The call comes out of nowhere. A police officer on the line, polite but firm, asking if you’d be willing to come down to the station for a chat. Or maybe they’ve shown up at your door, saying they need to ask you a few questions about an incident. Your heart starts racing. Your mind floods with questions. What do they know? What should I say? Will refusing make me look guilty?
This moment, right here, is one of the most critical decision points you’ll face. What you do in the next few minutes can fundamentally shape everything that follows. And yet, most people make this decision in a state of panic, without understanding what’s really happening or what their options actually are.
If police want to interview you, there’s something you need to understand before you say a single word. They already consider you a suspect. This conversation is not going to clear your name. We’ve talked with the criminal defence lawyers at Podmore Legal and they shared they’ve seen countless clients who believed cooperation would demonstrate their innocence, only to find their own words used against them in court later. The stakes are higher than you realise, and you have more power than you think.
What “Voluntary” Actually Means
When police ask you to attend an interview, they’ll often use language that makes it sound casual, cooperative, even friendly. They might say they’re “just clearing things up” or “getting your side of the story” or “helping you rule yourself out as a suspect.” The tone suggests this is a simple conversation, a chance to sort out a misunderstanding.
Here’s what you need to know: unless you’re under arrest, that interview is completely optional. You have every legal right to decline, to delay, or to insist that you’ll only participate with a lawyer present. The police officer’s friendly demeanour doesn’t change this fundamental fact.
The confusion arises because police are skilled at creating a sense of urgency and obligation. They might suggest that refusing to talk makes you look guilty, or that getting a lawyer means you have something to hide. They might imply that this is your one chance to tell your version of events. None of this is true.
The difference between being under arrest and being asked to attend voluntarily is significant. If you’re under arrest, police must tell you. If they haven’t arrested you, you’re free to leave at any point, and you’re certainly free to refuse the interview altogether. Many people don’t realise they can simply say, “I’d like to speak with a lawyer before deciding whether to participate in an interview.”
That one sentence changes everything. It protects you without requiring you to explain yourself, justify your position, or engage in any further conversation about why you want legal advice.
Why Police Conduct Interviews (It’s Not What You Think)
The gap between expectation and reality in police interviews is enormous. Most people enter these conversations believing that honesty, cooperation, and a clear explanation will resolve the situation. They think that demonstrating they have nothing to hide will work in their favour.
The reality is far more complicated. Police interviews are structured, controlled environments where officers use specific techniques to elicit information and admissions. They’re trained in interview strategies that most civilians have never encountered. You’re operating at a significant disadvantage from the moment you sit down.
Nervousness gets interpreted as guilt. Memory gaps become inconsistencies. Speculation or attempts to be helpful can turn into admissions you never intended to make. The lawyers at Podmore Legal have reviewed hundreds of police interview recordings over the years, and they say the pattern is consistent: people who thought they were explaining themselves clearly were actually providing evidence that strengthened the case against them.
Consider what happens when you’re asked about events that might have occurred weeks or months ago. You’re trying to remember details under pressure, in an unfamiliar setting, possibly without sleep or food, certainly without time to check your phone or calendar or consult with anyone. You make your best guess about what happened when. Later, if evidence contradicts your recollection, that becomes an inconsistency in your statement. It doesn’t matter that you were doing your best to remember, it reads like you were being deceptive.
The permanence of these statements is another factor people underestimate. Once words are recorded in a police interview, they exist forever. You can’t take them back, clarify them, or explain what you really meant. If your case goes to court, your interview will be played or read out, and every word will be scrutinised. Prosecutors are skilled at finding phrases that sound incriminating when taken out of context or combined with other evidence.
What You Think Will Happen vs. What Actually Happens
The gap between expectation and reality in police interviews is enormous. Most people enter these conversations believing that honesty, cooperation, and a clear explanation will resolve the situation. They think that demonstrating they have nothing to hide will work in their favour.
The reality is far more complicated. Police interviews are structured, controlled environments where officers use specific techniques to elicit information and admissions. They’re trained in interview strategies that most civilians have never encountered. You’re operating at a significant disadvantage from the moment you sit down.
Nervousness gets interpreted as guilt. Memory gaps become inconsistencies. Speculation or attempts to be helpful can turn into admissions you never intended to make. We’ve talked wit he lawyers at Podmore Legal who reviewed hundreds of police interview recordings over the years, and they say the pattern is consistent: people who thought they were explaining themselves clearly were actually providing evidence that strengthened the case against them.
Consider what happens when you’re asked about events that might have occurred weeks or months ago. You’re trying to remember details under pressure, in an unfamiliar setting, possibly without sleep or food, certainly without time to check your phone or calendar or consult with anyone. You make your best guess about what happened when. Later, if evidence contradicts your recollection, that becomes an inconsistency in your statement. It doesn’t matter that you were doing your best to remember, it reads like you were being deceptive.
The permanence of these statements is another factor people underestimate. Once words are recorded in a police interview, they exist forever. You can’t take them back, clarify them, or explain what you really meant. If your case goes to court, your interview will be played or read out, and every word will be scrutinised. Prosecutors are skilled at finding phrases that sound incriminating when taken out of context or combined with other evidence.
Common Traps in Police Interviews
Police interviews contain specific techniques designed to get you talking and keep you talking. Leading questions are common: “You were pretty angry that night, weren’t you?” This type of question assumes facts that may not be true but encourages you to accept the premise before answering.
You’ll be asked to speculate about what others might have been thinking or doing. “Why do you think she said that?” seems like an innocent question, but your answer can be used to establish your state of mind, your relationship with the other person, or your knowledge of events. You’re being asked to interpret someone else’s actions, which inevitably reveals your own perspective and assumptions.
Time pressure is another common element. Interview rooms are uncomfortable. You want to get out. You want this to be over. Police know this, and they know that tired, stressed people make mistakes. They talk more than they should. They agree to things they don’t fully understand. They provide information they don’t realise is incriminating.
The defence team at Podmore Legal frequently encounter clients who were asked seemingly straightforward questions like “Were you at this location on this date?” They answered yes, truthfully, not realising that placing themselves at that location at that time was the key piece of evidence police needed to proceed with charges. The question seemed innocent, but it was precisely targeted.
Why Even Innocent People Need Lawyers
The belief that only guilty people need lawyers is one of the most damaging misconceptions in criminal law. Innocent people are particularly vulnerable in police interviews because they’re confident they can explain everything. They believe the truth will protect them.
The truth is complicated, nuanced, and often messy. Real life doesn’t fit neatly into the elements of criminal offences. But police are investigating specific crimes with specific legal definitions, and they’re listening to your answers through that lens. Something you say might seem irrelevant to you but could satisfy an element of an offence you don’t even know exists.
A lawyer understands what police already know versus what they’re trying to find out. They recognise the legal implications of questions before you answer them. They know which questions you should engage with and which ones you should decline to answer. This isn’t about being evasive or obstructive. This is about understanding the strategic landscape of a criminal investigation, one that can move quickly from a police interview to an arrest, a bail application, and beyond.
Having legal representation protects you against interview techniques you’re not equipped to recognise or respond to. As experienced bail lawyers serving Perth and the surrounding areas, Podmore Legal can attend the interview with you, interrupt inappropriate questions, request breaks when needed, and ensure the interview stays within proper bounds. They’re not there to answer questions for you, but they create a buffer between you and interrogation tactics that might otherwise overwhelm you.
The solicitors at Podmore Legal spend considerable time preparing clients for police interviews by explaining the likely questions, discussing the evidence police might already have, and helping them understand where their legal jeopardy actually lies. That preparation, they explain, makes an enormous difference. It transforms a panicked, reactive conversation into a controlled, strategic interaction.
What Proper Legal Preparation Looks Like
Getting legal advice before a police interview doesn’t mean showing up with a lawyer and refusing to say anything. It means understanding your situation fully before making decisions about what to say, how to say it, and whether to participate at all.
Proper preparation starts with reviewing what police have disclosed. Sometimes they provide information about what they’re investigating. Sometimes they don’t. Your lawyer can often get more details about the nature of the investigation, which helps assess what approach makes sense.
Understanding the potential charges and their elements is crucial. You might think police are investigating one thing when they’re actually focused on something else entirely. Each criminal offence has specific components that must be proven. Knowing what those are helps you understand which questions are genuinely relevant and which are fishing expeditions.
In some cases, preparing a statement makes sense. This is a carefully worded written account that your lawyer helps you draft, covering the points you need to make without wandering into dangerous territory. You can read this statement during the interview, which keeps you focused and prevents the kind of rambling that often gets people into trouble.
Knowing when to answer “no comment” is equally important. There’s a persistent myth that refusing to answer makes you look guilty, but there are many situations where declining to engage with specific questions is the smartest tactical decision. Your lawyer helps you make these distinctions question by question.
Your lawyer can attend the interview with you. Their presence changes the dynamic significantly. Police are more careful about their questioning tactics when a lawyer is in the room. You have someone to consult with if you’re unsure about a question. You have someone who can call out inappropriate pressure or misleading questions.
What Happens If You’ve Already Spoken to Police
If you’ve already participated in a police interview without legal advice, you’re probably worried about what you said and how it might be used against you. The good news is that getting legal advice now is still valuable, even if you wish you’d done it earlier.
A lawyer can review what you said and assess the actual damage. Often, people catastrophise about their police interview, thinking they’ve destroyed their case, when actually the impact is manageable. Sometimes the opposite is true: they think the interview went fine when they’ve actually made significant admissions. Either way, understanding where you actually stand is the first step toward moving forward strategically.
In some circumstances, there are options for clarifying or contextualising previous statements. This is delicate work that requires legal expertise. You can’t simply call police back and change your story, but there may be appropriate ways to provide additional information that puts your earlier statements in better context.
The most important thing is to stop making the situation worse. Podmore Legal’s criminal defence lawyers have encountered clients who, after one police interview, continued talking to police, thinking they could explain their way out of problems. Each conversation gave police more evidence, more inconsistencies, more material to work with. Once you’ve spoken to police, the strategic value of further cooperation drops dramatically.
Moving forward, whether charges have been laid or are still pending, requires understanding the full scope of evidence against you and developing a comprehensive defence strategy. This is about more than damage control from one interview. It’s about positioning yourself for the best possible outcome, whatever form that takes.
Don’t Navigate This Alone
Finding yourself in a position where police want to interview you feels terrifying and disempowering. You’re suddenly thrust into a legal system you don’t understand, facing consequences you can’t fully grasp. The instinct to cooperate, to explain, to fix this immediately is completely natural.
But the police interview is not your opportunity to convince them of your innocence. It’s a formal evidence-gathering process where your words become permanent record. Protecting your rights at this early stage affects everything that follows: whether charges are laid, what charges are laid, what evidence can be used against you, and ultimately what options you have for defence.
You don’t have to make this decision alone, panicked, without understanding what you’re agreeing to. You have the right to legal advice before participating in any police interview. You have the right to have a lawyer present during the interview. You have the right to decline the interview entirely until you’ve had time to understand your position properly.
The team at Podmore Legal has guided countless people through this exact situation. They’ve sat in interview rooms with clients who were terrified but who walked out knowing they’d protected themselves. They’ve reviewed disastrous interviews and helped people recover from mistakes they made before they knew better. They’ve seen firsthand how early legal intervention changes outcomes.
If police have contacted you asking for an interview, or if you’ve already participated in one and you’re worried about what comes next, the time to get legal advice is now. Not after charges are laid. Not after you’ve made things worse by continuing to engage with police. Right now, while you still have options and control over your situation.
Contact Podmore Legal before you make decisions that can’t be unmade. Before you say things that can’t be unsaid. Before you navigate a system designed to build cases, not protect suspects. This is the moment where everything changes, and having experienced criminal defence lawyers in your corner who understand exactly what’s at stake can make all the difference.
