Summoned as a suspect – what should I do before the first interrogation?

A suspect interrogation is one of the most important turning points in criminal proceedings. For many people, this is the first time they face the fact that, according to an authority, they may be connected to the commission of a criminal offence. The situation often develops unexpectedly and under stressful circumstances, and the person concerned must make decisions within a short time that may affect the entire later procedure.

The greatest mistake in such a situation is to give a detailed statement unprepared, merely out of good faith or panic, while not knowing precisely the content of the suspicion, the available evidence and one’s own procedural rights. A suspect interrogation is not a simple conversation, but a formal procedural act that is recorded in minutes and may later be evaluated by the authority as evidence.

What does it mean to be summoned as a suspect?

If someone is summoned as a suspect, it means that the authority already considers the suspicion of a criminal offence against that person to be substantiated. This is not the same as being considered guilty, and it does not mean that prosecution or conviction will necessarily follow at the end of the case. However, the formal communication of suspicion legally places the person in the position of an accused party: from that point on, they have not only obligations but also defence rights.

The authority must inform the person what criminal offence they are suspected of and, briefly, on what facts the suspicion is based. This communication is extremely important because the defence can only be meaningful if the person understands what they must defend themselves against.

In practice, the first interrogation often determines the direction in which the case begins to move. A poorly phrased sentence, an inaccurate admission, an ambiguous explanation or an insufficiently considered statement may later carry significant evidentiary weight.

Is it necessary to make a statement?

One of the most important rights of a suspect is that they are not obliged to make a statement. They may refuse to testify entirely, or they may decide not to answer certain questions. This is not an admission and cannot in itself be treated as evidence of guilt.

The right to remain silent is not a tactical trick, but a fundamental criminal-procedure guarantee. It ensures that no one can be forced to testify against themselves. This is especially important where the suspect does not yet know the full case file, does not know what evidence is available and has not had the opportunity to discuss the defence strategy with counsel.

This does not, of course, mean that one should remain silent in every case. There are cases in which a well-prepared, precise and consistent statement can specifically assist the defence. In other cases, however, remaining silent or making only a partial statement may be the reasonable decision. The question is never abstract, but strategic: it must be decided on the basis of the facts, evidence and risks of the particular case.

Why does the timing of a suspect’s statement matter?

In criminal proceedings, the timing of a statement is often at least as important as its content. Before the first interrogation, the person concerned usually does not yet know the case file in detail, who has made statements, what documents have been seized, what electronic data is available or what conclusions the authority has drawn from the evidence.

If someone gives a detailed statement in such a situation, they may easily later have to confront their own earlier words. Authorities often treat inconsistencies between statements as credibility problems, even if the real reason for the difference was stress, misunderstanding or incomplete information.

Therefore, before the first interrogation it is particularly important to clarify:

• the exact subject of the suspicion
• which criminal offence may be involved
• whether there are other involved persons or co-suspects
• whether a house search, seizure or electronic data extraction has taken place
• whether there is any urgent risk, such as detention, a motion for arrest or another investigative act
• which statement strategy best serves the interests of the person concerned

Why is it important for a lawyer to be present?

The role of defence counsel is not limited to being present at the interrogation. Counsel’s task is to assess the situation together with the suspect, evaluate the risks and help decide whether making a statement, remaining silent or giving a statement later best serves the defence.

Consultation with defence counsel before the interrogation has particular significance. It is necessary to discuss what the suspect knows about the case, what documents or electronic data may be relevant, what earlier events may arise and what questions can be expected.

At the interrogation, defence counsel also ensures that the authority properly communicates the suspicion, that information on rights is provided, that the minutes accurately record what was said, and that the suspect does not make a statement they do not understand, did not intend to make or whose consequences they have not assessed.

What should be checked in the minutes?

The minutes of the interrogation may be of particular importance later in the case. It is not enough that the suspect approximately said what they intended. The minutes must contain precisely what the suspect actually said and, as far as possible, in the way they said it.

The minutes must be read carefully before signing. If something is inaccurate, incomplete or ambiguous, its correction should be requested. It is not advisable to sign minutes in which the person concerned does not recognise their own statement or which omit an important correction.

It is particularly important to check that:

• the communication of suspicion is recorded accurately
• the information on rights is recorded
• refusal to make a statement is recorded clearly if the suspect did not wish to testify
• the statements made are not simplified or summarised ambiguously
• the observations, motions and questions of defence counsel are properly recorded

What should you not do before the first interrogation?

Before the first interrogation, it is not advisable to hastily invent explanations, coordinate with other involved persons, delete messages, remove documents or influence evidence in any way. Such steps not only undermine the credibility of the defence but may also create further criminal-law risks.

It may also be dangerous to underestimate an official summons and attend the interrogation as if it were merely a clarifying conversation. A suspect interrogation is not an informal exchange of information: the authority is already questioning the person in the position of an accused party.

It is also not a good strategy to proceed solely on the assumption that there is nothing to hide. In criminal proceedings, what matters is not only how the person concerned views their own role, but also how the authority interprets the evidence.

When is it worth contacting a lawyer?

In the case of a suspect summons, the time to contact a lawyer is not after the interrogation but, if possible, before it. The earlier the case is reviewed, the better the chance of developing a considered, consistent defence strategy adapted to the actual risks of the case.

It is particularly important to contact a lawyer if:

• you have been summoned as a suspect
• a house search, seizure or electronic data extraction has taken place
• other involved persons have already made statements
• the case has a corporate, economic or financial background
• there may be a risk of detention or arrest
• it is unclear whether the person is being treated as a witness or as a suspect
• the authority expects urgent appearance or an immediate statement

The first stage of criminal proceedings often determines the later room for manoeuvre in the case. Proper defence therefore often begins not at the court hearing, but before the first interrogation.

Sources

1. Act XC of 2017 on Criminal Procedure – in particular the provisions on the right of defence, the rights of accused persons and the rules of interrogation. net.jogtar.hu
2. Hungarian Helsinki Committee – information material on the rights of suspects, especially contact with defence counsel, knowledge of the suspicion, the right to remain silent and checking the minutes. helsinki.hu
3. Curia of Hungary – summary opinion on defence counsel’s rights and the significance of the right of defence in criminal proceedings. kuria-birosag.hu