Write perfect custody notes in 3 minutes — Try CustodyNote FreeStart free trial
Log In

Common Problems at Police Stations & How to Solve Them

Practical solutions to 15 common police station problems: dealing with difficult officers, PACE breaches, disclosure refusals, equipment failures, cultural barriers, and professional conflicts. Includes intervention scripts and escalation strategies.

Common ProblemsIntermediate✓ Fact-Checked2 viewsUpdated 22 November 2025

Common Problems and Solutions: Troubleshooting Police Station Representation

Introduction: Learning from Challenges

Every police station representative, regardless of experience level, encounters challenging situations that don't fit textbook scenarios. Clients behave unpredictably. Police make procedural errors. Evidence doesn't align with accounts. Technical issues disrupt interviews. Unexpected developments require rapid adaptation.

This comprehensive guide addresses the most common problems representatives face, providing practical solutions and preventive strategies based on experienced practitioners' approaches and guidance from the SRA Code of Conduct and PACE provisions.[^1]

Understanding how to handle these common problems transforms challenges from career-threatening disasters into manageable professional situations you navigate confidently.

Client-Related Problems

Problem: Client Admits Guilt to You But Wants to Deny in Interview

The scenario:

During consultation, client tells you:

"Yeah, I did it. I stole the money from the till. But I'm going to say I didn't do it in the interview. They can't prove it anyway."

Why this is a problem:

Under the SRA Code of Conduct, you cannot knowingly:[^2]

  • Allow client to commit perjury or provide false account
  • Present evidence you know is false
  • Mislead the court or police
  • Assist client in fabricating defense

But you also must:

  • Maintain client confidentiality under legal professional privilege[^3]
  • Represent them effectively
  • Respect client autonomy

These obligations conflict.

The ethical position:

SRA Code of Conduct and professional rules establish:[^4]

What you CAN do:

  • Represent client at police station
  • Advise them to exercise right to silence (no comment) under Code C paragraph 6.6[^5]
  • Put police to proof of their case
  • Challenge weak or improperly obtained evidence
  • Identify procedural failures
  • Ensure fair process

What you CANNOT do:

  • Help them create false alibi
  • Present fabricated evidence
  • Allow them to give false testimony in court
  • Suggest specific lies they could tell
  • Continue representing them at trial if they insist on false testimony

How to handle:

Explain clearly to client:

"I need to be very clear about something important. You've told me you did take the money. That's confidential—I won't tell the police.

However, now that you've told me that, there are limits on how I can represent you:

I CAN:

  • Advise you to exercise your right to silence in interview (say 'no comment')
  • Make sure police follow proper procedures
  • Challenge their evidence if it's weak or improperly obtained
  • Put them to proof—make them prove every element of the offense
  • Ensure you're treated fairly

I CANNOT:

  • Help you create a false story about not taking it
  • Present evidence I know is false
  • Suggest lies you could tell
  • If this goes to trial and you want to testify that you didn't do it, I cannot represent you at trial because you've told me you did do it

Do you understand the difference?

You don't have to admit guilt to police. You can say 'no comment' to all questions. That's your legal right. But I cannot help you actively lie about what happened.

Are you comfortable with me representing you on that basis?"

Document carefully:

"Client initially stated they had taken the money. Subsequently indicated intention to deny in interview. Explained ethical limits on representation under SRA Code of Conduct. Advised right to silence remains available. Client chose to [decision]. Noted that trial representation may require alternative counsel if client maintains position that conflicts with admissions made to me."

Problem: Client Wants You to Contact Witnesses to "Align Stories"

The scenario:

Client: "Can you call my mate Dave and tell him to say I was with him all night? He'll back me up if you explain what to say."

Why this is a problem:

This is requesting you to:

  • Assist in creating false alibi
  • Potentially commit offense of perverting the course of justice (Criminal Law Act 1967, Section 5)[^6]
  • Engage in professional misconduct under SRA Principle 1 (act with integrity)[^7]
  • Suborn perjury

How to handle:

Be absolutely clear:

"No, I cannot and will not do that. What you're asking me to do is:

  1. Help create a false alibi
  2. A criminal offense called 'perverting the course of justice' under the Criminal Law Act 1967, which carries up to life imprisonment[^8]
  3. Professional misconduct that would get me struck off
  4. Potentially suborning perjury

I cannot contact witnesses to coordinate false stories. That's not legal representation—that's participation in criminal activity.

What I CAN do:

  • Contact genuine witnesses to obtain truthful statements supporting your actual defense
  • Investigate facts that support what actually happened
  • Help you present your genuine account

If you're telling me you didn't do this and Dave can genuinely confirm you were elsewhere, I can help obtain that evidence. But only if it's true.

Are we clear on what I can and cannot do?"

Document:

"Client requested I contact witness to provide false alibi. Explained this would be professional misconduct and criminal offense under Criminal Law Act 1967. Clarified ethical boundaries. Client [accepted boundaries and proceeded / continued to insist, requiring me to withdraw]."

Problem: Client is Too Intoxicated to Engage

The scenario:

Client is clearly drunk or high:

  • Slurred speech
  • Difficulty focusing
  • Confusion
  • Poor coordination
  • Can't follow simple questions
  • Repeating themselves
  • Incoherent responses

Legal framework:

Code C Annex G requires fitness for interview assessment.[^9] Healthcare professional must determine whether detainee's condition makes them unfit for interview.

Your assessment:

While healthcare professional makes official fitness determination, you must assess whether your client can:

  • Understand your advice
  • Make informed decisions
  • Participate meaningfully in interview
  • Comprehend questions and formulate coherent responses

If you have serious doubts, act to protect them.

How to handle:

Step 1: Attempt consultation

Try to explain rights and obtain instructions. If client cannot engage:

Step 2: Request healthcare assessment

Inform custody officer:

"My client is clearly intoxicated and unable to engage effectively with the interview process. Under Code C Annex G, they should be assessed by a healthcare professional to determine fitness for interview. I'm formally requesting that assessment now."

Step 3: Await healthcare assessment

Healthcare professional will assess under Annex G criteria:[^10]

  • Can they understand questions?
  • Can they appreciate significance of questions and answers?
  • Can they give rational responses?

They'll provide fitness opinion to custody officer.

Step 4: If deemed fit despite your concerns

"I note the healthcare assessment. However, based on my consultation with my client, I maintain concerns about their capacity to understand questions and provide reliable answers. I'm advising them to exercise their right to silence given their current state."

Step 5: If interview proceeds anyway

For the audio record:

"Before interview begins, I'm noting that my client is intoxicated. I requested healthcare assessment of fitness. Despite that assessment, I maintain concerns about my client's capacity to engage effectively with questioning. I'm advising exercise of right to silence. Any answers given may be unreliable given my client's state."

This protects your client if they say something damaging and creates record for challenging admissions later under PACE Section 76 (unreliable confessions).[^11]

Document extensively:

"Client was clearly intoxicated upon arrival. Exhibited [specific signs]. Attempted consultation but client's capacity was impaired. Requested healthcare assessment under Code C Annex G. Healthcare professional assessed client as [fit/unfit]. Despite assessment, maintained concerns. Advised no comment. [Outcome]."

References

[^1]: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Codes of Practice, particularly Code C (2019 revision), available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents

[^2]: SRA Code of Conduct, Paragraph 1.4: "You do not mislead or attempt to mislead your clients, the court or others", available at https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/

[^3]: Legal professional privilege confirmed in R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B [1996] AC 487

[^4]: SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors (2019)

[^5]: Code C paragraph 6.6: Right to legal advice and right to silence

[^6]: Criminal Law Act 1967, Section 5: Perverting the course of justice, available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/5

[^7]: SRA Principles, Principle 1: "You act with integrity"

[^8]: Maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is life imprisonment

[^9]: Code C Annex G: Fitness to be interviewed

[^10]: Code C Annex G paragraph 2: Criteria for fitness assessment

[^11]: PACE Section 76: Confessions may be excluded if obtained by oppression or in circumstances making them unreliable, available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/76