Police Vs Cyclist

matttye

Guest101 wrote: »

So better to say nothing?

I'm not trying to rehash this. But it seems the safe option.

Courts have been known (rarely) to give more of a discount in sentence to people who made admissions at the police station. Usually pleading guilty at the first hearing is sufficient to get a one third discount off your sentence but there have been a couple of occasions where admissions made in the police station have resulted in more of a discount.

Normally best to keep quiet (A) if you don't have a defence or (B) if you have a defence, but the police have no admissible evidence against you.

E.g. there's no point in telling the police that you were in the place where John Smith says you punched him, but that you didn't punch him, when they actually have no admissible evidence putting you in that place in the first place.

Examples of where making admissions at the police station could result in a bigger discount is where offences that the police would never have been able to prove are admitted, or where you save a victim the fear of having to attend a trial to give evidence.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

Courts have been known (rarely) to give more of a discount in sentence to people who made admissions at the police station. Usually pleading guilty at the first hearing is sufficient to get a one third discount off your sentence but there have been a couple of occasions where admissions made in the police station have resulted in more of a discount.

Normally best to keep quiet (A) if you don't have a defence or (B) if you have a defence, but the police have no admissible evidence against you.

E.g. there's no point in telling the police that you were in the place where John Smith says you punched him, but that you didn't punch him, when they actually have no admissible evidence putting you in that place in the first place.

Examples of where making admissions at the police station could result in a bigger discount is where offences that the police would never have been able to prove are admitted, or where you save a victim the fear of having to attend a trial to give evidence.

Are you sure about that example?

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

Are you sure about that example?

Yes.

By putting your defence forward you are strengthening the case against you. If there's no case to answer there's no need to give an account.

I'm talking about where, for example, police have obtained an initial account from a complainant or witness but haven't yet got a statement.

What your legal advisor can do is take a statement from you, which you sign and date, setting out your defence but not hand it in to the police. That could later be used to negate any inferences drawn from silence if the matter does go to court.