Those concerned with their liberty should prepare to guard it. Fundamental safeguards have been or are in danger of being removed from our legal system through measures such as the Crime and Disorder Act and the proposed breach of the convention that no one is placed in double jeopardy" by being tried twice for the same offence. At the same time, the thrust of government policy and behaviour is ever more authoritarian, vide the neutering of parliament, the aggressive war against Serbia and straws in the wind such as the treatment of protesters during the visit of the Chinese Premier, Jiang Zemin.

In these circumstances a wise man looks to his rights in law, for no man is safe from the power of the state when authoritarianism takes hold. It is a guide to these rights, and the tactics by which they may be enhanced, that I attempt to provide here.

General Tactics

Your general tactics should be three. First, to give the authorities (particularly the police) as little cooperation as possible whilst remaining formally polite and reasonable within the law. Second, to lay down markers all the way along the line if official misconduct occurs. This covers everything from complaints by you about the failure to observe procedures such as advising a suspect he is under arrest to complaints about outright abuse including physical violence. Third, to ensure that anyone in authority knows that you will fight any attempt to prosecute to the limit. Such behaviour will both give the police little to go on and be quietly intimidating.

Whenever your are abused, you feel that your legal rights have not been observed or you believe that police procedures have not been observed, (1) make it clear immediately to the nearest officer that you will be making a formal complaint and (2) make a written note, as soon as possible, of what has happened and sign and date that note. Pass the note to your solicitor as soon as possible so that he or she may certify the date that they received it. Ensure that a copy of your notes exists.

If you have a means of recording conversations, use this to record any conversations relating to you by police officers after you are arrested. Make it clear on the tape who you are, when and where the recording was made and the people recorded. Hand this tape to your solicitor as soon as possible. Ensure a copy of any recordings is made.

If you have the means of connecting to the Internet - mobile phones will soon commonly carry this facility - put out details of your plight through the Internet.

If the police stop you from doing any of this, ask the reason why, the rank of the officer and the name of the officer. Make a written note of it. If you threaten to make a complaint, you must always do so.

The manner to adopt

Use a polite but firm manner. Many people imagine that they can gain an advantage by showing the police that they are subordinate by being ingratiating. This is an unqualified mistake. The police will interpret such behaviour as weakness. On the other side, aggressive or abusive behaviour merely alienates those in authority and those who will judge you, magistrates, judges or juries. Avoid it.

It is important that you maintain a psychological distance between the police and you at all times. You may think that by becoming on ostensibly friendly terms with the police that you will get better treatment. The reverse is the case. The police will identify your wanting to be liked as weakness and will use such surface amiability to lull you into a false sense of security. You are then more likely to volunteer information. This may either be directly incriminating or prompt a line of questioning which either incriminates you or leads to a situation where you have to suddenly refuse to answer.

If you encounter behaviour from the police which you judge to be unacceptable, for example physical threats or verbal abuse, make it clear instantly that you will be making a formal complaint. Having issued the threat you must always carry it out. Such complaints can of themselves be useful in discrediting in court police evidence or defusing any suggestion that by keeping quiet you had something to hide.

Arrest

Anyone may make an arrest under prescribed circumstances such as the prevention of a breach of the peace or where there are reasonable grounds for believing that an arrestable offence (see below) has been committed - the popularly called "citizen's arrest". Such arrests are in practice fraught with difficulty for the arrester, because of the potential for disputes over the circumstances of the arrest and what constitutes reasonable force. Someone effecting what they thought to be a "citizen's arrest" might well end up on charges of assault, the use of an offensive weapon and false imprisonment.

For most practical purposes only the various police forces and Customs and Excise have an exercisable power of arrest. Members of the security forces (M15 and M16) have no powers of arrest beyond those of the ordinary citizen. However, a "citizen's arrest" by the security services would almost certainly carry fewer dangers for the arrester than it would for the ordinary citizen. This is because the state authorities would generally protect the arrester through their de facto control of prosecutions. (Politicians and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will deny vehemently that such control is exercised. The facts are heavily against them. Our justice system is controlled by law officers who are part of the government. The DPP is appointed by the government. One of the reasons the DPP may give for a failure to prosecute is that "prosecution is not in the public interest." It is also doubtful whether any security officer, ie an officer formally employed by the security services, has ever been prosecuted for offences committed during the course of his or her work.) It should be borne in mind that Special Branch - which is often mistakenly thought of as part of the security forces - is part of the Metropolitan Police and its members consequently can effect an arrest easily and safely.

A warrant signed by a magistrate (or occasionally a judge) is sometimes required for an arrest. However, a warrant is not required for many offences and there are many circumstances where an officer can arrest without a warrant for offences which would normally require a warrant.

To obtain a warrant, the officer applying to the magistrate (or judge) must satisfy the granting authority that there are sufficient grounds for an arrest, ie that there is a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.

If a warrant is granted for your arrest, always get the name of the person who has granted it and the reasons given by the applying officer for its granting. If possible ask to photostat or photograph the warrant. If this is not possible, ask for time to make notes about the detail of the warrant. If this is denied, note the officer who denies the request and the words in which the denial is given. Make a written note as soon as possible. Ask the person(s) engaged in the denial to sign the note you have made certifying it to be a true record. As soon as possible write to the magistrates (or judge) who granted the warrant asking them to confirm the reasons for granting the warrant. If necessary, call the magistrate (or judge) to your trial to justify the granting of a warrant.

A warrant is not required for what is known as an arrestable offence. An arrestable offence is any offence which has a fixed mandatory penalty (e.g. murder) or which carries a sentence of at least five years' imprisonment. Inciting, attempting, or conspiring to commit, or being an accessory to, an arrestable offence is also an arrestable offence. There are a few other offences, such as taking and driving, which are arrestable offences even though they carry a sentence of less than five years.

An officer may make an arrest for a non-arrestable offence if he reasonably suspects that a non-arrestable offence has been or is being committed and (1) he thinks "a general arrest condition" is satisfied (for example, he reasonably believes that an arrest is necessary to prevent a suspect causing injury) or (2) he has the statutory power to make the arrest (for example, for drunken driving) or common-law power (breach of the peace).

When making an arrest on a warrant the arresting officer must show the person arrested the warrant, but he need not do so at the time of the arrest. Always attempt to obtain a copy of the warrant and, if refused, note the refusal, the person who has refused it, the date of the refusal and the reason for the refusal.

To make an arrest without a warrant the arresting officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed. If he cannot show that he had such reasonable suspicion, he has prima facie wrongfully arrested and falsely imprisoned. The officer might also be guilty of an assault if force was used.

When an arrest is made the officer must tell the suspect why he or she is being arrested and give the grounds for the arrest. The officer will probably do the former but may well omit do the latter. If you are arrested, and the officer fails to do this, always ask immediately what his reasonable grounds are and the crime of which he suspects you. Note any failure to give the grounds. The caution

The present caution is this syntactical abortion:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"

The police, Customs and Excise and certain Inland Revenue officers can administer the caution, question under the caution and take statements under the caution.

The caution must be administered in accordance with a code of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

Anything you say after the caution is administered is admissible in evidence. Anything you say before the caution is given is not normally admissible in evidence. However, there are exceptions where pertinent statements are made in circumstances where the officer cannot reasonably be expected to issue a caution. Such circumstances are most commonly found where a resisted arrest occurs. However, even in those circumstances, the officer must administer the caution at the earliest possible opportunity. It is unlikely but not impossible that words uttered before the caution was given while a person was peaceably under arrest or questioning would be admitted as evidence.

When the caution is given the officer must make clear whether or not the person to whom it was administered is under arrest. If he is not under arrest, the officer must make it clear that the person is free to go about his business. In any circumstances, the officer administering the caution must remind the suspect of his right to legal representation.

The officer administering the caution must note the fact in his notebook or interview record as appropriate.

After a caution has been administered, an officer continuing an interrogation after an interval or an officer beginning a new interrogation must remind a previously cautioned suspect that he or she is still under caution.

What to do when cautioned

If the officer giving the caution states that you are not under arrest leave immediately. Say nothing in response to any question.

If the officer fails to advise you whether or not you are under arrest, ask whether you are under arrest. If you are not leave without making any statement. Make a note of the officer's name and the failure to advise you of your arrestable status.

If you are under arrest, try to obtain the officer's identification whether it be a name, number or office or station from which he or she works. Make a formal complaint about the failure to advise you whether you are under arrest. This is important because it may give grounds for invalidating the caution and thus affect the admissibility of evidence, in this cased your failure to respond.

The Right to Silence

If I had to give one piece of advice to anyone cautioned, arrested or charged with an offence it would be this : "Say absolutely nothing". That advice would apply whether or not the person had a solicitor in attendance during police questioning. Those who doubt that it is good advice should ask themselves two questions: (1) why do smart career criminals do it as a matter of course and (2) why did the last government circumscribe the right to silence? The answer is that it is generally the most successful tactic in both avoiding prosecution and if brought to court, conviction. Always go with the professionals - in this case smart career criminals - is a good piece of advice in any circumstances.

The reason for the tactic's success is that most criminal prosecutions involve some self-incrimination from the accused. This does not necessarily mean that the accused has admitted to anything which directly implicates them in a crime. It may often mean that they have told a lie which is discovered or have inadvertently contradicted themselves when speaking of circumstances not directly linked to a crime. The trouble with that is it casts doubt about their general truthfulness, which is an important consideration, particularly in a jury trial.

Information given in writing is a different matter. A letter to the police is obviously controlled by the writer. A formal statement is also controlled by the suspect. The police will almost always try to write these for you. They will say it will be better because they know what the courts want. Resist this. Always write your own statement.

But written information should only be given where there is (1) a pressing reason such as the provision of an alibi and (2) where you are absolutely certain that the story you tell is not merely true but the whole truth. Where possible avoid giving any written information.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Right to Silence has not been abolished. All the present caution does is provide an opportunity for the court to draw to the attention of the jury (or magistrates), the fact that the accused refused or failed to give information at the pre-trial stage on which they base their defence partly or wholly.

If you do refuse to answer questions, one question only needs to be addressed by the jury or magistrate: was it reasonable for the accused not to have given information at an earlier time. Obviously there are reasons particular to a case such as the information not having been available to the accused at an earlier time. However, there are also general reasons.

It would be reasonable to refuse to speak without a legal adviser being present. It would be reasonable to refuse to speak if recording facilities were unavailable. It would be reasonable to refuse to speak if you had just been arrested in an unexpected and/or violent manner. It would be reasonable to refuse to speak if you had been abused by the police. It would be reasonable for you to refuse to speak if you believed that police procedures had not been applied. It would be reasonable to refuse to speak if you feel ill. It would be reasonable to refuse to speak if you have been kept in circumstances in which you might reasonably be judged to be exhausted. It is always reasonable to refuse to speak if your legal adviser tells you not to.

Interrogation

The good old bad old days when people could be simply "verballed" by the police into prison or onto the gallows, are happily gone, although many an old copper still doubtless sheds a tear for their passing. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 changed all that. The onus is now on the police to tape record - and increasingly video record - interviews wherever possible.

Once you have been cautioned, a simple statement that you do not wish to say anything should be enough to prevent further questioning.

If you do decide to be interviewed, insist that your legal representative is present. Insist also that the interview is videoed. Insist further that a copy of the tape is given to the legal representative immediately the interview is completed. Get your legal representative to make at least a tape recorded copy of the interview. Apart from obvious reason of ensuring the police do not doctor the interview tapes, such behaviour will be intimidating for the police.

Once the interview begins, refuse to answer any questions until the interviewing officer has answered some questions of your own. As first: do you have reasonable grounds for suspecting that I have committed an offence? If he answers no, get up and walk out. The police have no right to detain you and you have a prima facie case of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. If the officer answers yes, ask: what are your reasonable grounds for suspecting that I have committed an offence? Let your legal representative judge whether the answer he gives meets the criterion for arrest. If it does not, seek to leave immediately. If prevented, do not answer any questions.

Doing interrogation, the police must make it clear when breaks are taken. Reasonable refreshment must be provided to the suspect. The suspect must be given reasonable opportunity for rest. Bullying, in the form of a question being frequently repeated might well disqualify the interview from being admitted in evidence.

The police may still try to play their age old tricks on you - "tough cop, soft cop", "You play ball with us son, and we'll make sure the judge goes easy on you", "Your mate's coughed" etc. (Yes, policemen do actually speak like this. I blame it on their watching too many TV police series). Do not believe a word they say. The police have no interest in you beyond obtaining a conviction. They will lie to their hearts content in pursuit of that end.

Although "verballing"is now difficult, the police can still plant evidence. This can be extremely difficult to disprove. The main means of disproving it are circumstantial. If, for example, you have no history of drug abuse, it might seem implausible to a jury if the police claim that they have found a gramme of heroin in your possession.

If you are charged

Being charged does not necessarily mean that you will be prosecuted. However it is a formal accusation of a crime. It indicates that the police (or other authority such as Customs and Excise) think that there is evidence which may lead to a prosecution. The charge should be entered in the charge sheet at the relevant station and a copy should be supplied to the accused.

Detention

You may be detained by an authorised officer, normally the police, only after arrest, You may, however, be detailed without charge. But such detention may only occur when it is necessary to secure or preserve evidence or to obtain it by questioning. If detained without charge, always ask the detaining officer for justification of your detention. Normally such detention should cease after 24 hours unless it is in connection with a serious charge such as rape, kidnapping, causing death by dangerous driving etc. Then a superintendent or more senior officer - chief superintendent, assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable in all cases except the Metropolitan Police - may authorise an extension to 36 hours. Magistrate's courts may authorise a extension of detention without charge for a further 36 hours. A suspect held without charge may thus be held for 72 hours at most.

If a suspect is charged with an offence, he or she must be granted police bail or brought before a court as soon as is reasonably possible. If the delay in bringing a suspect before court seem unreasonable, a writ of habeas corpus may be sought by the person detained. This will force the police to bring you before a court.

An arrested person held in custody may have one person told of this, although if a serious arrestable offence is concerned and a senior police officer reasonably believes that this would interfere with an investigation, this advice can be delayed for up to 36 hours. If you are refused a chance to tell one person that you have been arrested, ask for the reason, the name of the person making the decision and the name and rank of the person making the decision.

Powers of search

You think your person is inviolate? You believe an Englishman's home is his castle? Think again. A magistrate may issue a search warrant if he believes there are good grounds for suspecting that a serious arrestable offence has been committed. However, there are many instances where a search may be undertaken without a warrant.

The police have a general power when arresting someone for an arrestable offence, to enter and search premises where they believe the suspect to be.

The 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers the police to stop and search any person or vehicle in a public place (a place to which the public have general access) for stolen or prohibited articles (e.g. offensive weapons, tools to commit a burglary) and to detain a person for such a search. Before such a search, the officer must state the station to which he is attached and his object in making the search. If out of uniform he must produce proof of his identity and status.

Under certain other circumstances the police may search without a warrant or any superior authorisation, for example when acting in a case involving the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1994, the police have powers to stop and search if they fear that a violent event may occur. The private citizen has no powers of search. Thus M15 and M16 have no powers of search.

The police

The police do not decide whether a prosecution is to be undertaken. Their responsibility is to gather evidence and then prepare the evidence (with a covering submission) for forwarding to the Crown Prosecution Service. The police may seek the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service at any point in an investigation, whether or not charges have been brought.

Policemen are generally neither very bright nor well-educated. The minimum educational qualifications for most forces are still dire: 4 GCSE's is par for the course. This means that they are not too hot on the paperwork side, either in its preparation or in their desire to undertake it. This natural reluctance has been built on in recent years by an immense increase in the paperwork required for a submission to the Crown Prosecution Service. Thus it is in your interest to make a case as unattractive to them as possible. Keeping silent does this. Occasionally, it may be expedient to flood the police with entirely legitimate paperwork, for example in the case of company fraud.

Bear in mind that policemen are human. If they make a serious mistake they will wish to cover it up even if it means killing a strong case against a subject.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

The CPS is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The DPP is appointed by the government. The present DPP is David Calvert-Smith.

The CPS is the public body which determines whether most criminal prosecutions are to be brought - the DPP has the formal responsibility for these decisions.

At the decision making level, the CPS is staffed by qualified lawyers. Apart from the most senior, these come in two sizes: the young and inexperienced and the older and incompetent. The current DPP, David Calvert-Smith recognises their widespread incompetence and has vowed to root out the dead wood. As an ex-civil servant, I can assure you he will be unsuccessful, not least because no competent experienced lawyer will ever work for the CPS for (1) he can earn far more in private practice and (2) he is not his own master.

The incompetence of the CPS lawyers can be exploited. As with the police they do not like either difficult or complicated cases. The action you take to dissuade police officers from submitting a case to the CPS will also work at the level of the CPS lawyer. As with policemen, bear in mind that CPS lawyers are human. If they make a serious mistake, they will also wish to cover it up even if it means killing a strong case against a subject.

The government law officers

These are the Lord Chancellor, the attorney general and the solicitor general. They are all politicians of the ruling party. The idea is that they act only as impartial law officers when concerned with legal matters. This is, of course, utter tosh. Their existence is the main means by which government of the day manipulates the justice system.

The few criminal prosecutions not left to the DPP to decide are matters such as treason, corruption and offences under the Race Relations Act. The decision on such prosecutions is made by a member of the government, the Attorney-General, the second most senior political law officer after the Lord Chancellor. In the Attorney-General's absence, the decision is made by the Solicitor-General, the third most senior law officer.

The Attorney-General (or the Solicitor-General) also has the right to intervene in criminal prosecutions. He or she may enter a plea of nolle prosequi (to be unwilling to prosecute) to terminate criminal proceedings. In the case of criminal proceedings on indictment, ie those tried by jury and thus generally the most serious, the proceedings are automatically ended. In the case of summary proceedings - those in magistrate's courts - the leave of the court is required, This leave would normally be automatic. Pleas of nolle prosequi are not appealable. Nor does the attorney-general (or the solicitor-general) have to give a reason for their plea, although normally a reason will be given such as "not in the public interest" or "unfit to plead".

What to do if you get to court

Tempting as it may be to represent yourself, there is a good deal of truth in the adage that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

To begin with most people have little experience in speaking in public. That alone will make them very nervous. The court atmosphere will be intimidating even if the court is a modern one. Then there is the problem of court procedure which the novice will find bewildering. Above all, there will be the need to question witnesses. This might seem simple but it is not. The average person will not be able to keep the flow of questioning going or construct sequences of questions which logically build up to a "killer" question. The average person will also put questions to witnesses which are irrelevant or inadmissible (which tries the patience of the court) or questions which allow the witness to embroider their reply or questions to which no certain answer can be expected. Good barristers ask only questions to which they know the reply, which is normally yes or no.

However, having said all that there are cases where it may be necessary to defend yourself. This is where you cannot reasonably have any confidence in any barrister (or these days, solicitor) presenting your defence, honestly, ably or energetically in court. Such cases are very rare and are likely to arise only where the charge being answered is essentially political. Charges under Section 70 of the Race Relations Act would fall into this category.

The only other occasion when you should normally present your own case, is when you come to the conclusion during a trial that your counsel is making such a hash of your defence that to take it over yourself could not make matters worse.

There is one extraordinary instance beyond those given above when you should represent yourself as a matter of course: if you are (1) self-confident and (2) wish to make a political stand out of a court appearance.

If you do end up defending yourself, you may make use of advice in court from someone who is not your appointed counsel. The judge should also extend a good deal of latitude to you when it comes to questioning of witnesses. He may even question witnesses on your behalf if he feels that you are failing to do the job adequately.

Should you go in to the witness box?

Generally I would say no for the same reasons that I hold to the belief that keeping silent is on balance the best tactic. Give the court as little to go on as possible. It also hamstrings the judge, for "summing ups" frequently revolve around evidence given by the accused in the box. Such advantages will more than counterbalance any disadvantage you may incur by the magistrate or jury questioning why you have not taken the stand. But there are other reasons as well.

If you go into the witness box you will probably be very nervous. Prosecuting counsel will hold all the cards. He determines what questions will be put. You will be restricted more often than not to yes or no answers. Even if you are completely innocent, you may well come out of the box seeming dishonest. Moreover, if you do not go into the box, the jury or magistrate do not get a glimpse of your personality. They have to go entirely on the facts of the case. That is generally an advantage, particularly where a jury is concerned.

Expert witnesses

If you want an "expert" opinion to support your case you can usually find one. Moreover, certain types of evidence are either intellectually worthless or so questionable that they should rationally immediately create a "reasonable doubt", the evidential test for a criminal conviction. It is up to you and your lawyers to make sure the questionable nature of the evidence is brought out emphatically during your trial.

Such things as handwriting comparisons and voice prints are inconclusive - try getting a so-called handwriting expert to identify correctly fifty pieces of handwriting when he does not know how many were written by the same person. If you are faced with such an expert, get your counsel to set him such a test. If an audio recording is produced purporting to contain your voice, have it tested to see if it is edited and the tape is an original not a copy. Different recording machines of the same model may produce different "electronic footprints". Ditto videotape. If you are faced with an audiotape alone, simply claim the person is not you. It is damned difficult to prove otherwise. Much video evidence is inconclusive because of camera angles and image quality.

Psychiatry is no better than institutionalised quackery. Patients who have received treatment from psychiatrists show no greater rates of recovery than those who have received no such specialised treatment. Incredible but true. Any psychiatric evidence should be challenged by a general attack along the lines of "Dr X, what objective evidence is there that your understanding of the human mind is any better than the next man's". There being none, the psychiatrist will be eventually forced to admit it - he is under oath. If he cannot show that he has special expertise, then he should be disqualified as an expert. At the worst you will have demonstrated to the jury or magistrate that there are solid grounds for doubting the evidence.

If you require expert advice on your side, you have two main problems: finding and paying the expert and (2) getting counsel who can understand the expert. (If you want to see counsel making an idiot of themselves, go and see a case involving serious forensic evidence. Second favourite for this sport is a case where counsel has to deal with a company fraud case involving arcane accountancy practices.) A further problem is that much of the forensic expertise readily available in this country is to be found in government controlled laboratories.

If you cannot get your own forensic tests done, you could be convicted simply because of incompetence by the laboratory used by the prosecution. Quite a few instances have come to light in recent years. Moreover, there have been a number of cases where there has been a deliberate attempt to cover up mistakes. So do try to get your own forensic tests done.

There is also the question of forensic being planted by the police. Take DNA. It is a simple matter to obtain DNA evidence from a suspect. Get them to touch something. Get them to eat something like an apples. Take a hair from them without their knowledge. I think a defence could reasonably be mounted against DNA evidence on the grounds that it was planted. Similar objections could be made against other forensic evidence. Juries in particular are more susceptible to claims of the planting of evidence than they once were.

(Robert Henderson is a political troublemaker whose name, it is to be hoped, will be found engraved on Tony Blair's black heart)