Rights and LimitsPolice interviewsThe caution, and what “no comment” really costs
The caution, and what “no comment” really costs
There is a short and simple version of this page. One idea per sentence, no legal words.
What you must do, and what you can refuse
Every claim below links to the law it comes from, with the wording quoted so you can check it yourself.
You can refuse
No penalty for saying no.
You do not have to answer any question in a police interview.
The right to silence is real. The caution states it in its first sentence.
PACE Code C (2023), paragraph 10.5 — the caution
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
You are entitled to consult a solicitor privately at any time before answering questions.
Free, regardless of your means, and asking is never held against you.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.58(1)
“A person arrested and held in custody in a police station or other premises shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time.”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
Lawful to refuse — but it costs you
Not an offence, but it carries a penalty or an inference.
Silence about a fact you later rely on in court can be held against you.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s.34
“failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
The test is what you could reasonably have been expected to mention at the time.
This is why "I did not know the details of the allegation yet" matters, and why solicitors ask for disclosure before advising.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s.34(1)
“being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-08-25
Read the caution again, slowly
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
Three sentences, three different things. The first is your right to silence. The third is the familiar warning that talking can hurt you. The middle one is the one almost nobody registers, and it is the one that makes UK interviews different from the American version everyone has absorbed.
What “adverse inference” actually means
If you say nothing in interview, and at trial you rely on an explanation you could reasonably have given at the time, the court may be invited to draw a conclusion from that gap — in plain terms, that you had time to invent it.
An inference cannot convict you on its own. It is one more thing a jury may weigh. But it converts silence from a free option into a tactical decision.
Two things soften it considerably. Silence on the advice of a solicitor is treated by courts as a reasonable course. And a fact you could not reasonably have been expected to mention at the time is outside the rule.
The prepared statement
There is a middle option between answering questions and saying nothing: a written statement, drafted with your solicitor, handed over at the start of the interview, after which you answer “no comment”.
It puts your account on record at the earliest opportunity — which is exactly what the inference rule is about — without exposing you to hours of live questioning about facts you may be misremembering under stress.
Whether it helps depends entirely on what the police already have, which is precisely why this is a decision to make with a solicitor rather than in advance from a website.
Scotland is different
This page is England and Wales. Scotland has no equivalent adverse-inference rule, so the calculation around silence there is genuinely different. Do not carry advice across the border in either direction.
Last reviewed 2026-08-25. Next review due 2027-02-25. No solicitor has reviewed this page — see [email protected] if you think something here is wrong.