You:I was interviewed in a small room by 10 Police Officers in the 90s. Sometimes I have nightmares about the interview. My question is was it legal to be interviewed by so many? I was not offered any lawyer.

BH414, Lawyer

09/19/2025 7:33 PM

I'll be happy to help you out today. Please note that this discussion is for guidance only, does not constitute an Attorney-Client Relationship, and is only to help you understand the nature of your situation from a legal standpoint and discuss options. You must engage an attorney in your local jurisdiction if you wish to take any legal action through an attorney. In addition, there may be a small wait as I review your question to provide a detailed response.

Lawyer

Please confirm where you are located.

09/19/2025 7:34 PM

The interview was in Rose Road Police station, Birmingham, UK.

Lawyer

BH414, Lawyer

09/19/2025 7:50 PM

What you describe about being interviewed by ten officers at once in the 1990s raises more questions about fairness and intimidation than about outright illegality. At that time, police had wide latitude in how they conducted interviews. There is no law that limits the number of officers who can be present in an interview room. What matters more is whether your rights were respected during the process. If you were in custody, meaning you were not free to leave, then you should have been read your Miranda rights. That includes being told that you have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If you were not advised of those rights and you were in custody, then any statements you made could have been challenged as inadmissible in court.

The absence of a lawyer is another issue. Police are not required to automatically provide you with a lawyer unless you ask for one. If you requested an attorney and that request was denied or ignored, that would be a violation of your constitutional rights. If you did not request a lawyer, then the officers were not obligated to bring one in. The number of officers in the room may have been designed to create pressure, but intimidation alone does not necessarily make the interview unlawful unless it crossed into coercion, threats, or denial of rights.

The fact that you still have nightmares about it speaks to how overwhelming that experience must have been. From a legal perspective, unless you were charged and your statements were used against you, there may not be a present legal remedy. If the interview did lead to charges at the time, then the fairness of that process could have been challenged in court through motions to suppress your statements.

09/19/2025 8:22 PM

When I was first sitting as an observer in the public gallery in court from 2013 about 20 Police sat there once with me too. I guess from what you say that will have been legal too yes?

Lawyer

BH414, Lawyer

09/19/2025 9:48 PM

Yes, that would have been legal. Courtrooms are public spaces, and unless the judge orders a closed hearing, anyone is allowed to sit in the gallery. Police officers have the same right as any member of the public to attend and observe proceedings. Even if many officers sit together, their presence alone does not make the proceeding unlawful. The only point where it could raise a concern is if their presence was intended to intimidate you as an observer or a witness, but proving that would require showing that their conduct went beyond simply sitting there quietly. Judges also have discretion to control the atmosphere in their courtroom, so if the presence of a large number of officers had disrupted the proceedings or was clearly used to send a message, the judge could have addressed it.

09/20/2025 5:30 PM

One of my main websites just got hacked twice even after changing the password first time. They only hit the stats code though that displays the number of hits. They reduced the hit count both times by a lot and then 60%. Lucky I am working with a lawyer presently I guess. It's the 3rd time my business has been computer hacked. The Police raided my flat in June to check me out but just took 3 books. Now it looks like they want to manage my hit counter on one of my sites. Police are above the law I guess because they know so much about crime. Do you agree?

09/21/2025 2:34 PM

Neither of the two days I described here led to any charges. My hacked website is now fixed.

09/23/2025 12:32 PM

Thanks for being so patient with me. I was not free to leave the room of about 10 Police Officers in the 90s and was grilled without being read my Miranda rights. It has taken me several days to fully understand what your wrote here. Basically I now understand that being interrogated by 10 Police officers and not being allowed to just walk away without being read your Miranda rights and offered any lawyer as my mouthpiece was completely wrong. I understand why I get nightmares now. Thanks a lot for your help. I actually once met a woman called Miranda once whose parent was a partner of a Patent Attorney I once used.

09/23/2025 9:22 PM

I was back in a Court today sitting in a public gallery. The jury were deliberating and it was unknown how long they would be away. 5 Court ushers were chatting away about the cells they had worked in over the years. I asked for a Hebrew translator so I could understand them better but they said no. It was the Assize Court in Jersey Channel Islands. Bailiff Le Cocq was sitting. It's completely terrible when you are refused a translator. I asked their leader how he knew I did not need a translator, he said nothing, I left. Was it legal to refuse me a translator?

Lawyer

BH414, Lawyer

09/24/2025 1:28 AM

Based on your situation, there are several legal arguments and considerations in the Channel Islands that could potentially support your case:

In general, the right to a translator in court is typically reserved for individuals who are directly involved in the proceedings, such as defendants or witnesses, who do not understand the language being used. This ensures they can fully participate in their defense or testimony. As an observer in the public gallery, this right may not automatically extend to you, which might explain why your request was denied.

The refusal to provide a translator could be seen as a procedural decision rather than a legal one, especially if the court determined that your understanding of the proceedings was not essential to the administration of justice in that particular case.

09/29/2025 8:34 PM

It's lucky for me that you are still online. I have been given 7 days, 2 left now, to approve an executrix for an inherited flat. Trouble is if I approve the executrix it will be interpreted by her as approval for the entire estate that adds up to a lot more. With the clock ticking that 7 day deadline is making me look a fool. The rest of the estate in half way through being defrauded from me with secrecy. Two big names are involved too. Rawlinson & Hunter for the shell holding a Kightsbridge Cheval London flat and Barclays St Helier holding the estate current account of my late mother who passed 33 months ago. The stress has been why I seem on edge perhaps. The lawyers letter I got from Viberts will have been approved by my sibling the executrix. It's an attempted con really to try and get me to approve the laundry of all of the rest of the estate. It's not legal to approve suspected laundry is it?

Lawyer

BH414, Lawyer

09/29/2025 10:06 PM

You are right to be cautious. Approving an executrix is not the same as approving every action she takes, but it can be perceived that way if the paperwork or correspondence is drafted to bind you more broadly. The concern is that consent to her appointment could later be interpreted as consent to the way she has managed or distributed the estate, which is not what you intend. If there are already signs of secrecy and possible diversion of assets, you need to separate the narrow question of administration from the broader question of whether the estate is being handled properly.

You should read carefully the exact language of the Viberts letter. If it asks you to consent only to her formal role as executrix, you can make that clear in your response by explicitly stating that you do not waive any rights, claims, or objections regarding the wider estate and that you reserve all rights to challenge her conduct or any suspected irregularities. This preserves your position. Do not sign anything that could be read as blanket approval for past or future dealings. You can also ask the court directly for clarification or lodge a written objection, even if brief, before the 7 days expire. That way you are on record as not consenting to anything beyond the appointment itself.

Approving suspected money laundering would not only be unwise but could potentially expose you to liability if it looked as though you acquiesced knowingly. The better course is to communicate in writing that you will not give approval until you have full transparency on the accounts and distributions. By doing so, you meet the deadline while preventing your silence from being used against you.

09/30/2025 6:05 PM

It's six hours till the deadline. I am glad I made the right decision. You have not read the Viberts letter. I have. I spoke with Bailiff Le Cocq in the street today in passing but he declined to offer a reply. I think in a few days I might look into getting a McKenzie friend as I understand they are allowed here in all of the Courts. Am I wrong about that?

Lawyer

BH414, Lawyer

09/30/2025 6:34 PM

The Royal Court recognizes the principle that someone who is not legally trained but is trusted by you can sit beside you, take notes, help you organize papers, and quietly give advice while you speak for yourself. The important distinction is that a McKenzie friend does not have a right of audience, meaning they cannot address the Bailiff or the Jurats unless the court gives specific permission. The Bailiff has discretion to refuse a McKenzie friend if their presence would interfere with the fairness of proceedings, but in practice refusals are rare and the court will normally respect your choice of support.

Because you are in Jersey, the Royal Court follows its own practice directions rather than strictly copying the position in England and Wales, but the approach is broadly similar. The emphasis is on allowing litigants in person to participate effectively and with some support, so long as the assistance does not cross the line into legal representation. If you want to rely on a McKenzie friend, it is best to be transparent at the outset of a hearing and tell the court who that person is and that they will only assist quietly. That way, you establish their role clearly and avoid objections.

If you feel that the estate issues are becoming too complicated or adversarial, a McKenzie friend can give you practical reassurance and help keep track of documents, but they cannot replace a lawyer if complex arguments need to be made.

Chat is closed