Sections 35 to 37, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Section 35 allows an inference to be drawn when a defendant is silent at trial. However, this section prevents an inference from being drawn when it appears to the court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence.


Section 36 allows an inference to be drawn when a person fails or refuses to account for objects, substances or marks found

* on his person; or
* in/on his clothing or footwear; or
* otherwise in his possession; or
* in any place at the time of his arrest,

and when an investigating officer reasonable believes that the presence of such a mark, or substance or object may be attributable to that person participation in the commission of an offence specified by the officer.

Section 37 allows an inference to be drawn when a defendant fails or refuses to account for his presence at a particular place where it is believed that he may have committed an offence.

SAY NOTHING (except to your lawyer).

Unlike with your system, here in the US there is no inference allowed to be drawn for your refusal to answer anything or your refusal to "aid the police with their inquiries". In many parts of the country even ordinary folks on a jury won't draw inferences (they will have been ordered not to, but you know how folks are) as non cooperation is expected "out of orneriness" -- not just the guilty exercising their right to remain silent.

I have been warned a few times in interview about this, the courts drew no inference whatsoever. It is in my experience a very idle threat, maybe others have had different experiences. Quite simply unless you really know what you are doing in interview anything you say will be used in evidence AGAINST you and your friends. A simple admission that you know someone could really fuck things up if a conspiracy charge is on the cards especially if they say they don't know you, for a start they have proved that one of you is a liar which they will use. Remember an interview is to gather evidence for a charge why hand it to them?
If anything you say later differs from what you say in interview, or what others have said in interview again you could be in trouble defending your case. Innocent comments are twisted by the CPS, make their lives interesting, tell them nought until you are in the witness stand where you will have ample opportunity to defend your actions, hopefully.

If you are doing an accountable action then there are a couple of good reasons to comment when being arrested. Some actions are partly motivated by the desire to get an argument into the legal record. Primarily, it ensures that anything that you do say is read out in court. A judge won't always allow you to speak in court but they have to read out any statement you make on your arrest. For what it is worth, that then forms part of the historical record, and there is always the outside chance that a citizen journalist may report it. Blocking up the courts is a recognised tactic , one that serious newbies should beware and be aware of imao.