murder investigation manual

This PDF file contains interactive linksthat help you to navigate the documentquickly, and to enable you to gainimmediate access to all websites listed.

Clicking on any of the items in themain list of Contents (screen page 4)will take you directly to the page listed.To immediately access cross-referreditems contained in this practice advice,click on any cross-references shownin purple.

To return to the list of Contents, simplyclick on the line “NOT PROTECTIVELYMARKED…” at the foot of each page.

Where you see a website addressfeatured in purple, click on it to makea direct link.

PRACTICE ADVICE ONTHE RIGHTTO SILENCE (Revised Edition)

2006Produced on behalf of theAssociation of Chief Police Officersby the National Centre for Policing Excellence

All enquiries about this practice advice should be addressed to:

Doctrine DevelopmentNational Centre for Policing ExcellenceWyboston LakesGreat North RoadWybostonBedfordMK44 3BY

Telephone: 01480 334500Email: [email protected]

A printed version of this CD-Rom is available on request from the above address.

AcknowledgmentsACPO and the NCPE would like to express their thanks to all those involved in the drafting of thisdocument and to members of the ACPO Steering Group and the ACPO Guidance WorkingGroup who gave their advice. All of the responses during the consultation phase of this projectwere 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 inany retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior writtenpermission of Centrex and ACPO or their duly authorised representative.

PRACTICE ADVICE ON THE RIGHT TO SILENCE (Revised Edition)

This document has been produced by the National Centre for Policing Excellence (NCPE) on behalfof the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). It will be updated according to legislative andpolicy changes and re-released as required.

The NCPE was established by the Police Reform Act 2002. As part of its remit the NCPE is requiredto develop policing doctrine, including practice advice, in consultation with ACPO, the HomeOffice and the Police Service. Practice advice produced by the NCPE should be used by chiefofficers to shape police responses to ensure that the general public experience consistent levels ofservice. The implementation of all practice advice will require operational choices to be made at alocal level in order to achieve the appropriate police response.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Practice Advice on The Right to Silence © ACPO Centrex 2006

This document is not protectively marked. Disclosure of this practice advice under the Freedomof Information Act 2000 (FOIA) could prejudice criminal investigations. It should be madeavailable to partner agencies but should not be made publicly available, for example, oninternet sites. Any application for public access to the document should be dealt with on acase-by-case basis. Any authority that receives an FOIA request from a member of thepublic relating to this practice advice should notify the Security and BusinessContinuity Compliance Team at <[email protected]>

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 The Caution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 The Pre-Interview Briefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3 The Interview Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 The Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.5 Adverse Inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.6 Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, sections 36 and 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.1 Special Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 Prepared Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Appendix 1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Appendix 2 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


CONTENTS

3

PREFACE


This practice advice outlines the provisions of sections 34, 36 and 37 of the Criminal Justice andPublic Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) and considers how the legislation has been interpreted throughrecent case law. It contains practical advice for investigators tasked with interviewing suspectswho choose to exercise their right to remain silent. In particular, it considers the use of specialwarnings required under section 36 and 37 and provides guidance where a suspect submits aprepared statement before, during or after an interview.

The CJPOA has provided investigators with a powerful tool to use against suspects whomaintain their right to silence in an interview. Since its enactment there have been numerouschallenges to this legislation which have produced an extensive body of case law. Investigatorsmust not only fully understand the legislation, but must also keep up to date with the relevantcase law as it develops.

It is the investigator’s responsibility to conduct suspect interviews in a manner which iscompatible 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 suspect’s silenceor failure to mention a fact on which they later rely in their defence.

4

1 INTRODUCTION

A principle of English Law is that a person is innocent until proved guilty. It is the duty of theprosecution to prove their case against a person suspected of committing an offence. A suspectis, therefore, under no obligation to provide material to an investigator or prosecutor which islikely to be self-incriminating or which will assist the prosecution case. A suspect will not commitan offence if they maintain their right to silence by refusing to answer questions about anyoffence they are suspected of.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) qualifies this general principle. Thislegislation allows the courts, in particular circumstances, to draw an adverse inference orconclusion from a suspect’s silence or failure to mention, when questioned, a fact which theylater rely on in their defence.

An adverse inference drawn from a suspect’s silence, however, is not in itself sufficient toestablish guilt. A prima facie case, ‘sufficiently compelling to call for an answer’, must be madeif the court is to invoke an adverse inference from the exercise of silence. In practice, the use ofthis legal provision in a trial is mainly to draw the jury’s attention to the suspect’s failure toanswer questions when interviewed under caution. A jury can be invited to consider why aninnocent party would refuse to answer reasonable questions and whether a subsequentdefence offered was plausible.

Every investigator must understand the significance of sections 34, 36 and 37 of the CJPOA andbe able to conduct suspect interviews in such a manner as to provide the best opportunity foran 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 tomention any fact on which they later rely in their defence, this fact being one which they couldreasonably 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 conditionsthat 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 occurwhen 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 anauthorised place of detention and has been told that they have the right to consult a legalrepresentative 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 legalrepresentative 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 suspect’s silence or failure tomention a fact which they later rely on in their defence.

For further guidance, see PACE Code C, the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Personsby Police Officers.


5

THE R

IGH

T TO S

ILEN

CE

2.1 THE CAUTION

PACE Code C, paragraph 10 stipulates that where there are grounds to suspect a person of anoffence, 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 theymight be prosecuted. It must also be restated at the beginning of any subsequent suspectinterview 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 identifiedafter their initial arrest or during their interview, unless their condition or behaviour at the timemake it impracticable to do so. See PACE Code C, paragraph 10.4.

The investigator must explain the caution to the suspect in language that the suspect is capableof understanding. The investigator must take account of the personal characteristics of thesuspect 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 theadvice 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 thesuspect may prevent the court or jury from being able to draw an adverse inference. This isconfirmed by the cases of R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr App R 27, R v Roble (1997) Crim LR 449 andR 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 outlinesthat the investigator is under an obligation to reveal the prosecution case to the suspect, or theirlegal representative before an interview begins. A balance must be found, however, betweenproviding sufficient information to enable the suspect to understand the nature andcircumstances of their arrest, and retaining sufficient information to be able to test the truth ofthe suspect’s answers. If the investigator feels that it is necessary to withhold information fromthe legal representative during a pre-interview briefing, they should be able to explain clearlythe reasons supporting this approach in any future proceedings.

The Caution

‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mentionwhen questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may begiven in evidence.’

PACE Code C, paragraph 10.5


6

Investigators should prepare a clear pre-interview briefing strategy which should include howinformation 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 canbe 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 tryto elicit as much information as possible from the investigator prior to interview. They will usethis information to test the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution case, as well as thecredibility 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) CrimLR 449, that if the police disclose little or nothing of the case against the suspect so that thelegal advisor cannot usefully provide advice, this can be a valid reason for the solicitor to advisethe suspect to remain silent.

The investigator must take care not to misrepresent material facts or attempt to mislead thesuspect or their legal advisor during a pre-interview briefing. They should conduct a thoroughanalysis 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 materialexists when it does not may render any subsequent interviews inadmissible.

In serious or complex cases, a staged or phased disclosure of information reflecting theparticular issues or topics that will be covered during each phase of the interview process maybe appropriate.

Where material is given to legal representatives during a pre-interview briefing, it is goodpractice to record it in a written or audio format. This can then be used in any subsequentproceedings to rebut an assertion that the investigator provided insufficient material to enablethe suspect’s legal representative to advise their client appropriately.

The investigator should ensure that the contents of the pre-interview briefing are brought to theattention of the CPS and/or counsel. This is to maximise the opportunity for an adverseinference to be drawn in any subsequent proceedings.

For further information on pre-interview briefings and dealing with legal representatives, seeACPO (2006) Practice Advice on Dealing with Legal Advisers.


7

THE R

IGH

T TO S

ILEN

CE

2.3 THE INTERVIEW PLAN

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

• Formulating clear and concise topics and areas for questioning which ensure that thesuspect fully understands the nature and circumstances of the offence they arebeing questioned about, and which give the suspect every opportunity to provide areasonable 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 modeloutlined in the ACPO (2002) Investigative Interviewing Strategy.

2.4 THE INTERVIEW

PACE Code C, paragraph 11.1 states, ‘An interview is the questioning of a person regardingtheir involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences which, underparagraph 10.1 must be carried out under caution.’

The purpose of the interview is to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for whichthey 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 andmake no comment during interview. The investigator must, therefore, anticipate and plan forthis 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 principleexplicitly states that:

‘Even when the right to silence is exercised by a suspect the police still have a right toput questions.’

The PEACE Model of Interviewing

P – Planning and PreparationE – Engage and ExplainA – Account, Clarification and ChallengeC – ClosureE – Evaluation


8

Investigators should also note that:

• Legal representatives are under a duty to act in the best interests of their client as arequirement of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules and although they advise a suspect to remainsilent, 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 itbeing excluded under section 76 of PACE;

• The suspect should be informed that the courts may still draw adverse inferences eventhough they have been given legal advice to remain silent, or a prepared statement hasbeen 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 PACECode 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 laterrely in their defence in court, a trial judge is entitled to invite a jury to draw an adverseinference. 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 orreject that advice, and that the defendant would have been warned that any failure to mentionfacts which they later relied on at their trial might harm their defence. It is a matter for the juryto determine whether the suspect’s failure to mention those facts was reasonable. If theyconclude that the suspect was acting unreasonably, they can draw an adverse inference fromthe failure to mention those facts.

The judge may draw to the attention of the jury that an explanation offered after considerationof all the evidence may be less convincing than an explanation offered at the time when theyare 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 supportthe 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 defendant’srights [to remain silent or not to disclose advice], and telling the jury that the defendant hasa choice not to rely on those rights;

• There needs to be an accurate identification of the facts which it is alleged a defendantmight reasonably have mentioned;

• There needs to be a warning that there must be a case to answer and the jury cannotconvict on inference alone;

• There must be a direction to the effect that the key question is whether the jury can besure that the accused remains silent not because of any advice but because he had nosatisfactory explanation to give.

For further information on the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines in respect of section 34 CJPOAsee http://www.jsboard.co.uk and also R v Bresa [2005] EWCA Crim 1414.


http://www.jsboard.co.uk

9

THE R

IGH

T TO S

ILEN

CE

2.6 CASE LAW

Section 34 of the CJPOA has generated considerable case law which refines the legislation andprovides an interpretation for investigators. This case law is continually developing andinvestigators should regularly review their legal knowledge to ensure that they remain up todate. Failure to do this may lead to an investigator conducting an interview in a manner whichdoes not allow a court the opportunity to draw a proper inference. Legal knowledge can beupdated 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 caselaw 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 wouldattach to a failure to answer questions was a matter for them to resolve in the exercise oftheir 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 wasunlikely to provide an adequate reason for failing to explain apparently criminal conduct inthe absence of any reason being given for that advice. The only evidence was that of theappellant which was unlikely to prevent the jury from drawing an adverse inference fromthe appellant’s silence.

• Betts and Hall [2001] EWCA Crim 224 stated that, ‘A person, who is anxious not toanswer questions because he has no or no adequate explanation to offer, gains noprotection from his lawyer’s advice because that advice is no more than a convenient wayof disguising his true motivation for not mentioning facts.’

• R v Howell [2003] EWCA Crim 01 stated that, ‘There must always be soundly basedobjective reasons for silence, sufficiently cogent and telling to weigh in the balance againstclear public interest in an account being given by the suspect to the police. Solicitorsbearing the important responsibility of giving advice to suspects at police stations mustalways have that in mind.’

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

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

• Hoare and Pierce [2004] EWCA Crim 784 stated that, ‘…even where a solicitor has ingood faith advised silence and a defendant has genuinely relied on it in the sense that heaccepted it and believed that he was entitled to follow it, a jury may still draw an adverseinference if it is sure that the true reason for his silence is that he had no or no satisfactoryexplanation consistent with innocence to give. That is of piece with Laws LJ’s reasoning inHowell and Knight that genuine reliance by a defendant on his solicitor’s advice to remainsilent is not in itself enough to preclude adverse comment.’


http://www.centrex.police.uk/digest

http://www.cps.gov.uk

10

It stated further that, ‘It is not the purpose of section 34 to exclude a jury from drawing anadverse inference against a defendant because he genuinely or reasonably believes thatregardless of his guilt or innocence, he is entitled to take advantage of that advice to impedethe prosecution case against him. In such a case the advice is not truly the reason for notmentioning the facts. The section 34 inference is concerned with flushing out innocence at anearly stage or supporting other evidence of guilt at a later stage, not simply with whether aguilty defendant is entitled, or genuinely or reasonably believes that he is entitled to rely onlegal rights of which his solicitor had advised him. Legal entitlement is one thing. A suspect’sreason for exercising it is another. His belief in his entitlement may be genuine, but it does notfollow 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 suspect’s failure orrefusal to account for objects, marks or substances found:

• On their person; or• In or on their clothing or footwear; or at the time of their arrest.• Otherwise in their possession; or • In any place they are

The investigator must reasonably believe that the object, mark or substance may be attributableto the suspect’s 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 thepresence 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 ata place at or about the time the offence was alleged to have been committed, who fails orrefuses to account for their presence in that place at that particular time. The constable orinvestigator must:

• Reasonably believe that the suspect’s presence at that place and time may be attributableto the suspect’s 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 orjury 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 drawa proper inference. This is known as a special warning.


11

THE R

IGH

T TO S

ILEN

CE

3.1 SPECIAL WARNINGS

A special warning is an additional caution. Legislation does not provide a specific form ofwording for a special warning but for an inference to be drawn it must be given in languagethat 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 tointroduce it. Generally, it will be given in the later stages of an interview, during the challengephase of the PEACE model, see 2.3 Interview Planning. If, however, a suspect has chosen toexercise their right to silence, it may be appropriate to give a special warning in the early stagesof the interview.

Investigators must recognise that there is a difference between the caution and a specialwarning. The caution must be given before any questions are put to a suspect. The specialwarning is more restricted in its use as it is only required when the investigator wants thesuspect to account for either objects, substances or marks found on or about the suspect at thetime of their arrest, or the investigator wants the suspect to account for their presence in aplace at the time an offence was committed.

4 PREPARED STATEMENTS

A prepared statement is a statement compiled by a suspect’s legal representative in consultationwith and signed and dated by the suspect. It will be submitted by the defence prior to, orduring a suspect interview and is intended to reduce the chance of an adverse inference beingdrawn by the court in any subsequent proceedings. It is a tactic commonly used by legalrepresentatives to try to counter any claims by the prosecution that the suspect fabricated factsor information which they could reasonably have been expected to mention during an interviewunder 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 toconsider the contents of this document. The statement may contain material new to theinvestigation and this should be assessed in the light of what is already known about theoffence. Before recommencing the interview with the suspect, investigators should also reassesstheir interview plan. It may be necessary to amend or prepare further questions in light of thenew material.

If a pre-prepared statement is handed in, or read out by the suspect’s legal representative at thebeginning of an interview, the investigator is still entitled to question the suspect about eitherthe contents of the prepared statement or other matters. If the suspect remains silent aboutmatters covered within the prepared statement this will not allow an adverse inference tobe drawn.


12

Where, following the submission of a prepared statement, a suspect remains silent and a factnot mentioned in the statement is later relied on in the defence, the court or jury is entitled toconsider drawing the appropriate inferences.

There may be occasions when the suspect will prepare a signed and dated statement that is notsubmitted to the police until charge or, in some cases, until trial. This may be because thestatement 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, theinterview should be conducted as planned based on the material available to the investigator atthat time. Even if the suspect maintains their right to silence, the investigator should ensure thatthe 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


13

APPEN

DIX

1


ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACPO . . . . . . Association of Chief Police OfficersCr. App . . . . . Criminal Appeal reportsCJPOA . . . . . . Criminal Justice and Public Order ActERO . . . . . . . . Evidence Review OfficerEWCA . . . . . . Court of Appeal England and WalesPACE . . . . . . . Police and Criminal Evidence ActPEACE . . . . . . Police interview training mnemonic:

P – Planning and Preparation; E – Engage and Explain;A – Account, Clarification and Challenge; C – Closure; E – Evaluation

APPENDIX 1

15

APPEN

DIX

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 PractitionersGuide 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 EssentialFramework, 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.


APPENDIX 2

http://www.jsboard.co.uk

murder investigation manual

Documents