It's true that in some cases the Police are allowed to exercise their discretion and issue a Caution rather than have a case taken to court. If you think this is a realistic prospect however, this is something your Solicitor will discuss with the interviewing officer(s) prior to interview. I partly blame myself for this as I haven't had time to put together the guide I promised about Police Interview techniques in the UK despite the fact I now have two of their training manuals on the subject(!) but the decision about whether to press charges for all except very minor crimes is now in the hands of the CPS, not the Police themselves.As such if a Police officer offers to drop the charges from crime X if you admit to crime Y, they are attempting to mislead you. (As I will discuss in my treatise, this is not something a career minded CID officer will do due to the likelihood of running into trouble with their superiors and the CPS, given that the offer has no merit.)If it's a case of simple possession of a personal quantity of a drug and they wish to issue you with a verbal/written Caution, they will let your legal adviser know this in advance. You can then discuss this in private with your Solicitor. There is no need for you to talk during the interview process itself though you will have to indicate your acceptance of the Caution.Although what you've said is true, unless the Police proactively offer to do this, I still maintain you are far less likely to end up in front of a Jury of your peers if you refuse to comment. This doesn't mean you shouldn't listen of course and indeed there are times when it will be pertinent to make a statement to the Police but these are extremely rare and you will receive little if any mitigation for an early confession at the Police Station - the real leniency is exercised by pleading guilty in court.V.Quote from: Duckman on May 13, 2012, 12:01 pmQuote from: vlad1m1r on May 08, 2012, 06:59 amSounds like an interesting experience you had but this isn't what I said. I said that silence can be pointed out at trial, in the case the Prosecutor was in danger of speculating as to why the defendant remained silent - this is a matter for a jury to decide both in the USA and UK, which is why the trial Judge quite rightly suspended the sitting and drew in some jurors from the pool. The point I really wanted to emphasise that even in a jurisdiction where the right to silence is not qualified, a jury could still choose to convict in the absence of the defendant accounting for their presence in a particular place for instance, or failure to provide an explanation as to why certain items were found in their homes or about their person. This si definately true in the UKQuote from: vlad1m1r on May 08, 2012, 06:59 amWhat's important to bear in mind is that you ARE far less likely to end up in front of said jury in the first place if you keep your mouth shut during a Police interview!V.This is not usually true. The police dont usually round up a large group of random people, interview them and then pick candidates to sent to trial. If you are sat in that interview then they know you are guilty. If you are sat there on a possession charge, what you say, has little effect on the fact that you were caught in possession. All you are doing in a situation like this is making it harder on yourself. If you are caught with drugs and they ask "are these your drugs" and you say "no" or "no comment" the police arent left wondering whose drugs these really are and what they should do next. In cases of small amounts, by admitting to it you probably receive a formal caution there and then, but if you dont admit to it you find yourself in front of a judge or magistrate, who is going to view the charge in black and white.. possession is illegal, you were found in possession, so the correct verdict here is.........????????????