Always a second interview?
Notifications OFF
Hi, sorry as I've asked this question before, but if new evidence is found on devices once forensics complete checks are you always called in for a second interview?
My person didn't get called for a second interview, he only received a call telling him the evidence was now with CPS :(
Does this mean that the evidence is still the same as it was when he had the knock and nothing new?? Xx
My person didn't get called for a second interview, he only received a call telling him the evidence was now with CPS :(
Does this mean that the evidence is still the same as it was when he had the knock and nothing new?? Xx
I'm guessing it depends on what he said in his first interview? My person did a no comment 1st interview, once devises were back he did a voluntary 2nd interview and from that and evidence it was sent to the CPS. If he's admitted to it in the 1st interview then perhaps there's no need for second interview once devices are back? I'm no expert but that's the only thing I can think of.
I'm confused about this too as my person's bail sheet only mentions 1 image and 1 pseudo-image but there will be lots of others there. Would a 2nd Interview be if there is evidence found of a different type of offence eg making actual contact with a child rather than just online images? I'm only guessing though.
Hello!
just jumping on - does a bail sheet detail any evidence/potential evidence as I haven't seen my persons, we aren't allowed to see each other.
my person also did a no comment first interview so I am expecting a follow up when they have their evidence to question him about
just jumping on - does a bail sheet detail any evidence/potential evidence as I haven't seen my persons, we aren't allowed to see each other.
my person also did a no comment first interview so I am expecting a follow up when they have their evidence to question him about
Hi,
As far as my person told me he did no comment on first interview as advised by the solicitor, his evidence is with CPS since march and no second interview so unsure, if they'd found anything extra from the devices then surely they'd have hauled him back in before sending to CPS?? Everything is such grey areas it seems xx
As far as my person told me he did no comment on first interview as advised by the solicitor, his evidence is with CPS since march and no second interview so unsure, if they'd found anything extra from the devices then surely they'd have hauled him back in before sending to CPS?? Everything is such grey areas it seems xx
Not sure about questioning him, does it depend on whether the evidence is clear cut enough?
Don't they send the evidence to cps first to see if there is sufficient to charge/prosecute? If it's yes from the CPS, then they could bring back in, interview question and charge at the end of that??
Don't they send the evidence to cps first to see if there is sufficient to charge/prosecute? If it's yes from the CPS, then they could bring back in, interview question and charge at the end of that??
I thought if the forensics found new evidence of more crime/s they had a second interview before CPS? To give the person the chance to speak and either own up or deny allegations.or generally to inform the person of what was found?
That sounds logical Bettyboo - but I'm no expert!
DeeDee, not sure logic applies to any part of this horrible journey :( x
Post deleted by user
Absolutely nailed it!
Most of the time there will be a second interview but not always.
Giving a no comment interview is something that most people would either choose to do regardless of guilt OR would choose not to do because they believe that telling the truth is better. The honest answer as to what is the best thing to do completely depends on the case, evidence and the opinion of a solicitor will vary on what is the right thing to do.
I personally think in the majority of these cases relating to these offences, the best thing to do is to give a no comment interview at the start as evidence will be limited until forensics have been done. I know some solicitors (especially duty ones) will say "just tell the truth" and I'll be honest, some solicitors absolutely carry personal prejudice. There is little in way of reprimanding or proving that choosing to "tell the truth" has caused harm to an individual's case where it results in prosecution, however, choosing to "no comment" throughout interview (if a solicitor) has advised this can actually bring about professional issues for them if a client was to bring a complaint or the court was to draw an adverse inference from the chosen right to silence at that stage if that was what was advised by the solicitor.
Basically, the biggest issue with "no comment" interviews would be if you were arrested for a crime and when asked specific questions didn't answer but then at trial you had an alibi which you never gave in interview, an adverse inference COULD be drawn and this means that you had the opportunity to give alibis and explain in your interview but chose not to and effectively you could have just made up this alibi in the run up to trial. It's unlikely this would be the case for offences of this nature and there are lots of rules around being able to draw adverse inferences, it's quite complicated.
*I'm not condoning any offences or trying to aid people "getting away" with crimes
Giving a no comment interview is something that most people would either choose to do regardless of guilt OR would choose not to do because they believe that telling the truth is better. The honest answer as to what is the best thing to do completely depends on the case, evidence and the opinion of a solicitor will vary on what is the right thing to do.
I personally think in the majority of these cases relating to these offences, the best thing to do is to give a no comment interview at the start as evidence will be limited until forensics have been done. I know some solicitors (especially duty ones) will say "just tell the truth" and I'll be honest, some solicitors absolutely carry personal prejudice. There is little in way of reprimanding or proving that choosing to "tell the truth" has caused harm to an individual's case where it results in prosecution, however, choosing to "no comment" throughout interview (if a solicitor) has advised this can actually bring about professional issues for them if a client was to bring a complaint or the court was to draw an adverse inference from the chosen right to silence at that stage if that was what was advised by the solicitor.
Basically, the biggest issue with "no comment" interviews would be if you were arrested for a crime and when asked specific questions didn't answer but then at trial you had an alibi which you never gave in interview, an adverse inference COULD be drawn and this means that you had the opportunity to give alibis and explain in your interview but chose not to and effectively you could have just made up this alibi in the run up to trial. It's unlikely this would be the case for offences of this nature and there are lots of rules around being able to draw adverse inferences, it's quite complicated.
*I'm not condoning any offences or trying to aid people "getting away" with crimes