[gouranga]

That is when you are questioned, not when you are arrested. You can keep quiet as long as you want. Technically the simpler your questioning and therefore statement is, the more ambiguity is available in court which goes in your favor whether guilty or innocent. During cross examination, any error you make ruins your credibility. No information = less errors. Choosing not to answer a question does not imply guilt - it's in the CPS prosecution guidelines.

With respect to solicitors, get a private one as well (preferably one who knowingly hates the police) rather than a duty solicitor as they are in the pockets of the police in the UK. They are one and the same - they eat, drink, socialise and funny handshake in the same locations.

[jiggy2011]

Choosing not to answer does not imply guilt, however simply stone walling with "no comment" is probably not as good an idea as it would be in the US (although a solicitor would be able to advise you on what you should answer).

I'm not sure whether "questioned" just means when you are at the police station or also during the time of the arrest. I would assume it could refer to both "why did you not bring this to the attention of the officer at the time of the arrest?".

Although I would imagine a rational jury would think that waiting for legal advice was a sensible thing to do.

Regards duty solicitors, I always thought that these were really private solicitors who were put on a rotation and were strictly kept separate from the police?

http://www.jfhlaw.co.uk/faqs/crime-faqs/what-is-a-duty-solic...

If there is a case of corruption here then that would be extremely worrying as the people most likely to be charged with crimes are also the people with the least ability to pay a private solicitor. Is there anything to back this up?

I'm also not sure I would want a solicitor who "hates" the police, I would want somebody motivated to help me, not get one over on someone else. The adversarial relationship between the police and solicitor should be professional and not personal.

[gouranga]

You are unlikely to be trialled with jury. It'll be sealed or with a magistrate.

There's nothing to back it up unfortunately other than a number of horror stories over the years of people getting shafted. The law is extremely biased towards those with money unless its a high profile case.

Duty solicitors are private solicitors but from direct experience, they aren't always neutral. Its bad when you find your duty solicitor in the pub with the arresting officer (I was arrested and charged with assault a few years ago when I disabled someone assaulting my wife). That made an interesting picture to show in court I will say.

The rationale for police hatred is that they are less likely to be biased against you.

The human race is particularly self serving I find which is the issue.

[mryan]

Getting off-topic here, but would you mind sharing what happened in your case, when the court was shown the picture of the officer/solicitor as drinking buddies?

[jiggy2011]

What if they were drinking buddies though and had known each other since childhood or somesuch?

Is there a rule that says a criminal defence solicitor can never be in a social setting with a Police Officer?

[Djehngo]

I think it presents a clear conflict of interests if a solicitor is representing a client who was arrested by a close friend of said solicitor.

[gouranga]

The magistrate said that the CPS and police had made a mockery of the legal system and that he was striking the case off. CPS solicitor was reprimanded verbally. I was awarded costs of 300 pounds. Lasted about 5 mins after that.

[scott_w]

If you're arrested in the UK, you'll be asked if you want a solicitor present. If you do, then you'll not be questioned until your solicitor arrives and gives you legal advice.

This isn't brought up in court, as it's basically inadmissible. That said, there are a couple of situations where you can be questioned without a lawyer present - a lovely side-product of our "anti-terror" legislation.