Strategic advice before, during and after police interviews.
Being asked to attend a police interview is a critical moment. What you say, how you say it, and whether you say anything at all can determine whether an investigation ends or escalates.
At Investigations Law, we provide specialist representation for PACE interviews, including voluntary interviews and interviews following arrest. Our approach is strategic, calm and deliberate, and is very different from the limited assistance typically provided by duty solicitors at the police station.
A police interview is not a formality. It is a structured evidence-gathering exercise conducted under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).
Anything said can be:
Used in evidence
Compared against later material
Relied upon to justify a charging decision
Many cases are effectively decided at interview stage.
Our focus is to protect your position, control risk, and influence the outcome of the investigation, not simply to sit beside you while questions are asked.
Where possible, we speak to you before you attend the police station.
This allows us to take instructions calmly and properly, without the pressure of custody or interview rooms.
We use this time to:
Understand the background in detail
Identify risks and objectives
Assess what the police are likely to be investigating
Begin shaping a defence strategy
This step alone sets our approach apart from many firms.
Before any interview, we contact the officer in the case to obtain disclosure.
This may include:
The nature of the allegation
The evidence relied upon
The status of the investigation
What the police are seeking to establish
We do not treat disclosure as a formality. We analyse it carefully and assess what it does – and does not – show.
Once disclosure is reviewed, we meet or speak with you again to firm up instructions.
We advise you on:
The significance of the caution
Whether to answer questions, provide a prepared statement, or say no comment
The risks of partial engagement
The tactical implications of each option
In appropriate cases, we also consider two further strategic options that are rarely explored at police station level but can materially affect the course of an investigation.
Every case is assessed individually. There is no “one size fits all” advice.
We attend the police station with you and remain present throughout the interview.
Our role is to:
Ensure questioning is fair and lawful
Protect you from improper or speculative questioning
Intervene where necessary
Ensure the agreed strategy is followed
You are not left to manage this process alone.
Our work does not stop when the interview ends.
We routinely:
Follow up with written representations to the investigating officer
Address misunderstandings or evidential gaps
Advance the defence position clearly and proportionately
Seek to influence charging decisions
This post-interview engagement is often decisive and is rarely undertaken by duty solicitors.
We have used this approach repeatedly to bring investigations to an end without charge.
Duty solicitor assistance is valuable but limited.
It is usually:
Restricted to attendance at the police station
Funded on a fixed-fee basis
Provided by accredited police station representatives rather than solicitors
Focused on the interview only, not the wider investigation
By instructing a solicitor privately, you benefit from:
Continuity of advice before, during and after interview
Time to prepare properly
Strategic engagement with the police
Advice tailored to your priorities and risks
A client-led approach
In short, we can do what needs to be done, not just what the scheme allows.
(All examples are anonymised and illustrative of the type of work undertaken)
A client attended a voluntary interview in relation to a business-related allegation. We advised prior to interview, obtained disclosure, and adopted a structured interview strategy. Post-interview representations were made. The investigation concluded with no charges.
A director was interviewed under caution in connection with alleged trading irregularities. Early engagement, careful preparation and post-interview representations addressed the assumptions being made. The matter did not proceed to prosecution.
A client was interviewed following an allegation supported largely by inference rather than direct evidence. We challenged the evidential basis at interview and followed up with representations. No further action was taken.
Early intervention prevented escalation of a complex commercial investigation.
A business owner operating from commercial premises became the subject of a police investigation into alleged handling of stolen goods. The investigation arose from concerns raised by the authorities regarding vehicle parts and equipment located on site, together with assumptions made about the provenance of items linked to third parties.
The client was not accused of theft but was alleged to have knowingly handled stolen goods in the course of their business. The investigation carried significant risk, including potential prosecution, seizure of business assets, and serious reputational damage.
We were instructed at an early stage, before the matter had progressed to charge. Our work focused on:
Reviewing the factual background to the business operations
Analysing how the premises were laid out and used, including distinctions between different units and storage areas
Examining purchase records, invoices and documentation
Challenging assumptions made by investigators regarding control, knowledge and ownership of goods
Advising the client in relation to police engagement and evidential risk
A key issue in the investigation was the assumption that the presence of goods on the premises equated to knowledge and control, without sufficient analysis of how the business actually operated or how goods came to be on site.
We worked closely with the client to:
Clarify the commercial arrangements in place
Identify and evidence legitimate sources of goods
Address discrepancies and misunderstandings arising from the investigation
Present the evidence in a structured and intelligible way
Careful attention was paid to the distinction between association and criminal liability, and to ensuring that legitimate business practices were not mischaracterised as criminal conduct.
Following detailed engagement and the presentation of evidence, the investigation did not escalate into further enforcement action. The client avoided prosecution and was able to continue operating their business without the disruption that would have followed seizure or court proceedings.
This case illustrates how businesses can become implicated in serious criminal investigations not because of deliberate wrongdoing, but because of:
Assumptions made at an early stage
Incomplete understanding of commercial arrangements
Over-reliance on inference rather than evidence
Early legal intervention was critical in preventing the matter from escalating and in protecting the client’s business and reputation.
An example of how early investigative failures can lead to wrongful prosecution – and how strategic defence reversed the outcome.
A used car salesman became the subject of a police investigation in connection with allegations relating to the handling of stolen vehicles. The client had purchased vehicles in the ordinary course of his business from what he understood to be an authorised BMW dealership.
Despite this, the client was treated as a suspect rather than a victim of fraud.
At the police investigation stage, the client was represented by the duty solicitor. The representation was limited to police station attendance only. There was no meaningful follow-up, no proactive engagement with investigators, and no attempt to gather or present defence evidence.
In particular:
No effort was made to obtain or collate purchase documentation
No witness evidence was secured from the supplying dealership
No analysis was undertaken of how the fraud had occurred
No representations were made to the police following interview
As a result, the investigation proceeded on the basis of assumption rather than evidence, and the client was charged with £134,000 handling stolen cars!
The client instructed us after charge, facing court proceedings and significant reputational and commercial damage. At this stage, the case had already escalated unnecessarily.
We undertook a full review of the prosecution case and immediately identified that the investigation had failed to properly consider whether the client was the perpetrator or the victim of a fraud.
We took a proactive approach and prepared the case properly, including:
Obtaining and reviewing purchase records and invoices
Securing witness statements confirming that vehicles had been bought from an authorised BMW dealer
Analysing the chain of events demonstrating that the fraud originated upstream
Preparing defence witness statements and supporting material
Commissioning and collating relevant reports
This material was provided to the prosecution in advance of trial.
Following service of the defence evidence and representations, the prosecution reviewed its position. At the pre-trial hearing, the case was dismissed.
The court accepted that the evidence demonstrated that the client had acted in good faith and that he was not a handler of stolen goods, but rather a victim of a wider fraud.
This case illustrates how easily matters can go wrong when defence representation is limited to police station attendance alone.
Had we been instructed at the outset:
Defence evidence would have been gathered during the investigation
Witness statements would have been secured early
Representations could have been made to prevent charge
The client could have been spared the stress, cost and reputational damage of court proceedings
Instead, the absence of early strategic defence led to an avoidable prosecution.
Police investigations are often shaped by what happens at the very beginning. Once a charging decision is made, reversing course becomes harder, slower and more costly.
This case demonstrates the difference between:
Reactive, limited representation
Proactive, strategic defence from the outset
Early legal intervention can be the difference between no further action and a wrongful prosecution.
We offer a fixed fee of £1,800 + VAT for representation in a police interview.
This includes:
Initial advice and preparation
Contact with the investigating officer
Review of disclosure
Advice on interview strategy
Attendance at the police station
Post-interview representations to the police
Where cases require additional work, this will always be discussed and agreed in advance.
If you have been asked to attend a police interview, early advice is critical.
We provide clear, strategic and experienced representation designed to protect your position and influence outcomes.
Contact Investigations Law today to speak to a solicitor about police station and PACE interview representation.
© Investigations Law is a trading style of Brexit Law Limited | Company Number 13073281
