Do You Always Need a Solicitor in Interview?
The right to legal advice at the police station exists in all cases. But does every suspect need a solicitor present during interview? Understanding when legal representation is most critical helps clients make an informed decision.
The short answer is: not necessarily — but the decision carries real consequences, and the circumstances in which someone should proceed without advice are narrower than many suspects realise.
The Right to Legal Advice
Section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives every person detained at a police station the right to consult a solicitor, in private, at any time. This right must be communicated to the suspect by the custody sergeant. The police may delay access to a solicitor only in the most serious cases — typically terrorism or major organised crime — and only on the authority of a superintendent.
The right is free at the point of use. Unlike legal aid in court proceedings, there is no means test for police station legal advice. A suspect need not pay anything to consult a solicitor or an accredited representative.
Voluntary Interviews
Suspects who attend for voluntary interview under caution — sometimes referred to as PACE caution interviews or voluntary attendance — are not under arrest and may leave at any time. They remain entitled to legal advice before and during the interview.
Voluntary interview suspects sometimes underestimate the seriousness of their situation. The investigation may be at an advanced stage; the police may already have significant evidence; and anything said in the interview is admissible. A representative can assess the available disclosure, advise on the strength of the case, and help the suspect decide how to approach the interview.
When Legal Advice Is Most Critical
Legal advice is particularly important in certain categories of case:
- Serious allegations — violence, sexual offences, serious fraud, or any allegation carrying a significant custodial sentence
- Complex factual matters — where the suspect may not appreciate which facts are relevant or legally significant
- Multiple suspects — where co-accused may be providing conflicting accounts
- Limited disclosure — where the police have given little indication of the evidence against the suspect
- Vulnerable suspects — those with mental health difficulties, learning disabilities, or who are very young
The Accredited Representative
Not every police station attendance requires a fully qualified solicitor. Accredited police station representatives are trained to advise at the police station, attend interviews, and advise on interview strategy. They operate under the supervision of a solicitor and are independently authorised to attend custody suites.
Where a firm cannot provide a solicitor immediately, an accredited representative may attend in the interim. The duty solicitor scheme also operates through accredited representatives in many areas.
Waiving Legal Advice
When a suspect declines legal advice, the custody record must reflect this. At interview, the interviewing officer will typically ask the suspect whether they have had an opportunity to receive legal advice and whether they are satisfied to proceed without it.
Critically, adverse inferences under sections 34 to 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 cannot be drawn where a suspect remained silent and had not been offered legal advice, or where they were not warned that silence might be used against them. The right to legal advice and its proper exercise therefore has a direct bearing on the admissibility of inferences from silence.
Where there is any suggestion that a suspect was pressured into waiving legal advice, or was not properly informed of the right, this may provide grounds to argue that any subsequent interview should be excluded under section 78 of PACE.
Note: This article is intended as general information for criminal defence practitioners in England and Wales. It does not constitute legal advice. Solicitors and accredited representatives should exercise their own professional judgment in each case. Law and practice may change; always verify current requirements with primary sources.