Summons to an interview: make a statement or stay silent? Your rights as the accused

You should not simply ignore a summons as the accused. If you fail to attend a proper summons without excuse, this can lead to a forced appearance. But appearing and testifying are two different things.

Appearing. The sensible route is not staying away but coordinating the appointment through a defence lawyer. This allows the appointment to be postponed, prepared and attended with knowledge of the file.

Testifying. You need say nothing on the matter. The right to silence is comprehensive, no one has to incriminate themselves and no disadvantage may be drawn from silence. Only details on your person, that is name and date of birth, must be provided.

From a legal perspective: clarify the allegation first, then decide on a statement. A statement without knowledge of the file is almost always a risk.

With the status of the accused you have a bundle of rights; the central provision is Section 49 StPO.

Information before questioning. Before every interview you must be informed of the allegation, your right to silence and your right to a defence lawyer (Sections 50, 164 StPO). Without this information the statement is flawed.

The right to remain silent. You may refuse to make a statement on the matter, in whole or in part, without any disadvantage being drawn from it. You do not have to incriminate yourself.

The right to a defence lawyer. You may contact a defence lawyer before questioning (Section 58 StPO) and bring them to the interview. The defence lawyer may be present. If you ask for the lawyer to be brought in, the interview is in principle to be postponed until the lawyer arrives.

The right to an interpreter. If you do not have a sufficient command of the German language of the proceedings, you are entitled to translation support under Section 56 StPO, both for communicating with the authority and for essential parts of the file.

The most important distinction before any statement is your own role. As the accused the suspicion is directed at you and you have the full right to silence. As a witness you are generally obliged to testify and to tell the truth.

Witnesses too have rights to refuse testimony, for example where they would incriminate themselves or close relatives. But anyone who testifies carelessly as a supposedly harmless witness can turn themselves into the accused without noticing.

From a legal perspective, the first question is therefore always: in what capacity am I being questioned and which allegation is at stake? This clarification should happen before any substantive statement, in case of doubt through file access.

Your statement is recorded and becomes part of the file. It can be used in the further proceedings, including at the main hearing. That is why every wording matters.

Check the record. You have the right to read the record and check it for accuracy before you sign it. Ambiguous or incorrect passages should be corrected. Do not sign anything that misrepresents your statements.

Usability. A properly obtained statement is in principle usable. If essential safeguards were breached, for example the information was omitted or a requested defence lawyer was not brought in, this can affect usability. Such questions can only be assessed with knowledge of the file.

No correction by talking. An unfavourable statement once made cannot be "repaired" by talking more. Often it is precisely the extra explaining that creates new points of attachment. The better route is a considered clarification agreed with the defence lawyer.