Advising clients at the police station - Rights of a suspect...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the principal rights and safeguards for suspects detained at a police station under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE"), including:

• Identifying core rights on detention, such as entitlement to free legal advice, notification of arrest, and access to the PACE Codes and medical care
• Applying statutory time limits and review requirements governing detention without charge, including calculation of the relevant time and authorisation of extensions
• Describing the custody officer’s responsibilities in authorising, monitoring, and recording detention, and in communicating rights and risks to suspects
• Analysing the safeguards built into PACE and the associated Codes, and the practical risks that arise if police powers are misused or procedural steps are omitted
• Evaluating how failures to comply with PACE protections may affect the admissibility of evidence and the overall fairness of criminal proceedings
• Assessing issues of voluntariness of acts and statements in custody, and their impact on criminal liability and the reliability of confessions
• Evaluating causation and chain of causation where police conduct, oppression, or breaches of PACE are alleged to have led to incriminating evidence
• Considering potential defences relevant to conduct during detention, such as lawful excuse and mistake of fact, in realistic custody-based scenarios
• Advising on special requirements for juveniles and vulnerable suspects, including the role of an appropriate adult and enhanced duties on the custody officer

SQE2 Syllabus

For SQE2, you are required to understand the rights and procedural safeguards applicable to suspects detained at a police station under PACE 1984, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The source, nature and scope of a suspect’s rights under PACE 1984 upon being detained at a police station, including but not limited to the right to legal advice, notification of arrest, access to the Codes of Practice, and entitlement to medical care.
• Procedural rules and responsibilities governing the authorisation of detention, the opening and management of the custody record, and ongoing assessment of risk and welfare needs.
• The operation and timing of custody time limits for detention without charge, including calculation of 'relevant time', permitted extensions and the procedural steps for applying to extend detention.
• Requirements for periodic review of detention, including the 'review clock', the relevant authorising officers, and the practical and evidential implications of omitting timely reviews.
• The grounds for, and process of, delaying a suspect’s right to legal advice or notification of arrest under PACE, including rank requirements, authorisation, permissible justifications, maximum periods, documentation, and repercussions for failure to comply.
• Practical guidance for advising suspects, including the implications of answering or declining to answer police questions, advising on adverse inferences, and handling prepared statements appropriately.
• Special protections for juveniles and vulnerable suspects, including the presence and role of an appropriate adult and authority for determining vulnerability.
• The legal and evidential importance of the custody record, its inspection rights, and the requirement to record rights, delays, and key authorisations.
• The interface between PACE safeguards and fundamental principles (e.g., right to silence, presumption of innocence), and the effect of procedural breaches on admissibility and trial fairness.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Under what circumstances, and by whom, can a suspect’s access to legal advice be lawfully delayed during police detention?
2. What is the maximum period a suspect can be detained without charge for a standard indictable offence before judicial authorisation is required?
3. What rights must the custody officer inform a suspect of upon arrival at the police station?
4. Which document records details of a suspect’s detention, and what parties are entitled to inspect it during custody?

Introduction

When a person is detained on suspicion of committing a criminal offence, their immediate rights, welfare, and legal safeguards are principally governed by PACE 1984 and its associated Codes of Practice. These rights ensure that police powers of investigation and detention do not override the fundamental interests of justice or an individual's entitlement to fair and lawful treatment. The maintenance of procedural safeguards not only protects the individual but also upholds the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole, as breaches can result in evidence being excluded or an unfair trial.

Key Term: PACE 1984
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—legislation establishing the powers of the police to investigate, arrest, detain, and question suspects, subject to statutory controls and individual rights.

The Role of the Custody Officer

Upon arrival at the police station, every suspect must be brought before a custody officer—a police sergeant or above, independent from the investigation—who alone is authorised to decide whether continued detention is necessary. The custody officer’s function is fundamental: they are a gatekeeper for statutory compliance, responsible for ensuring all rights are explained, authorising and monitoring detention, and providing welfare oversight.

Key Term: custody officer
An officer (minimum rank: sergeant) not involved in the investigation, charged with assessing and authorising detention, conducting risk assessments, ensuring welfare, and managing the custody record.

On presentation, the custody officer must immediately open a custody record and ensure all legal and procedural steps are followed.

The Custody Record

A custody record is opened as soon as practicable after detention is authorised. This record documents the grounds for detention, welfare and risk assessments, all actions affecting the detained person (including interviews, reviews, provision or refusal of rights), and any significant events or requests.

Key Term: custody record
The contemporaneous record kept by the custody officer, detailing all entries relating to the suspect’s time in police custody. The suspect, their solicitor, or appropriate adult can request and inspect the record at any stage of detention; a copy must be provided on release if requested.

A well-kept custody record is critical not only for evidence and potential judicial scrutiny but also for upholding the rights of the suspect—failures in record-keeping may render a period of detention unlawful or result in the exclusion of evidence at trial.

Informing the Suspect of Their Rights

The custody officer must inform every detained person, orally and in writing, of their core rights “as soon as practicable”. These include:

• The right to consult a solicitor, privately, at any time.
• The right to have a nominated person (relative, friend, or person interested in their welfare) informed of their arrest and detention.
• The right to consult the PACE Codes of Practice and receive a written statement of their rights.
• The right to medical attention if ill, injured, or in need of psychological support.
• The right to request an interpreter or communication support if required.

Key Term: PACE Codes
Statutory Codes of Practice issued under PACE, governing specific powers (e.g., Code C—detention, treatment, and questioning; Code D—identification procedures; Code E—audio recording; Code F—visual recording).

It is not permissible for police staff to suggest or imply that exercising these rights will prolong detention or delay interviews—any attempt to discourage legal advice is a breach of Code C.

Detention Time Limits and Reviews

PACE s.41 prescribes a strict initial maximum period of 24 hours for which a suspect may be detained before charge—the "detention clock" starts from the "relevant time" (usually arrival at the station following arrest, or time of arrest if arrested at the police station).

For indictable offences (including either way or indictable-only), this 24-hour limit may be extended to a maximum of 36 hours if—and only if—a superintendent (or higher) authorises continued detention, provided the criteria below are met:

• Grounds exist to believe that continued detention is necessary to secure or preserve evidence or to obtain evidence by questioning.
• The investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.
• The offence under investigation is indictable.

Further detention beyond 36 hours is never permissible without judicial oversight. The police must apply to the magistrates’ court for a warrant of further detention. Each warrant can authorise up to 36 further hours, but the aggregate maximum detention (save for terrorism or exceptional cases) is 96 hours from the relevant time.

Key Term: relevant time
The moment detention is first authorised at the police station, or time of arrest at the station; forms the starting point for custody time calculations.

If the time limit is reached without an extension or prosecution decision, the suspect must be released—either charged, bailed, or released outright.

Parallel to the detention time limits is the requirement for periodic reviews by an officer not below the rank of inspector and unconnected to the investigation. The first review must occur no later than 6 hours after detention is first authorised, and subsequent reviews must not be more than 9 hours apart. The purpose is to ensure continual assessment of the necessity, proportionality, and conditions of detention, and to allow representations from the suspect, their solicitor, or appropriate adult. All reviews must be documented in the custody record.

Key Term: detention review
Mandatory review of detention (by an independent inspector or above), to confirm ongoing lawful grounds for continued custody and to scrutinise compliance with PACE.

Key Term: review clock
The period used to calculate when reviews must occur, running from the time detention is first authorised, not from when the suspect arrives in custody.

It is essential not to confuse the review clock (important for lawful ongoing detention) with the detention clock (which governs the total period a suspect can lawfully be held).

Right to Legal Advice

Every person detained for a criminal offence at a police station is entitled to free and independent legal advice at any time, in private, whether in person or by telephone. This right applies regardless of means, seriousness of the offence, or party (including non-UK nationals and vulnerable suspects). The right must be brought to the detained person’s attention on arrival, at intervals during detention, and immediately before any interview, identification procedure, or significant event.

Key Term: right to legal advice
The right, under s.58 PACE, for a detainee to consult a solicitor, privately and without means test, at any stage of their detention.

Key Term: Defence Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC)
National scheme for allocating defence solicitors to persons detained at police stations when requested, ensuring prompt access to independent legal advice.

Practical guidance: When requested, the custody officer must facilitate contact with a solicitor without delay, either the suspect’s own or a duty-appointed solicitor via the DSCC. If the suspect only wishes to speak to a solicitor by telephone (and the DSCC deems this sufficient), the police must not delay the call. Once a request for legal advice is made, no police interview should begin until advice has been received unless a legal exception applies.

If a suspect initially declines legal advice, it must be made clear they are free to change their decision at any time, and an explicit record of the refusal and circumstances must be made in the custody record—with particular care for safeguards where suspects are vulnerable or juvenile.

Delaying Access to Legal Advice

Exceptionally, a superintendent (or above) may authorise a delay (of up to 36 hours from relevant time) in access to legal advice where:

• The offence is indictable.
• There are reasonable grounds for believing that access to a solicitor at that time would:
  • Lead to interference with or harm to evidence.
  • Lead to physical harm to other persons.
  • Lead to alerting others who have not yet been apprehended.
  • Hinder recovery of property obtained via the offence.

The delay must be only for as long as necessary and is strictly time-limited; any change in circumstances must be Immediately recorded and, if justification lapses, immediate access must be made available. The suspect must be informed both orally and in writing of the reason for delay, and this must be logged in the custody record.

Key Term: delaying rights
A strictly regulated temporary power for police to postpone a suspect’s access to some rights (especially legal advice or notification of arrest) under statutory criteria, maximum periods, and only for as long as the justification exists.

Importantly, the power to delay legal advice is reserved for truly urgent circumstances and should not be exercised routinely. If the correct authorising rank is not present, the delay is automatically unlawful. Police cannot refuse legal advice simply because they believe a solicitor will advise silence or that it will slow down the investigation.

Additionally, if a suspect is denied access to a particular solicitor (for example, if they are suspected of involvement), the right to an alternative solicitor remains and cannot be refused.

If the legally required procedures for delay are not followed, any evidence obtained in interview during the delay is highly vulnerable to challenge and may be excluded under s.76 or s.78 PACE.

Right to Have Someone Informed of Arrest

PACE s.56 entitles any detainee, upon request, to have a person informed of their arrest and place of detention as soon as is practicable after arrival. That person does not need to be a family member; they can be any individual likely to take an interest in the detainee’s welfare.

On receipt of a request, the custody officer must ensure that a nominated person is contacted promptly. If that person cannot be reached, the detainee may nominate up to two alternatives. An inability to contact a nominated person should not delay notification to others within reason, and all actions must be logged in the custody record.

Delaying Notification

An inspector (or above) may delay notification of arrest—again, only for indictable offences—if there are reasonable grounds (mirror grounds for delaying legal advice):

• Contacting the nominated person would likely:
  • Lead to the destruction or interference with evidence.
  • Cause physical harm to others.
  • Alert other suspects yet to be apprehended.
  • Conceal or remove proceeds of criminal conduct.

The maximum period for delaying notification, as for legal advice, is 36 hours from relevant time; the justification must be kept under review, and the suspect notified of reasons (verbally and in writing) and the existence and expiry of the delay, all documented in the custody record. Once the delay ceases to be justified, notification must proceed immediately.

Examining Special Cases

Where the person to be notified is themselves a suspect or implicated in the offence, this must be weighed as one of the factors in potentially delaying notification, but cannot justify blanket refusal if further delay cannot be justified under the statutory grounds.

Related Procedural Safeguards

All exercise of rights, authorisations, reviews, and any decisions to delay or restrict access must be meticulously recorded in the custody record. This record is open to inspection during detention by the detainee, their solicitor, or appropriate adult, and a copy is provided upon release. Any failure in accurate record-keeping may render ongoing detention unlawful and jeopardises the admissibility of any evidence obtained during that period.

Vulnerable suspects and juveniles are entitled to additional safeguards: for anyone under 18 or suspected to be mentally vulnerable, an appropriate adult must be present and engaged when rights are explained, reviewing documentation, and (with their involvement) during interviews and procedures such as identification or search.

Key Term: appropriate adult
An adult (often a parent, guardian or social worker, but may also be another responsible adult aged 18 or over, independent of police), whose role is to support, advise, and assist juveniles or vulnerable adults in police custody, to ensure understanding, protection of rights and effective communication throughout the process.

If an appropriate adult cannot attend within a reasonable time, police must reconsider whether interview can proceed or, in urgent cases (threats to evidence, people, property), record the reasons for proceeding without one.

Special note: The presence of an appropriate adult does not limit the suspect's entitlement to private legal advice—solicitors’ consultations remain privileged.

Interview Procedures and Cautions

Every interview at the police station must be conducted under caution. The wording is:
“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 suspect must be reminded of the right to free legal advice before each interview, not just on arrival, and any significant statements or silences must be brought to their attention at the outset of each interview.

If a suspect opts to make a prepared statement in lieu of questioning, it is often read at the beginning of the interview; any subsequent silence may be subject to adverse inferences if at trial the suspect raises a fact not mentioned when questioned. However, adverse inferences cannot be drawn if the suspect was denied an opportunity to consult with a solicitor before being questioned.

Advising on Police Questions – Right to Silence, Prepared Statements, and Adverse Inferences

In advising suspects, solicitors must weigh the following considerations:

• If the prosecution's disclosure is inadequate, or the client’s mental/physical state is questionable, silence may avoid risking self-incrimination or undermining facts for later defence (Argent; Roble; Howell).
• Advising answering questions enables a client to put forward a defence, potentially avoids adverse inferences at trial, and may persuade police not to charge or grant a caution/speedier disposal.

Where silence is exercised, courts can draw adverse inferences under s.34–37 CJPOA 1994 if facts later relied on at trial were not mentioned during interview and if it was reasonable to have mentioned them at the time. The “Argent factors” (e.g., age, capacity, experience) are relevant in deciding whether it was reasonable to expect the suspect to have mentioned a fact when questioned. Reliance on legal advice to remain silent is not an automatic bar to adverse inferences unless shown to be genuinely and reasonably relied upon.

Solicitors should advise on the risks and benefits of making a “no comment” interview, answering questions in full, or making a prepared statement, setting out the client’s version of events clearly, and decide on the appropriateness based on circumstances (e.g., client’s vulnerability, the strength of the evidence, or gaps in prosecution case).

Prepared Statement Tip: Provided the prepared statement covers all facts the suspect may later use at trial, no adverse inference should be drawn if all further questioning is met with silence.

Voluntariness and the Requirement of a Voluntary Act

Criminal liability generally requires a voluntary act. Where a suspect’s actions while in detention are involuntary (e.g. due to automatism, force, or lack of capacity), this may negate the actus reus, and any confession or event should be assessed for voluntariness and capacity to participate. Where interview procedures are not voluntary or conducted in line with required safeguards—such as when a vulnerable person is unfit to be interviewed—evidence obtained may be excluded.

Causation and Chain of Causation

Where evidence, admissions, or confessions result from police conduct, issues of factual and legal causation may arise, especially regarding exclusion arguments where a breach of PACE, oppression or involuntariness is alleged. The chain of causation must be established to link the police action with the challenged outcome, and any significant intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain. For instance, an involuntary action by a suspect (due to threats, duress, automatism) will be assessed as to whether it severs criminal liability or evidential reliability.

Mistake as Defence and Defences to Offences During Detention

While generally the law expects compliance with legal process, a defendant who acts under a mistake of fact that negates mens rea may avoid liability for offences committed during or related to detention. Mistake of criminal law is no defence, but factual mistakes that are honest and genuinely held may be.

The Importance of the Burden and Standard of Proof

Throughout the police station process, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove every element of an offence (whether charged or as part of contested process) beyond reasonable doubt. Defences or exceptions sometimes place an evidential (occasionally legal) burden on the defendant, such as for insanity or diminished responsibility, but generally, suspects need only raise an issue for the prosecution to then disprove it. The presumption of innocence and the requirement for fair trial are important and are embedded in PACE and the wider legal framework.

Special Case: Admissibility of Evidence and Exclusion Following Breach

If police breach PACE or relevant Codes (e.g., by deliberately denying rights, failing to record correct times, interviewing a suspect when unfit or without required safeguards), any confession or evidence may be excluded under s.76 (where oppression or unreliability is found) or s.78 (where admission would adversely affect the fairness of proceedings) PACE. The onus is on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a confession was not obtained improperly.

Worked Example 1.1

A custody officer delays access to a solicitor for Imogen, arrested on suspicion of an indictable offence. The justification: informing legal advisors might alert other suspects. Delay is authorised by a superintendent. After 28 hours, Imogen is interviewed but not yet allowed to consult a solicitor, and confesses.

Answer:
The delay in access to legal advice is only permissible for indictable offences, where a superintendent has reasonable grounds to believe the outcome would be interference with evidence, harm to others, alerting of other suspects or hindering property recovery. The delay must be justified and last only as long as necessary. Imogen's confession might be admissible only if the procedural requirements were strictly followed, delay is genuinely required and properly recorded, and the right is restored as soon as possible. Any doubt may result in exclusion under s.76 or s.78 PACE.

Worked Example 1.2

Faraz is suspected of theft, an either way offence. He is arrested at 18:30 and his detention is authorised at 18:40. His solicitor is contacted at 18:45. At what times must his reviews occur?

Answer:
The review clock starts at 18:40 (when detention is first authorised). The first review must occur no later than 00:40 (6 hours), and subsequent reviews must be not more than 9 hours apart (by 09:40, etc.), all times and outcomes being logged in the custody record.

Worked Example 1.3

Sophie, aged 16, is detained on suspicion of assault. The custody officer arranges for her mother to attend as appropriate adult, but Sophie objects to her presence. What should happen?

Answer:
If Sophie expressly and specifically objects, another suitable and independent appropriate adult should be arranged (e.g., social worker). Provided the adult is appropriate and independent, the objection should be respected, and the adult’s presence should be recorded in the custody record along with Sophie’s grounds for objection.

Worked Example 1.4

A suspect in custody for a summary-only offence is held for over 24 hours without charge due to a miscalculation of the relevant time. Evidence is obtained during the continued detention. Is it admissible?

Answer:
Detention for a summary-only offence cannot lawfully exceed 24 hours from relevant time, with no extension permissible. Any evidence obtained after this period is liable to be excluded on the basis that the detention was unlawful, and such a breach may lead to the exclusion of evidence under s.78 PACE and form the basis for a claim in false imprisonment.

Worked Example 1.5

A custody officer fails to record an authorisation to delay notification of arrest. The detained suspect’s friend is not informed, and the delay is not documented in the custody record. What are the consequences?

Answer:
The procedural requirements under PACE and Code C mandate written record of delay, justification, and all relevant periods. Omission may render the delay unlawful and support a challenge to the admissibility of evidence on fairness grounds if the failure prejudiced the suspect, and exposes the officer to disciplinary findings.

Exam Warning

Do not conflate the detention clock (total custody period) with the review clock (periods between reviews). Extensions always require the authorisation of the correct rank. Any ambiguity or short-cutting in procedure risks rendering detention unlawful and invalidating evidence.

Revision Tip

Practise calculating custody and review clocks using real times. Always check that the correct rank authorises each action, and ensure the custody record is inspected for procedural compliance, especially for vulnerable suspects.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Suspects must be informed as soon as practicable of their rights to legal advice, notification of arrest, medical attention, and to consult the PACE Codes.
• Custody officers must keep a detailed custody record; this record is open to inspection by the suspect, solicitor, or appropriate adult at any time during custody and upon request after release.
• Detention without charge is limited to 24 hours in most cases. For indictable offences, up to 36 hours with a superintendent’s authorisation, and beyond only by a magistrates’ court to a maximum of 96 hours.
• Reviews of detention by an independent inspector (unconnected to the investigation) must take place no later than 6 hours after detention is authorised, then at intervals not exceeding 9 hours.
• The right to legal advice and to have someone informed of arrest can only be delayed in limited, exceptional circumstances; maximum period is 36 hours, delay must be proportionate, authorisation and justification scrupulously documented.
• Where rights are exercised, delayed, or refused, this must be carefully recorded in the custody record, and all involved parties (including an appropriate adult where necessary) must be informed.
• For juveniles and vulnerable adults, an appropriate adult must be present whenever rights are exercised, reviews occur, or interview/procedures are undertaken.
• Any breach of PACE procedures, especially regarding rights and record-keeping, can have serious evidential consequences and undermine the fairness of proceedings.
• Burden and standard of proof on the prosecution remain throughout; defences and exceptions often engage only an evidential burden for the suspect, except where a legal burden (e.g., diminished responsibility, insanity) applies.

Key Terms and Concepts

• PACE 1984
• custody officer
• custody record
• PACE Codes
• relevant time
• detention review
• review clock
• right to legal advice
• Defence Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC)
• delaying rights
• appropriate adult