The First 24 Hours After Police Contact

What is actually happening

When the police contact you, it is natural to assume that the investigation has just begun.

In many cases, it has not.

The investigation often began the moment a complaint was made, a suspicious transaction was identified, a message was sent, a digital device was examined or an event occurred that investigators believe may amount to a criminal offence. By the time you receive a telephone call, an invitation to attend a voluntary interview or officers arrive at your home or workplace, the investigation may already have developed considerable momentum.

Witnesses may already have been interviewed.

Documents may already have been obtained.

CCTV or digital evidence may already have been reviewed.

Investigators may already have formed a working theory of what they believe happened and begun gathering evidence to test or support that theory.

The first contact with you is therefore often not the beginning of the investigation.

It is simply the point at which the investigation becomes visible.

That distinction is one of the most important principles in criminal defence because it changes the question that should be asked.

Many people immediately ask:

"What should I say?"

An experienced criminal defence solicitor begins somewhere different.

"What is actually happening?"

Before deciding whether to respond, attend an interview or provide an explanation, it is usually necessary to understand the investigation itself.

• What is the precise allegation?
• Who is conducting the investigation?
• How far has it progressed?
• What information is already available to the investigators?
• What assumptions appear to have been made?
• What procedural stage has been reached?

Only once those questions have been explored is it possible to assess what the next step should be.

This is also why the earliest stage of an investigation often presents the greatest opportunity for strategic influence.

Once an account has been given, important communications have taken place or evidence has been volunteered, those decisions may shape every stage that follows. They cannot always be revisited simply because better information becomes available later.

The purpose of early legal advice is not to delay the investigation or to avoid engagement with it.

It is to ensure that the client's first meaningful participation takes place from a position of understanding rather than uncertainty.

Because the first contest in many criminal investigations is not fought in the interview room.

It is fought much earlier.

It is the contest for control.

• Who decides the pace?
• Who decides when information is exchanged?
• Who decides when the client speaks?

Those decisions frequently influence the direction of the entire investigation.

The objective is not to react before the investigation has been understood.

It is to understand the investigation before becoming part of it.

In Practice

When Craig is first instructed, the immediate objective is not simply to prepare a client for the next conversation with the police. The priority is to understand the strategic position before any significant decision is made.

That typically includes:

• establishing the client's precise legal and procedural position;
• identifying the nature and scope of the allegation;
• understanding how far the investigation has progressed and what may already be known;
• obtaining disclosure where possible before advising on participation;
• preventing avoidable communications or explanations before legal advice has been given;
• preserving potentially relevant evidence while events remain fresh;
• assessing whether immediate engagement advances the client's interests or whether further preparation is required;
• identifying any parallel professional, regulatory, commercial or reputational risks that also need to be managed.

Only once that broader picture has been established can informed strategic decisions be made about what should happen next.

The strategic risk most people miss

When people are contacted by the police, their first instinct is usually to measure the seriousness of the allegation.

• Am I going to be arrested?
• Could I go to prison?
• Will I lose my job?
• Is my career over?

Those are understandable questions.

They are rarely the most useful ones to ask first.

The immediate danger is not always the allegation itself.

It is the temptation to react before the position has been properly understood.

Many people feel an overwhelming need to do something. They return the police officer's call immediately. They explain what happened to an employer or colleague. They contact other people involved. They begin searching for documents, deleting messages they believe are irrelevant or trying to solve the problem before they know what the problem actually is.

Those actions are often well-intentioned.

They can also make a difficult situation considerably more complicated.

One of the most important realities of a criminal investigation is that police contact reveals an investigation; it does not usually begin one.

By the time you become aware of the investigation, investigators may already have gathered evidence, interviewed witnesses, reviewed digital material or developed a working theory of the case.

That means the greatest opportunity is often not to act more quickly than everyone else.

It is to think more clearly than everyone else.

Rather than asking, "How serious is this?", an experienced criminal defence solicitor is usually asking a different series of questions.

• What can still be influenced?
• What information should not yet be volunteered?
• What communications should stop immediately?
• What evidence needs to be preserved?
• What do investigators already know—and what are they still trying to establish?

These questions shift the focus away from fear and towards strategy.

Because while you cannot change the fact that an investigation exists, you can often influence how you participate in it.

That is why Craig MacKenzie's approach begins by identifying what can still be controlled before assessing what cannot.

Control creates clarity.

Clarity leads to better decisions.

And better decisions often shape the direction of the investigation far more than the speed of the first response.

In Practice

One of Craig's first objectives is to move the client from reacting to understanding.

That typically involves:

• treating first police contact as evidence that the investigation may already be well advanced;
• seeking meaningful disclosure before advising on any substantive response;
• identifying what evidence is likely to exist and how it may have been obtained;
• considering who may already have been spoken to and what information investigators are likely to have gathered;
• assessing the prosecution's apparent working theory and whether important assumptions can be identified or tested;
• ensuring that no avoidable communications or explanations take place before the strategic position has been properly understood.

Only once those questions have been explored is it usually possible to decide the most effective way to move forward.

What Craig does first

When someone contacts Craig MacKenzie, the immediate objective is not to prepare them for a police interview.

It is to understand the investigation before the client becomes an active participant in it.

That distinction is fundamental.

By the time the police make contact, investigators may already have gathered evidence, spoken to witnesses and formed an initial view of the case. Before any advice can be given about what should happen next, it is necessary to understand as much as possible about what has already happened.

The first conversation is therefore not centred on rehearsing answers or speculating about outcomes.

It is centred on building a clear strategic picture.

• What is the allegation?
• Who is investigating?
• How far has the investigation progressed?
• What information may already be available to investigators?
• What immediate decisions are likely to influence the direction of the case?

Only once those questions have been explored is it possible to decide whether immediate engagement is appropriate, whether further preparation is required or whether other priorities should be addressed first.

Every case is different.

There is no predetermined formula.

The strategy will always depend upon the nature of the allegation, the available evidence, the client's circumstances and the wider risks they face.

The objective is simple.

To ensure that every important decision is made with understanding rather than assumption.

In Practice

Although every investigation requires its own strategy, Craig's early work commonly includes:

• speaking with the investigating officer to establish the nature of the allegation, the client's procedural status and whether meaningful disclosure can be obtained;
• advising the client not to discuss the allegation with colleagues, friends, family members or anyone else unless legal advice has been given that it is appropriate to do so;
• ensuring that potentially relevant documents, digital material and other evidence are preserved, while making clear that nothing should be deleted, altered or concealed;
• assessing whether the proposed timetable genuinely serves the client's interests or whether additional preparation time should be sought where appropriate;
• identifying any parallel risks involving employers, professional regulators, commercial relationships or reputation that also need to be managed from the outset;
• developing an initial strategy based on the investigation as it actually exists, rather than assumptions about what may happen next.

The purpose of these early steps is not simply to prepare for an interview.

It is to create the strongest possible position from which every subsequent decision can be be made.

The principle behind the approach

Every criminal investigation begins with uncertainty.

The client rarely knows the full allegation.

The evidence is often incomplete.

Disclosure may be limited.

Investigators are working from information the defence has not yet seen.

In those circumstances, the greatest risk is not simply making the wrong decision.

It is making important decisions before the position has been properly understood.

Craig MacKenzie's approach is built on a simple principle.

Understanding must come before action.

That does not mean delaying unnecessarily or avoiding difficult decisions.

It means ensuring that every significant step is taken for a reason, rather than in response to pressure, fear or assumptions.

The first task is to recognise what genuinely matters.

• Which facts deserve weight?
• Which assumptions require testing?
• Which risks are immediate, and which can wait?
• What information is missing?
• What decisions are irreversible?

Only then is it possible to establish direction.

That process requires calm judgement under pressure, even when the available information is incomplete. Criminal investigations rarely present themselves as neat, orderly problems. They develop through uncertainty, competing accounts and evolving evidence. Effective strategy comes from recognising patterns, questioning assumptions and making measured decisions despite that uncertainty.

It also requires an understanding that criminal investigations are shaped by people.

Investigators interpret evidence.

Witnesses remember events imperfectly.

Decisions are influenced by time, pressure and perception.

Understanding those human factors is often as important as understanding the legal framework itself.

For Craig, strategy is not about reacting to events as they unfold.

It is about taking responsibility for the direction of the case wherever that remains possible.

Because while no solicitor can control every aspect of a criminal investigation, they can help ensure that the decisions within the client's control are made deliberately, at the right time and for the right reasons.

That is the principle that underpins every case.

In Practice

This principle influences every stage of Craig's work. In the early stages of an investigation, that often means:

• resisting unnecessary pressure to make immediate decisions before the strategic position has been understood;
• identifying the information needed before advising on the next step;
• distinguishing established facts from assumptions, speculation or investigative theory;
• focusing attention on the decisions that are still capable of influencing the outcome;
• ensuring that each significant step is taken as part of a considered strategy rather than as a reaction to events.

The objective is not simply to respond to an investigation.

It is to provide clear direction when the situation is at its most uncertain.

What to do next

If you have recently been contacted by the police, the most important decision is not what you are going to say.

It is whether you fully understand the situation before saying anything at all.

Every criminal investigation is different. The nature of the allegation, the evidence already obtained, the procedural stage that has been reached and the wider consequences for your career, reputation or professional standing will all influence the strategy that is appropriate in your case.

There is no universal response.

There are, however, a number of principles that apply consistently.

Take time to understand the investigation before becoming part of it.

Avoid making important decisions simply because you feel under pressure to respond.

Recognise that police contact often means the investigation is already underway, not that it has only just begun.

Consider the wider consequences beyond the criminal allegation itself, including employment, regulatory and reputational issues where relevant.

Ensure that every significant decision is made deliberately, with a clear understanding of the position and the reasons for taking that step.

These principles do not guarantee a particular outcome.

They do, however, help ensure that important decisions are made from a position of understanding rather than uncertainty.

That is the foundation of Craig MacKenzie's approach to criminal investigations.

In Practice

Although every investigation requires its own strategy, the immediate priorities commonly include:

• establishing the nature of the allegation and, where possible, obtaining meaningful disclosure before making significant decisions;
• avoiding discussions about the allegation with colleagues, friends, family members or anyone else until appropriate legal advice has been obtained;
• preserving relevant documents, digital material and other evidence, while ensuring that nothing is deleted, altered or concealed;
• considering whether the proposed timetable genuinely serves your interests or whether further preparation should be sought where appropriate;
• identifying any parallel risks involving employers, professional regulators, business interests or reputation that also need to be managed from the outset.

The next decision you make may be one of the most important in the entire investigation.

Make sure it is an informed one.