To evaluate the impact of the law, relevant Court of Appeal decisions were examined, observations were made at 13 police stations, and investigating police officers who had carried out interviews with suspects were surveyed. The court held that failure by the police to disclose details of the prosecution case prior to interview did not make evidence of the accused's silence inadmissible. Legal advice to remain silent did not necessarily mean that the accused's failure to mention facts later relied on in court was reasonable and that no inferences could be drawn. Provisions of the law did not lead to an increase in the demand for legal advice by suspects held in police custody. Legal advisors increasingly asked for and were generally given more information about the case against their clients prior to police interviews. Despite decreased reliance on silence, there was no change in the proportion of suspects providing admissions. Some interviewees felt that silence would generally play only a marginal role in the decision to prosecute, although it could provide an additional item of evidence on which to base the decision to prosecute and could tip the balance in favor of prosecution in some borderline cases. Most attorneys agreed that fewer defendants were declining to testify. The report concludes that provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act have had a marked impact on suspect use of silence at police stations, police practices in relation to interviewing and disclosure, the advice given at police stations by legal advisors, the proportion of defendants testifying at trial, the way in which cases are prosecuted and defended at trial, and judge directions to the jury. An appendix contains Sections 34-38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. References, footnotes, and tables