suspects silence or failure to mention, when questioned, a fact which they later rely on in their defence. An adverse inference drawn from a suspects silence, however, is not in itself sufficient to establish guilt. A prima facie case, sufficiently compelling to call for an answer, must be made if the court is to invoke an adverse inference from the exercise of silence. In practice, the use of this legal provision in a trial is mainly to draw the jurys attention to the suspects failure to answer questions when interviewed under caution. A jury can be invited to consider why an innocent party would refuse to answer reasonable questions and whether a subsequent defence offered was plausible. Every investigator must understand the significance of sections 34, 36 and 37 of the CJPOA and be able to conduct suspect interviews in such a manner as to provide the best opportunity for an adverse inference to be drawn.

2 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994, SECTION 34

Section 34 permits a court or jury to draw an adverse inference where a suspect fails to mention any fact on which they later rely in their defence, this fact being one which they could reasonably have been expected to mention when being questioned under caution. Through case law (see R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr App R 27) the courts have identified six conditions that must be satisfied prior to a court drawing an adverse inference under section 34:

The alleged failure to mention a fact which they later rely on in their defence, must occur
when the suspect is being questioned under caution;

The failure to mention these facts must occur before or on being charged; The questions which were not answered were posed in an attempt to discover whether or
by whom the offence had been committed;

The suspect failed to mention a fact which was later relied on in their defence; The suspect could, in the circumstances existing at the time, reasonably have been
expected to mention the facts they relied on at trial;

The provision only applies to criminal proceedings.

To comply with these requirements, the investigator must ensure that the suspect is at an authorised place of detention and has been told that they have the right to consult a legal representative prior to being questioned, charged or informed that they may be prosecuted. Although the suspect must be advised of this right, they may decline to consult a legal representative or choose not to have them present during an interview. In these circumstances, the court will still be entitled to draw an adverse inference from the suspects silence or failure to mention a fact which they later rely on in their defence. For further guidance, see PACE Code C, the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

THE RIGHT TO SILENCE

2.1 THE CAUTION

PACE Code C, paragraph 10 stipulates that where there are grounds to suspect a person of an offence, they must be cautioned before any questions can be put to them. The caution must be given to a suspect on arrest, when being charged or informed that they might be prosecuted. It must also be restated at the beginning of any subsequent suspect interview and after any breaks that take place during the interview process. A suspect must also be cautioned if they are arrested for further offences which are identified after their initial arrest or during their interview, unless their condition or behaviour at the time make it impracticable to do so. See PACE Code C, paragraph 10.4.

The Caution 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. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. PACE Code C, paragraph 10.5

The investigator must explain the caution to the suspect in language that the suspect is capable of understanding. The investigator must take account of the personal characteristics of the suspect when explaining the caution. These characteristics may include the following:

Age; Experience; Mental capacity; State of health; Sobriety; Tiredness; Personality; Knowledge of the law; Previous experience of police stations.
Other factors that may prevent the suspect from understanding the caution may include the advice that they have received from their legal representative, or the time of day. Failure to take account of these factors when explaining the meaning of the caution to the suspect may prevent the court or jury from being able to draw an adverse inference. This is confirmed by the cases of R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr App R 27, R v Roble (1997) Crim LR 449 and R v Ali [2001] EWCA Crim 683. See also Pace Code C, Notes 10 D and G.

2.2 THE PRE-INTERVIEW BRIEFING

There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 or PACE which outlines that the investigator is under an obligation to reveal the prosecution case to the suspect, or their legal representative before an interview begins. A balance must be found, however, between providing sufficient information to enable the suspect to understand the nature and circumstances of their arrest, and retaining sufficient information to be able to test the truth of the suspects answers. If the investigator feels that it is necessary to withhold information from the legal representative during a pre-interview briefing, they should be able to explain clearly the reasons supporting this approach in any future proceedings.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

Investigators should prepare a clear pre-interview briefing strategy which should include how information about the offence will be provided to:

The legal representative prior to an interview; The suspect during the interview if they have declined legal advice.
Advice and guidance in relation to the planning and structuring of pre-interview briefings can be obtained from:

A supervisor; Tier 3 advanced/specialist interviewer or Tier 5 interview adviser as defined in the

ACPO (2002) Investigative Interviewing Strategy;

Evidence Review Officers (EROs) see ACPO (2004) Management of Volume Crime
Practice Advice. In order to provide their client with the most appropriate advice, the legal representative will try to elicit as much information as possible from the investigator prior to interview. They will use this information to test the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution case, as well as the credibility of the material and the investigating officer. It has been held in the stated cases, R v Argent [1997] 2Cr App R27 and R v Roble (1997) Crim LR 449, that if the police disclose little or nothing of the case against the suspect so that the legal advisor cannot usefully provide advice, this can be a valid reason for the solicitor to advise the suspect to remain silent. The investigator must take care not to misrepresent material facts or attempt to mislead the suspect or their legal advisor during a pre-interview briefing. They should conduct a thorough analysis of the material they have obtained to ensure they fully understand its meaning. Overstating or understating the importance of the available material or implying that material exists when it does not may render any subsequent interviews inadmissible. In serious or complex cases, a staged or phased disclosure of information reflecting the particular issues or topics that will be covered during each phase of the interview process may be appropriate. Where material is given to legal representatives during a pre-interview briefing, it is good practice to record it in a written or audio format. This can then be used in any subsequent proceedings to rebut an assertion that the investigator provided insufficient material to enable the suspects legal representative to advise their client appropriately. The investigator should ensure that the contents of the pre-interview briefing are brought to the attention of the CPS and/or counsel. This is to maximise the opportunity for an adverse inference to be drawn in any subsequent proceedings. For further information on pre-interview briefings and dealing with legal representatives, see ACPO (2006) Practice Advice on Dealing with Legal Advisers.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

THE RIGHT TO SILENCE

2.3 THE INTERVIEW PLAN

When developing the interview plan, the investigator should define the aims and objectives of the interview and how these will be met by:

Formulating clear and concise topics and areas for questioning which ensure that the
suspect fully understands the nature and circumstances of the offence they are being questioned about, and which give the suspect every opportunity to provide a reasonable account; Considering what reasonable explanation the suspect might offer in their defence; Exploring any potential motive that may be put forward by the suspect. To do this the investigator must know:

The points required to prove the offence; The precise nature of the offence including the circumstances and locality in which it
was committed;

The likely defences that may be raised during the interview or in any subsequent
proceedings;

Any intelligence relevant to the suspect or the offence; The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Codes of Practice; Current legislation and relevant case law. See 2.6 Case Law.
Interviewers should conduct the suspect interview in accordance with the PEACE model outlined in the ACPO (2002) Investigative Interviewing Strategy.

The PEACE Model of Interviewing P Planning and Preparation E Engage and Explain A Account, Clarification and Challenge C Closure E Evaluation

2.4 THE INTERVIEW

PACE Code C, paragraph 11.1 states, An interview is the questioning of a person regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences which, under paragraph 10.1 must be carried out under caution. The purpose of the interview is to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which they are under arrest or to obtain such evidence by questioning them. The investigator is likely to encounter some suspects who exercise their right to silence and make no comment during interview. The investigator must, therefore, anticipate and plan for this possibility. It should be noted that Home Office Circular (22/1992), which underpins the ACPO (2002) Investigative Interviewing Strategy, outlines seven principles of interviewing. The fifth principle explicitly states that: Even when the right to silence is exercised by a suspect the police still have a right to put questions.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

Investigators should also note that:

Legal representatives are under a duty to act in the best interests of their client as a
requirement of the Solicitors Practice Rules and although they advise a suspect to remain silent, this does not prevent relevant questions being put to the suspect; Simply repeating the same question to a suspect who is maintaining their right to silence, in the hope that they will make an admission, could be deemed oppressive and lead to it being excluded under section 76 of PACE; The suspect should be informed that the courts may still draw adverse inferences even though they have been given legal advice to remain silent, or a prepared statement has been submitted. See R v Howell Crim App R1 (2003) Crim LR 405. See also 4 Prepared Statements. For further information on the role of the legal representatives in the police station, see PACE Code C, paragraph 6.1 14, and Note 6A, B, D, E, F, G and J.

2.5 ADVERSE INFERENCE

Where a suspect maintains their right to silence or fails to mention a fact on which they later rely in their defence in court, a trial judge is entitled to invite a jury to draw an adverse inference. See 2 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 34. The jury may be directed to consider that a person given legal advice has the choice to accept or reject that advice, and that the defendant would have been warned that any failure to mention facts which they later relied on at their trial might harm their defence. It is a matter for the jury to determine whether the suspects failure to mention those facts was reasonable. If they conclude that the suspect was acting unreasonably, they can draw an adverse inference from the failure to mention those facts. The judge may draw to the attention of the jury that an explanation offered after consideration of all the evidence may be less convincing than an explanation offered at the time when they are being interviewed under caution and therefore be checked. The latest Judicial Studies Board guidelines can be found in Archbold (2004) Ed paragraph 15 427 and provides specimen directions for judges when directing juries. The guidelines support the view that among the key features of a direction under section 34 are the following:

There needs to be the striking of a fair balance between telling the jury of a defendants
rights [to remain silent or not to disclose advice], and telling the jury that the defendant has a choice not to rely on those rights; There needs to be an accurate identification of the facts which it is alleged a defendant might reasonably have mentioned; There needs to be a warning that there must be a case to answer and the jury cannot convict on inference alone; There must be a direction to the effect that the key question is whether the jury can be sure that the accused remains silent not because of any advice but because he had no satisfactory explanation to give. For further information on the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines in respect of section 34 CJPOA see http://www.jsboard.co.uk and also R v Bresa [2005] EWCA Crim 1414.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

THE RIGHT TO SILENCE

2.6 CASE LAW

Section 34 of the CJPOA has generated considerable case law which refines the legislation and provides an interpretation for investigators. This case law is continually developing and investigators should regularly review their legal knowledge to ensure that they remain up to date. Failure to do this may lead to an investigator conducting an interview in a manner which does not allow a court the opportunity to draw a proper inference. Legal knowledge can be updated by the regular review of databases such as:

The Police National Legal Database (PNLD); Lawtel; The Centrex Digest http://www.centrex.police.uk/digest The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Legal Guidance, see http://www.cps.gov.uk
The right to silence provisions of section 34 of the CJPOA have generated a huge body of case law and a sample of some of the leading cases includes the following:

R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr App R 27 established that the weight which the jury would
attach to a failure to answer questions was a matter for them to resolve in the exercise of their collective common sense, experience and understanding of human nature.

R v Roble [1997] CLR 449 held that legal advice to remain silent at a police interview was
unlikely to provide an adequate reason for failing to explain apparently criminal conduct in the absence of any reason being given for that advice. The only evidence was that of the appellant which was unlikely to prevent the jury from drawing an adverse inference from the appellants silence.

Betts and Hall [2001] EWCA Crim 224 stated that, A person, who is anxious not to
answer questions because he has no or no adequate explanation to offer, gains no protection from his lawyers advice because that advice is no more than a convenient way of disguising his true motivation for not mentioning facts.

R v Howell [2003] EWCA Crim 01 stated that, There must always be soundly based
objective reasons for silence, sufficiently cogent and telling to weigh in the balance against clear public interest in an account being given by the suspect to the police. Solicitors bearing the important responsibility of giving advice to suspects at police stations must always have that in mind.

R v Carl Anthony Robinson [2003] EWCA 2219 which decided that, It is not enough
for a defendant to say that he acted on his solicitors advice when making no comment. It is for a jury to consider whether the defendant could be reasonably expected to mention the facts upon which he later relied.

R v Beckles [2004] EWCA Crim 2766 reviewed some of the recent stated cases and a
number of general questions were addressed. The point in issue was whether a defendant was entitled to refuse to answer questions without an adverse inference being drawn if the defendant acted on legal advice. A number of associated issues were also discussed and the guidance set out in 2.5 Adverse Inference was developed with particular reference to issues that investigators should keep in mind when conducting interviews.

Hoare and Pierce [2004] EWCA Crim 784 stated that, even where a solicitor has in
good faith advised silence and a defendant has genuinely relied on it in the sense that he accepted it and believed that he was entitled to follow it, a jury may still draw an adverse inference if it is sure that the true reason for his silence is that he had no or no satisfactory explanation consistent with innocence to give. That is of piece with Laws LJs reasoning in Howell and Knight that genuine reliance by a defendant on his solicitors advice to remain silent is not in itself enough to preclude adverse comment.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

It stated further that, It is not the purpose of section 34 to exclude a jury from drawing an adverse inference against a defendant because he genuinely or reasonably believes that regardless of his guilt or innocence, he is entitled to take advantage of that advice to impede the prosecution case against him. In such a case the advice is not truly the reason for not mentioning the facts. The section 34 inference is concerned with flushing out innocence at an early stage or supporting other evidence of guilt at a later stage, not simply with whether a guilty defendant is entitled, or genuinely or reasonably believes that he is entitled to rely on legal rights of which his solicitor had advised him. Legal entitlement is one thing. A suspects reason for exercising it is another. His belief in his entitlement may be genuine, but it does not follow that his reason for exercising it is.

3 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994, SECTIONS 36 AND 37

Section 36 permits the court or jury to draw adverse inferences from a suspects failure or refusal to account for objects, marks or substances found:

On their person; or In or on their clothing or footwear; or Otherwise in their possession; or In any place they are

at the time of their arrest.

The investigator must reasonably believe that the object, mark or substance may be attributable to the suspects participation in an offence which the investigator must specify; and The investigator must inform the suspect of this belief and request them to account for the presence of the object, substance or mark; and The suspect fails or refuses to do so. Section 37 outlines the circumstances where a suspect is found and arrested by a constable at a place at or about the time the offence was alleged to have been committed, who fails or refuses to account for their presence in that place at that particular time. The constable or investigator must:

Reasonably believe that the suspects presence at that place and time may be attributable
to the suspects participation in the offence; and

Inform the suspect of this belief and request them to account for their presence.
Under sections 36 and 37, if the suspect has refused or failed to give an account, the court or jury may draw such inferences as appear appropriate in the circumstances. The court will not, however, be able to do this unless the investigator has, prior to putting questions to the suspect, warned them that their failure or refusal to give an account may allow the court or jury to draw a proper inference. This is known as a special warning.

10

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

THE RIGHT TO SILENCE

3.1 SPECIAL WARNINGS

A special warning is an additional caution. Legislation does not provide a specific form of wording for a special warning but for an inference to be drawn it must be given in language that the suspect is capable of understanding and should include the following:

Details of the offence which is being investigated; Specific facts which the suspect is being asked to account for; Why the investigator thinks these facts may link the suspect to the offence; Making the suspect aware that a court may draw an inference if the suspect fails to
account for these facts;

Stating that a record is being made of the interview and that it may be given in evidence if
the suspect is brought to trial. PACE Code C, 10.11 and Note 10D. In circumstances where the special warning applies the investigator should consider when to introduce it. Generally, it will be given in the later stages of an interview, during the challenge phase of the PEACE model, see 2.3 Interview Planning. If, however, a suspect has chosen to exercise their right to silence, it may be appropriate to give a special warning in the early stages of the interview. Investigators must recognise that there is a difference between the caution and a special warning. The caution must be given before any questions are put to a suspect. The special warning is more restricted in its use as it is only required when the investigator wants the suspect to account for either objects, substances or marks found on or about the suspect at the time of their arrest, or the investigator wants the suspect to account for their presence in a place at the time an offence was committed.

4 PREPARED STATEMENTS
A prepared statement is a statement compiled by a suspects legal representative in consultation with and signed and dated by the suspect. It will be submitted by the defence prior to, or during a suspect interview and is intended to reduce the chance of an adverse inference being drawn by the court in any subsequent proceedings. It is a tactic commonly used by legal representatives to try to counter any claims by the prosecution that the suspect fabricated facts or information which they could reasonably have been expected to mention during an interview under caution, when being charged, or on being informed that they might be prosecuted. On receipt of a prepared statement the investigator should consider suspending the interview to consider the contents of this document. The statement may contain material new to the investigation and this should be assessed in the light of what is already known about the offence. Before recommencing the interview with the suspect, investigators should also reassess their interview plan. It may be necessary to amend or prepare further questions in light of the new material. If a pre-prepared statement is handed in, or read out by the suspects legal representative at the beginning of an interview, the investigator is still entitled to question the suspect about either the contents of the prepared statement or other matters. If the suspect remains silent about matters covered within the prepared statement this will not allow an adverse inference to be drawn.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

11

Where, following the submission of a prepared statement, a suspect remains silent and a fact not mentioned in the statement is later relied on in the defence, the court or jury is entitled to consider drawing the appropriate inferences. There may be occasions when the suspect will prepare a signed and dated statement that is not submitted to the police until charge or, in some cases, until trial. This may be because the statement contains incriminating information or may otherwise assist the prosecution case. Where the investigator is aware that a statement has been prepared but is not submitted, the interview should be conducted as planned based on the material available to the investigator at that time. Even if the suspect maintains their right to silence, the investigator should ensure that the questions posed give the suspect every opportunity to provide a full verbal account. The leading cases in relation to prepared statements are:

R v Knight [2003] EWCA Crim 1997 R v Turner (Dwaine) [2003] EWCA Crim 3108 R v Campbell [2005] CA Crime BLD 0405051915

12

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACPO . . . . . . Cr. App . . . . . CJPOA. . . . . . ERO . . . . . . . . EWCA . . . . . . PACE . . . . . . . PEACE . . . . . . Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Appeal reports Criminal Justice and Public Order Act Evidence Review Officer Court of Appeal England and Wales Police and Criminal Evidence Act Police interview training mnemonic: P Planning and Preparation; E Engage and Explain; A Account, Clarification and Challenge; C Closure; E Evaluation

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

13

14

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

REFERENCES
ACPO (2002) Investigative Interviewing Strategy. Wyboston: NCPE. ACPO (2005) Practice Advice on Evidence of Bad Character. Wyboston: NCPE. ACPO (2006) Practice Advice on Dealing with Legal Advisers. Wyboston: NCPE. GREAT BRITAIN. Parliament (1994) Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. London: TSO. Home Office (1992) Principles of Investigative Interviewing. Home Office Circular 022. London: Home Office. Home Office (2004) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s.60(1)(a), s.60A(1) and s.66(1)) Codes of Practice A F, August 2004 Edition. London: TSO. Judicial Studies Board (2004) Crown Court Bench Book Specimen Directions [Internet]. London: JSB. Available from http://www.jsboard.co.uk

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING

Cape, E. and Luqmani, J. (2003) Defending Suspects at Police Stations: The Practitioners Guide to Advice and Representation. London: The Legal Action Group. Edwards, A. (2003) Advising a Suspect in the Police Station, 5th Edition. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Emmanuel, D. and Jennings, A. (2004) Legal Advice to Remain Silent. Archbold News, Issue 5. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Seabrooke, S. and Sprack, J. (1999) Criminal Evidence and Procedure: The Essential Framework, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackstone Press. Shepherd, E. (1996) Police Station Skills for Legal Advisors. London: Law Society Publishing. Zander, M. (2005) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, 5th Edition. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006

15

16

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Practice Advice on The Right to Silence

ACPO Centrex 2006