IB

[midvillain]

Are you allowed union representation when being interviewed by IB?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Yes, better with a solicitor though depending on what it's about

[midvillain]

Thanks. If a person has gone into an interview with IB without taking a rep in with them, and things have gone badly for them, is that the end of it?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

All depends on the circumstances normally as far as I am aware if it's a formal interview by IB they explain your right of representation, if they have and the person still goes ahead with the interview then they don't really have any come back

[midvillain]

Thanks for your help

[Sancussolutions]

Also, do they tape record the interviews and can we say no?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Also, do they tape record the interviews and can we say no?

If they do then they must comply with PACE

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/pace.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also for information this is a response to a FOI request by Royal Mail: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... 1.pdf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Please tell me if Royal Mail have powers to question under caution and record interviews
with a member of the public, a supplier or member of staff. Specifically I am minded to
suggest these powers may have been made available in accordance with The Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), although powers may have been conferred to Royal
Mail under other Acts.

Please then provide me with authority from the Ministry of Justice for the same.”

I can confirm that Royal Mail Group does have an investigation function which questions
and records interviews with members of the public, suppliers and/or employees where they
are suspected of committing offences against the company. These powers are outlined at
Section 67 (9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the associated Codes of
Practice. Royal Mail Group is also a Private Prosecutor and recognised by the criminal
justice system as such.

In response to the final part of your request, we do not hold an authority form from the
Ministry of Justice in regards to these powers.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Also, do they tape record the interviews and can we say no?

yes they can record them but, also to be clear IB are not the police they have no power of detainment etc, they cannot make you have the interview, they will explain your rights to you on tape if it is a formal interview, if you refuse and they still want to compel you have the interview all they can do is ask the police to do it, they then have the power to compel the interview in which you will always have the right to remain silent, if ib are interviewing you about anything to do with your own conduct i would strongly insist on having a solicitor present not your union rep

[TrueBlueTerrier]

As to refusing to be interviewed under PACE by the IB i guess its the same as for the Police - its not a simple Yes or No answer.

http://crimebodge.com/your-right-to-ref ... interview/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DECLINING A POLICE INTERVIEW

Once you are brought to a police station, you will most likely be held in custody while the arresting officer arranges an interview room. You will then be instructed to follow the officer to be interviewed. It’s at this point you can decline. Something that happens very rarely in modern police stations and when it does it nearly always takes the police by surprise. In fact, most officers are so used to detainees doing exactly what they are told, they have no idea what to do when they refuse to comply.



Before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was introduced in 1984, if you declined to be interviewed it was likely you would be dragged kicking and screaming into the room. But PACE Codes C & E set out very clear procedures that must be followed by the police in relation to a detainee’s right to refuse an interview; meaning that the police cannot use force to get you to talk.



PACE Code E 3.4 (CODE OF PRACTICE ON AUDIO RECORDING INTERVIEWS WITH SUSPECTS ): If a person refuses to go into or remain in a suitable interview room, see Code C paragraph 12.5, and the custody officer considers, on reasonable grounds, that the interview should not be delayed the interview may, at the custody officer’s discretion, be conducted in a cell using portable recording equipment or, if none is available, recorded in writing as in Code C, section 11. The reasons for this shall be recorded.



PACE Code C 12.5 (REVISED CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE DETENTION, TREATMENT AND QUESTIONING
OF PERSONS BY POLICE OFFICERS): 12.5 A suspect whose detention without charge has been authorised under PACE because the detention is necessary for an interview to obtain evidence of the offence for which they have been arrested may choose not to answer questions but police do not require the suspect’s consent or agreement to interview them for this purpose. If a suspect takes steps to prevent themselves being questioned or further questioned, e.g. by refusing to leave their cell to go to a suitable interview room or by trying to leave the interview room, they shall be advised their consent or agreement to interview is not required. The suspect shall be cautioned as in section 10, and informed if they fail or refuse to co-operate, the interview may take place in the cell and that their failure or refusal to co-operate may be given in evidence. The suspect shall then be invited to co-operate and go into the interview room.



Effectively if you refuse to go into the interview room, then the police must bring the interview room to you. And although as Code C points out the police do not need your consent to ask questions, you are under no obligation to reply.



A refusal to leave the confines of a cell usually means the police having to dig around in some ancient storage cupboard looking for a mobile cassette player. Then maybe having to flog halfway across town for a set of fresh batteries. In some cases however it means the police simply abandon the interview altogether, in the hope that when it gets to court the judge will instruct the jury to draw an adverse inference from the interviewees unwillingness to talk.



But as the police discovered in R v HIND (2005) if they never ask you any questions then the rule of adverse inference cannot be applied:



REGINA v HIND

R v Hind was an appeal case that centred upon a detainee – Jodie Hind – refusing to leave his police holding cell and be interviewed. As the police were unable (or unwilling) to bring a tape recorder to the cell, the detainee was charged without interview. At trial the judge instructed the jury to draw an ‘adverse inference’ as re section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act from the fact that Hind had refused to be interviewed. Hind was found guilty and convicted.



Hind appealed his conviction. As the police had never technically asked him any questions, it was put, no adverse inference could be drawn from his silence, even though Hind had failed to account for actions, facts, evidence and objects that related to his arrest to the police and then testified in his defence at court.



Hind won his appeal and his conviction was quashed.



The court was of the view that a detainee’s right to silence is enshrined within the words of the police caution. Particularly two words of that 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.”


The Judge ruled that adverse inference could only apply if you failed to answer questions put to you by the police. If they don’t ask those questions then technically you haven’t failed to answer. Furthermore questioning is qualified as meaning after arrest (and arguably after you have been given the opportunity to have legal representation). Prior to arrest your silence CANNOT be used against you.



So regardless of what the police would have you believe, your refusal to answer questions under caution cannot of itself be used as a reason to prosecute you. And adverse inference is for a court to decide, not for the Police or the CPS to base their decision upon whether to prosecute or not. Without supporting evidence you cannot be prosecuted by your words alone.


If the police have no evidence and are relying on you to incriminate yourself during interview, then your silence is paramount.