No Comment Interview: When Should You Stay Silent?

What Does "No Comment" Mean?

"No comment" is a phrase used to decline to answer a question in interview.

The decision to go "no comment" is a major tactical choice. It depends on what the police have disclosed, what you are being asked about, and the risks of saying something inaccurate or incomplete.

Your Right to Silence

One key legal risk of silence is adverse inference: section 34 CJPOA 1994 deals with failures to mention facts when questioned under caution (or when charged/informed) that are later relied on in a defence.^[1]

This has two practical consequences:

1. You can stay silent – but
2. Silence can be relevant later if you rely on facts you did not mention when you could reasonably have been expected to mention them.^[1]

When "No Comment" Is Advisable

In my practice, I often advise clients to go "no comment" in the following situations:

• Insufficient disclosure: When the police haven't told you enough about what you're accused of to respond meaningfully
• Need to gather evidence: When you need to verify facts, check documents, or speak to witnesses before giving your account
• Complex legal issues: When the case involves complicated legal points that require proper analysis
• Risk of self-incrimination: When answering questions honestly could incriminate you in other matters
• Fitness concerns: When you're unwell, under the influence, or otherwise unfit to be interviewed properly

When "No Comment" May Be Risky

Staying silent isn't always the best strategy. Consider these situations:

• Clear alibi: If you have an innocent explanation that can be verified, putting it on record early can be powerful
• Overwhelming evidence: If the evidence against you is strong, cooperation may help
• Positive defence: If you're going to rely on a specific defence at trial, mentioning it now protects you from adverse inferences

Understanding Adverse Inferences

Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the court can draw adverse inferencesfrom a failure to mention facts in certain circumstances. This means:

• If you fail to mention a fact during interview that you later rely on at trial...
• ...the court or jury may treat your silence as evidence that you made up the defence later
• This is fact-specific and depends on what was reasonable to expect at the time (s.34).^[1]

The Prepared Statement Alternative

A prepared statement offers a middle ground between full interview and complete silence. This is a written statement, prepared with your solicitor, which sets out your account of events. You then answer "no comment" to questions.

Benefits of a prepared statement:

• Puts key facts on record (which can matter for s.34 if you later rely on those facts)^[1]
• Avoids the risks of live questioning
• Gives you control over what information you provide
• Can be carefully considered and legally reviewed before use

In Practice: My Experience

Having represented hundreds of clients at Kent police stations, I can tell you that "no comment" is a legitimate and often sensible approach – but it should never be a default position without proper consideration.

I always conduct a thorough consultation before interview, reviewing the disclosure, understanding your instructions, and advising on the best approach for your specific situation. Sometimes that's "no comment," sometimes a prepared statement, and sometimes a full account.