Core rights: notification and legal advice

On arrival, the detainee must be told clearly about continuing rights, including free independent legal advice, having someone informed, consulting the PACE Codes, and applicable interpretation and translation rights. Written information supplements, rather than replaces, an explanation the person can understand. A signature does not establish comprehension where language, illness or vulnerability has not been addressed. Authority: Code C, paragraphs 3.1–3.5 and 3.17–3.21.

Under PACE section 56 and Code C section 5, the detainee can request that one person known to them or likely to take an interest in their welfare be informed, at public expense and as soon as practicable, of their whereabouts. If that person cannot be contacted, up to two alternatives may be chosen. This is a right to notification, not an unrestricted right to make every call personally or receive a visit. Code C separately deals with reasonable personal telephone and written communication. Notification of a child's welfare contact and contacting an appropriate adult are additional safeguards; do not treat one message as satisfying every duty. Authority: PACE, section 56; Code C, paragraphs 3.13–3.15 and 5.1–5.6.

Under PACE section 58 and Code C section 6, the detainee may communicate and consult privately with a solicitor, in person, in writing or by telephone, at any time. Free independent advice is available. Police must not dissuade the request by suggesting that advice implies guilt or that refusal will buy an earlier release. Once advice is requested, the custody officer must act without delay unless a lawful exception applies. Ordinarily the person must not be interviewed before receiving the requested advice and may request the solicitor's presence in interview. Earlier refusal does not extinguish the right to ask later. Authority: Code C, paragraphs 6.1–6.8, 6.15 and Note 6ZA.

Private advice has a specific purpose. The solicitor establishes identity, status, relevant time and health; examines arrest and detention grounds and the custody record; obtains disclosure and identifies omissions; takes the client's account privately; and advises on interview choice and possible inferences. Where the client wants to speak without the appropriate adult, a private consultation should be arranged. The client is the person advised, not the accompanying parent or police officer. Authority: Code C, paragraphs 3.15, 6.1, 6.5A and Notes 1F and 6D.

Legal professional privilege protects confidential lawyer–client communications made for the legally protected purpose of legal advice. It is not a label covering every conversation at the station. Communications with an appropriate adult do not acquire that protection merely because the adult supports the suspect. The solicitor should protect the confidentiality of consultation, identify conflicts between co-suspects and avoid assuming one person's instructions can be used for another. An interpreter needed for private legal advice must not become a police listener. Authority: Code C, paragraphs 6.1 and 13.9 and Note 1F; R v Webber [2004] UKHL 1, paragraph 27, on preservation of privilege in the silence framework.

The solicitor should remain alert during interview, seek clarification, challenge improper questioning, advise the client not to answer a particular question where appropriate, and request private consultation. Proper intervention is not obstruction. Removal is permitted only where the solicitor's conduct prevents proper questioning, not because the advice is inconvenient. The interviewer must stop and use the prescribed senior-officer process: a superintendent if readily available, otherwise an uninvolved inspector or above; the senior officer must consider the conduct, including speaking to the solicitor. If removal follows, the suspect must be given an opportunity to consult another solicitor before interview continues, subject to the applicable exceptional interview provisions. Authority: Code C, paragraphs 6.9–6.10 and Note 6D.

Lawful delay is narrow—and there are two different questions

First ask whether police are delaying exercise of a right. For a pre-charge detainee connected with an indictable offence, Annex B permits delay only on specified reasonable grounds. These concern interference with or harm to evidence, injury to another person, alerting an unarrested suspect, hindering recovery of property obtained through the offence, or the specified risk of hindering recovery of criminal benefit. General sensitivity, routine workload or the prospect that a solicitor will advise silence is not enough. Authority: PACE, sections 56 and 58; Code C, Annex B.

The two authorisations must not be merged. The concern must arise from exercising the particular right. Where the risk relates to the chosen solicitor, permit selection of another solicitor rather than treating the person as disentitled to all advice. Review the ground as circumstances change. These Annex B restrictions are for pre-charge detention; they do not authorise withholding representation at the court's further-detention hearing. Authority: Code C, Annex B, paragraphs 1–7; PACE, section 43(3); Code C, paragraph 15.7A.

Second ask whether police may interview before requested advice has been received. Code C paragraph 6.6 supplies defined routes, not a general urgency discretion:

For a change of mind, the inspector must speak to the suspect about the reasons; the suspect need not give a reason. The prescribed reasonable efforts to contact the solicitor, establish the expected arrival and notify the change must be made. The interview record must capture the decision and remind the suspect that advice can still be requested. If the solicitor arrives, the suspect must be told and offered consultation, with questioning interrupted unless a lawful exception justifies continuation. A private advice opportunity and an informed decision are substantive safeguards, not a form-filling exercise. Authority: Code C, paragraphs 6.6–6.7, 6.15 and Annex C.

Foreign-national and communication rights

A foreign national must be informed of the right to communicate with the relevant consular representative and, on request, have the consulate informed as soon as practicable. Some bilateral arrangements require notification without a request. Where the person claims refugee status or asylum, contacting the authorities of the country from which protection is sought raises a distinct issue: Code C directs referral for immigration advice rather than automatic home-consulate contact. A consular representative does not replace independent legal advice or an interpreter. Authority: Code C, paragraphs 7.1–7.4.

Samuel: protect the right, then identify the remedy

R v SamuelKey caseR v Samuel[1988] QB 615; referred to in Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, paragraph 49 [1988] QB 615 is retained for the importance of access to legal advice. In Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, paragraph 49, the Supreme Court expressly identifies Samuel's description of that access as a fundamental right and refers to PACE section 58. Cadder was a Scottish appeal; its Scottish procedure is not imported into this course. The English and Welsh rules governing the request, any lawful delay and the interview gateway remain the PACE and Code C rules explained above.

For a problem question, separate three decisions: what right applied; whether the facts establish a breach or a lawful exception; and what consequence follows for the particular evidence or proceedings. A serious denial may support an exclusion application, but neither acquittal nor exclusion of every item follows automatically. Chapter 6 supplies the separate sections 76 and 78 tests. The original Samuel trial is not retold here because its full report has not been independently inspected. This does not leave the operative right or remedy untaught.