I'm inclined to agree, that making a statement wouldn't avoid a lengthy interview, it would just lead to more questions, about what you said in the statement.

Hi
I admitted at the interview as the basics point was correct, I had paid for sex. However the interview was very long, circa 8 hrs with breaks. They WERE aggressive in the manner of tone and some questions to try and get me to react as they wanted me to. They even stressed I was taking to long to answer questions. I appeared calm but was s?:%*ing it inside.

In the end the only words they wanted was for me to give evidence that supported their "thoughts" and ignored my words on points that they should investigate that would support my version of events.
The Plea management hearing was postponed 3 times (I was actually in Court each time it happened) where I was going to plead guilty. I only got a 20% discount because I delayed my guilty plea even though I admitted at interview?? 

In the end just realise they will manage the outcome and thoughts on the "sentencing guidelines" to meet their aims no matter what you do.



Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Yes, you should be clear about what you would be admitting once you've been shown the evidence (and not before then). Saying you'll be pleading guilty to an offence doesn't automatically mean you're accepting any aggravating factors at all, and any prepared statement can make that clear. You can even amend it to take account of any insinuations made by the interviewing officers if you want. If there's no evidence presented, then there's nothing to admit.


=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Hi
Agree with your words but in my case I think I was a bit naïve in that, though as mentioned, I did admit to "paying for services", when eventually I saw the charges, I asked my solicitor what they were based on i.e. evidence. Eventually I even argued that due to the "shock" of being arrested etc, some of the things I did say had been interpreted with a bias to their aims e.g. a wrong meaning.
The solicitor just said it would be put right in Court. This caused confusion as I was under the impression I had already pleaded guilty so a trial was pointless.

In the end I do think my attempt to show remorse and my naivety of the Justice processes; plus the emotional effects of the events happening, allowed me to prove their case for them!
It was only thinking back that I realised, though I heard the duty solicitor say "I am not here to give advice, I am here to ensure your human rights are maintained", I did not actually listen. I missed out key words like "not" as I was desperate for him to give me advice as i thought that was his role.
Also in my case I had no chance to prepare a statement as I was arrested in one station/city and then transported (with delays) to the "interview" location via 2 other stations/cities with -re-arrested - at them all.

And I still not get 30% discount on my sentence some 2 years later. But that is another subject.



Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Never speak with the police - no comment the whole way.  An interview is an attempt to gain (more) evidence in order to charge you/strengthen their case. There is absolutly nothing at all to be gained from saying anything to the police other than no comment.

They may or may not have evidence already as you mention. If you are guilty then worry about pleading in court (after seeing the evidence they have - not before) and mitigating circumstances/work you have undertaken since being 'caught'. 

The police may be agressive in the interview (in my experiance they always are) however sticking to no comment is the way to go regardless of this. The agressiveness of the police interviewing you is not something that is going to come up in court and if you have simply said no comment it does not go against you in court at all.

Hi
I am sure you have reasons for your opinion and so will leave it as your opinion.

One point though, 
I was on bail for 2 years, trying to work with the "system" to show repent etc. Also I provided evidence directly to the Police of blackmail etc against me as mitigation. Did any of it help my case/sentencing - NO.
I only mention it because some readers may take it that those words are certain; which they are not.
Also "no comment" can be used in the prosecutions favour quite easily as you being in denial of the offence and so creating more "damage" to the victim.
I am not saying you are wrong but, in the time from your arrest to interview you have to consider your stance very carefully as not everyone is as lucky as OJ Simpson was.
Also remember your solicitor at the initial interview may just take the stance of only being there to support your human rights, not give legal advice as mine stated.  

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

null

No comment cannot be used in the prosecutions favour at all. The prosecution can only present evidence - no comment is not evidence of anything and any claim about no comment hurting the victim is pure hearsay.

It's not quite that simple. If you are going to plead not guilty, then a no comment could cause you problems (see below) and it might increase the chances of you being convicted in some situations. What I would say though, is that if you intend to plead guilty, then it has much less of an impact. Judges don't tend to take much notice of it when it comes to sentencing, and it is not seen as an aggravating factor for sentencing. Remember, sentencing is a separate matter from determining someone's guilt or innocence.

https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/should-you-say-no-comment-in-a-police-interview

The condition often attached to the answer “no comment” is often referred to as ‘adverse inference’.For example, the court may draw adverse inference if you are questioned by the police and you do not mention a fact which you later rely on for your defence in court. If you had the opportunity to share the information and you instead chose to remain silence, this could ultimately count against you.Adverse inference may not be drawn if you are able to provide a clear explanation for your decision to remain silent during the original questioning.The specific circumstances are:

• Section 34 - fails to mention facts which they later rely on in their defence at trial which they could reasonably have been expected to mention at the time of the interview.
• Section 36 - fails to account for the presence of an object, substance mark or mark on an object.
• Section 37 - fails to account for their presence at a place at or about the time of the commission of the offence

What does adverse inference mean?

The term 'adverse inference' means the court is permitted to draw ‘such inferences as appear proper’ including a negative conclusion from the defendant's silence; in other words, the court may hold the defendant's silence against them.The significance for the tribunal of fact of a failure by the defendant, when first questioned, to mention facts which they later rely on at trial is whether or not that failure is an indication that the facts which are now being advanced can or cannot be relied on.One inference that the jury or magistrates’ court may draw is recent fabrication ie. that the defendant remained silent when interviewed because they did not have an adequate explanation for their conduct and they have since fabricated the facts that form their defence.Alternatively, the inference may be drawn that the suspect did not put their defence forward when interviewed by the police because they did not believe it would stand up to further investigation by the police.

Only applies if you are then relying on something later in court for your defence that you were questioned on.  It is heresay for the prosecution to simply bring up that you gave a no comment interview as it is not evidence (/fact) of anything and the court can only make determinations on the facts.

From experience I would say two things: 

- Police interviews are generally phishing expeditions. They always like to catch people out and incriminate themselves. 

- Listen to your brief. Really important. Make sure to have something to eat and drink as well. As they rely on people being tired of admitting to stuff. 

I think some officers enjoy the power they have in these situations.