Why do suspected criminals say 'No Comment'?

arthursboy said:
If they are found guilty after a no comment interview an additional 6 months sentence should be added on.
Click to expand...

You hear the police coming out with nonsense like the jury will take a dim view of you if you just go no comment on 24 hours in police custody, honestly they shouldn’t be doing the job with opinions like that. Trying to scare people into talking, instead of doing their job.
 


arthursboy said:
If they are found guilty after a no comment interview an additional 6 months sentence should be added on.
Click to expand...

Why? The police's job is proove you're guilty not for you to proove you're innocent.

You'll already be hit with worse punishments for not declaring guilty, at the first opportunity in the courts.
 
BackhouseParkRangers said:
They deliberately downplayed the severity, and interviewed me without any legal representation
  • They asked me to take a caution, demanded I take a caution, then appear red in my cell effing and jeffing at me to take a caution - something which would have stopped me doing the job I do now if I had.
Click to expand...
More than once come across people through work who were told 'just take a caution, it's meaningless at your age and won't change anything, it really won't matter so just take it and forget about it' only to hit a wall hard once they applied for work or education that required a DBS and they realised the caution would be disclosed and they had signed themselves as guilty, even if they (in their account) hadn't done the thing in the first place but just wanted to get out.
 
The King of Um said:
More than once come across people through work who were told 'just take a caution, it's meaningless at your age and won't change anything, it really won't matter so just take it and forget about it' only to hit a wall hard once they applied for work or education that required a DBS and they realised the caution would be disclosed and they had signed themselves as guilty, even if they (in their account) hadn't done the thing in the first place but just wanted to get out.
Click to expand...
Aye - shithouses of the highest order playing with peoples lives to save a bit of paperwork / actual work.
 
spen666 said:
Which law is this?

Its 100% false. You would be breaking your duty of confidentiality to the client. A solicitor absoilutely cannot intervene in an interview in the way you suggest.

A solicitor who did this would be liable to be struck from the Roll of solicitors as it is breaching a fundamental duty of client confidentiality

Please provide details of this law you cite? Which piece of legislation are you referring to?
Click to expand...
He might mean paragraph 1.4 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct.

Or he could mean Principles 1-5 of the SRA Principles which rank above Principle 7 ("You act in the best interests of each client"). Should there be any doubt, the preamble to the Principles says:
"Should the Principles come into conflict, those which safeguard the wider public interest (such as the rule of law, and public confidence in a trustworthy solicitors' profession and a safe and effective market for regulated legal services) take precedence over an individual client's interests. You should, where relevant, inform your client of the circumstances in which your duty to the Court and other professional obligations will outweigh your duty to them."

If the client is presenting a case which is contrary to the instructions given to the solicitor, there comes a point (after clarifying the inconsistency in private) where the solicitor would be obliged to cease to act for the client.

That wouldn't offend client confidentiality. It is the correct and only response when a duty to the client conflicts with a duty to the court/profession and the conflict cannot be resolved.

@coyneeee did not say that the solicitor would have to say anything about the client's case. Simply that the solicitor would have to "intervene in the interview" or "stop the interview". That is correct. First the solicitor would insist that the interview be stopped for privileged reasons in order for the solicitor and client to speak. Then, if the client's instructions remained at variance with what he was saying in interview, and the client refused to change course, the solicitor would be obliged to withdraw.

I am not sure that I would be going to @coyneeee for advice if I were facing Scotland Yard's finest. But I don't think he deserves the ire he has had for his posts, or at least not without clarifying what he meant by "intervene in the interview" or "stop the interview".
 
stapler said:
He might mean paragraph 1.4 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct.

Or he could mean Principles 1-5 of the SRA Principles which rank above Principle 7 ("You act in the best interests of each client"). Should there be any doubt, the preamble to the Principles says:
"Should the Principles come into conflict, those which safeguard the wider public interest (such as the rule of law, and public confidence in a trustworthy solicitors' profession and a safe and effective market for regulated legal services) take precedence over an individual client's interests. You should, where relevant, inform your client of the circumstances in which your duty to the Court and other professional obligations will outweigh your duty to them."

If the client is presenting a case which is contrary to the instructions given to the solicitor, there comes a point (after clarifying the inconsistency in private) where the solicitor would be obliged to cease to act for the client.

That wouldn't offend client confidentiality. It is the correct and only response when a duty to the client conflicts with a duty to the court/profession and the conflict cannot be resolved.

@coyneeee did not say that the solicitor would have to say anything about the client's case. Simply that the solicitor would have to "intervene in the interview" or "stop the interview". That is correct. First the solicitor would insist that the interview be stopped for privileged reasons in order for the solicitor and client to speak. Then, if the client's instructions remained at variance with what he was saying in interview, and the client refused to change course, the solicitor would be obliged to withdraw.

I am not sure that I would be going to @coyneeee for advice if I were facing Scotland Yard's finest. But I don't think he deserves the ire he has had for his posts, or at least not without clarifying what he meant by "intervene in the interview" or "stop the interview".
Click to expand...
Intervening in the interview in the wad implied is 100% against solicitors duty.

Solicitor can and should withdraw. That is not intervening in the interview, it's doing the opposite
 
spen666 said:
Intervening in the interview in the wad implied is 100% against solicitors duty.

Solicitor can and should withdraw. That is not intervening in the interview, it's doing the opposite
Click to expand...
Saying "I must speak to my client for privileged reasons and I insist that you pause the interview for 15 minutes to allow that to take place" is intervening in the interview, surely?
 
stapler said:
Saying "I must speak to my client for privileged reasons and I insist that you pause the interview for 15 minutes to allow that to take place" is intervening in the interview, surely?
Click to expand...
We differ on meaning of intervening

Personally I would never say why I want to speak to my client & absolutely would not say it was privileged reasons
 
Last edited:
My boss (well ex boss) went down the no comment route. Didn't do him much good he got 6 years :lol:

I got a promotion and a pay rise when he was sent down, so every cloud and all that
 
BackhouseParkRangers said:
If I ever end up getting nicked in Luton off the 24 hours lot, I’d definitely be going no comment. All they seem to do is jump to conclusions on what has happened, and throw opinions about like confetti.

I got arrested in town when I was 18 (late 90’s), for something I genuinely didn’t do on a night out. The whole thing was a farce, the police collected evidence that would have had my finger prints on if I’d done it, but surprise surprise, no prints.

I’d been positively ID’d by a witness, and the police were convinced I’d done it.

My learnings were:

  • They deliberately downplayed the severity, and interviewed me without any legal representation
  • They asked me to take a caution, demanded I take a caution, then appear red in my cell effing and jeffing at me to take a caution - something which would have stopped me doing the job I do now if I had.
  • Some of them were a bit thick.
I’d definitely just go no comment given my chance again.
Click to expand...
Not sure how making no comment would have resolved that situation better.
 

Back
Top