Silence at the Police Station

Silence at the police station is one of the most misunderstood features of English criminal procedure. Popular mythology suggests that suspects should always go “no comment” because saying nothing cannot harm them. The law is more nuanced. Under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a jury may be invited to draw an adverse inference where a suspect fails to mention a fact in interview that is later relied on at trial. A blanket refusal to answer questions, without giving your defence in a prepared statement, can therefore be risky.

The courts have repeatedly stressed that adverse inferences are not automatic. The classic authority is R v Argent (1997) 2 Cr App R 27, where the Court of Appeal made clear that an inference can only arise if the defendant could reasonably have been expected to mention the facts at the time. In Argent the court emphasised the contextual factors: age, mental state, knowledge of the allegations and the ability to understand the questions. Where those factors prevent meaningful engagement, silence carries no consequence.

Similarly, in R v Howell [2003] EWCA Crim 486, the Court of Appeal held that a jury should not draw adverse inferences where the defendant’s silence stemmed from genuine inability to participate. Howell involved a defendant whose mental state made interview engagement unrealistic. The court confirmed that the statutory safeguard is not a trap: unless the prosecution proves that silence was unreasonable, no inference should be available.

The most instructive example on legal advice is R v Beckles [2005] EWCA Crim 1926. The defendant went “no comment” on advice. At trial he advanced a defence not mentioned in interview. The trial judge allowed an adverse inference direction but the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, holding that where a suspect has reasonably relied on legal advice to remain silent, it may be wrong and unsafe to permit an inference. The key question is the reasonableness of the reliance, not whether the advice turns out to have been correct.

These authorities show why a blanket “no comment” without a prepared statement is rarely ideal. A clear, concise written account, delivered in a police interview, preserves a client’s position. It sets out the defence, blocks adverse inferences and avoids the suggestion that an explanation was invented later. It also anchors the narrative before misunderstandings take root.

In modern practice, a prepared statement can be the difference between a robust defence and a difficult trial. Silence has its place, but silence without structure is often a missed opportunity.