Comments by "" (@redtela) on "Why You Should/Should NOT Talk to Police" video.

And equally, the opposite is true - in some cases (such as those BBB references), talking to the police openly can lead to CPS dropping the case. For example, if you were clearly and provably somewhere else when whatever it is supposedly happened.
8
@Henry1965ism - do you honestly think that such a case would make it past the CPS threshold for charging, let alone into a trial? What's wrong with the police "finding it out for themselves" by you telling them? Why be difficult, just for the sake of being difficult?
3
@goygoyim6443 yes, they did, and they failed to identify themselves at the earliest opportunity. So I could have come to the hallway with a baseball bat - and been fully justified. But Amazon drivers do the same thing, it's a "perk" (sarcasm) of living remotely. So I have a coat rack in the hallway, and hang my cargo net there when I'm not using it, just in case someone nefarious opens the door randomly (lots of elastic to tangle them in). Funnily enough, the local postie always knocks, and he's apparently quite used to me not being dressed when I open the door. Being a reasonable person has always stood me better than being pedantic about the rules (and the defence by them would be "there's no number, we didn't know if it was a storage cupboard, a hallway, or anything else").
2
@geordiewishart1683 and in the case that you're replying to... they didn't suspect the occupier of the property had committed any offence - and indeed openly admitted (while outside) to not even being sure of which property they had just opened the door of. Thereby failing to reach a suspicion level, let alone a belief level. I would think that a closed door, which requires opening, does not constitute "insecure" - until you try the handle, you have no indication of it being locked or not. I wasn't claiming trespass had occurred, or that trespass is criminal. My point on multiple dwellings, is that there are actually 42 rental properties here on the farm. The farm itself is private property with residents being granted a right of access. Beyond the rental properties, there are at least another 15 buildings that have no names/numbers on them, and the private 600m long farm track has provision for tennants/workers to have access to the properties. S17 PACE would - as you suggest - grant them rights to enter the farmland and subsequently the property owned/controlled by/occupied by the suspect they wanted to arrest - if indeed they did want to arrest the person they were looking for. It would not be lawful for them to randomly walk into the milkshed, for example unless they had a belief that the person was in there. The fact they didn't establish which property it was, and were "blindly" searching, confirms they did not hold a valid belief. However, as I've said in this thread, I'd rather treat people reasonably, rather than stick to the formalities of the law. So I chose to diffuse any potential bad situation, invited them in, and gave a clear demonstration to them that they were in the wrong place. They actually couldn't have been more polite about it (other than maybe knocking).
2
I've been in a similar situation - I wasn't a witness, it was just clear that they were looking for someone that I've never met. I chose to overlook the fact that they opened my front door without even knocking, and invited them in so I could see what help they might need. I've never met the suspect they were looking for, nothing illegal has happened in the house that they could find against me, so no obligations to anyone and nothing to lose by being friendly. Plus, if those officers for example happen to pull me over on a traffic stop, there's a slim chance they might remember that I wasn't difficult for the sake of being difficult.
2
@tezinho81 I have also voluntarily attended a police station... only I took my solicitor with me. He was fully briefed before we arrived, and I had a clear picture of his advice. I had an open conversation with the interviewing officer, per my solicitors advice, and everything was perfectly fine. I didn't have "iron clad evidence" - but neither did they. I don't remember my solicitor actually saying a word in the interview room. There was no "bravado" involved, and the interviewing officer couldn't have been more professional IMO. So I think either you've had a bad experience, or you just like arguing on the internet.
2
There is no requirement to give a FULL defence at interview. However, if you're actually innocent, there's no harm in having an open conversation. Indeed doing so will likely help the police/CPS end your involvement quicker, and save tax payers money. After interview, if charged, the defence will require a FULL disclosure from the prosecution, and then you get to formally (in writing) reply with your defence statement. The point BBB was making, applies to if you first mention something in the court room, it will look like you just made it up. If you don't mention it in a police interview, but do before trial (via your legal representative), then it will be argued that you did raise the defence statements at your first available opportunity (you might not know it's a valid defence, until you discuss it with your counsel and they point it out to you). Justice should certainly not be blind, it relies on all the facts being uncovered/brought to light!
1
@clarkmerchant2 I'm neither police nor CPS. I also know of one specific case where indeed the investigating officer was convinced of someones innocence due to interviews alone. The interviews were pre-charge too, and no charge was ever made. It happened to me, when I was interviewed about a thing that I didn't do. I'll add that my solicitor was with me throughout the interviews - not the duty one. Infer whatever you like, but context matters. If you understand the law (and not only the thing you might be accused of), and you're innocent, there is literally no benefit to staying quiet. However, there's more ways than just in an interview to communicate the facts. For example, you could choose to stay silent in the interview, wait for the transcript of the questions, and then, via a solicitor, formally write your reply. If later they charge you, it would be unreasonable to accuse you of not mentioning something earlier, that you NOW rely on as a defence. And yes, legal proceedings are expensive, if you KNOW you're 100% innocent, and you choose to stay silent, you're choosing to not end that expense as early as you can. So you also then can't complain when the local council tax rises.
1
@silviafarfan2523 then you clearly don't understand the words you quoted, ie, "actually innocent"
1
Weren't all those cases in Australia?
1
Not that long ago, two officers opened my front door - no knocking, literally just opened the door and shouted "hello" - they did not, at that point, identify themselves as police. So I got up, went from my front room to the hallway, to find these two officers shining flashlights at me. On seeing me, they then identified themselves as police, and asked what the address was (I live on a farm with multiple rental properties, mine doesn't have a number/name on the front door). I told them the correct address, and they replied "Oh, sorry, we're looking for Mr X at number Y. Do you know where that property is?" Quick mental maths told me that they're looking for someone else (that I've never met) at a different property - so I invited them in for a few minutes. I knew nothing illegal had happened in the house, so they couldn't find anything against me anyway. I shared the landlords phone number with them, gave them some options of where the property might be that they were looking for, told them where the post pigeon holes were (so they could check if the person had collected post or not). They thanked me, admitted they were out of their normal area, and left. I still don't know what alleged offence they were seeking information about. My point: sometimes in the course of an investigation, police will talk to you even if you have nothing at all to do with the case they are investigating. I've also been interviewed under caution, but did so with my solicitor (not the duty one) sitting next to me.
1
@goygoyim6443 in my family, it's considered fairly rude to stand at a family members door, knock and wait for them to answer. Not just immediate family either. The way I was raised is "family is always welcome, no matter what" - so it's ingrained in me that when the front door opens, it's probably someone I want to spend time with. I just take reasonable mitigation steps in case that's the wrong assumption.
1
@geordiewishart1683 s.17 PACE '84 is quite clear - other than when trying to save a life, the officer has to have reasonable belief (not reasonable suspicion) that the person they wish to arrest is within the property they are about to enter. In my case, with there not being a number on the door, and it being a farm with a lot of other buildings that also have no numbers on the door (eg, barns, milking sheds, etc)... that would be exceptionally difficult to prove (other than a first hand witness statement of "I just saw them go in that door"). The rules about multiple occupant dwellings would likely apply... unless it was a large scale hunt for a murderer AND they had reasonable belief that the suspect might be within the bounds of the property. In fact, it turned out that the person they were actually looking for wasn't even on the farm, let alone in the property (when the officers identified the correct property).
1
@jons9721 absolutely, yes. While it might not be directly admissible in a court, anything an officer observes (either they see it or hear it) can form reasonable grounds for them to investigate whatever offence it is they think it applies to. For a rather extreme example, the officers that came to my house were looking for someone else... when they identified themselves as the police... if I had replied "are you here about the stolen car?"... they would have been very interested about coming in and talking about it, even though it might have nothing to do with their current investigation. I'd expect a court case to begin something like "we found out about it when he asked us." Equally, when they were invited in, if they saw large stacks of cash piled up on my desk, they'd probably enquire about it - even though just having cash isn't directly illegal, but it MIGHT lead them to a drugs investigation, etc. Of course, all scenarios are hypothetical... just in case there's any trolls reading.
1
@jons9721 I agree completely, on both points. But in your situation where you're being asked about a missing child - you can answer those questions outside without having to invite them in for a coffee.
1