“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"
Could someone please explain how not mentioning something to the police but possibly mentioning it to your legal team would harm a defence in court.
Because it would raise doubts as to whether it’s true.
Probably a number of reasons. eg…
It didn’t happen. You made it up prior to court.
It did happen, but because you didn’t mention it, Police are denied the opportunity of timely investigation to acquire evidence.
Notice, it doesn’t say it WILL harm your defence, just it MAY harm your defence.
I’m sure others here will provide far better guidance.
If a defendant suddenly came up with an alibi during a trial, presumably the claimed alibi wouldn’t be taken into account, as the police haven’t been able to check it out.
Ok, what happened? You can tell us, you’re among friends 
Nothing happened. Its just something I have not understood.
Yes, I wondered that too. Odd, random question.
So if something was not mentioned to police but was mentioned to the legal team prior to court where would that stand.
That would depend upon whether is was disclosed to the other side in “disclosure” prior to court.
Try giving an example of your uncertainty.
Isn’t that what the Padded Cell is all about. 
Rest assured guys, I’m not in front of the beak, it’s just something that I have never been able to make sense of.
Probably best understood through personal experience 
Surely its the polices job to prove their case, to gather evidence etc etc. Why would or should you wish to help them in the prosecution of you?
What happened to the right to silence?
According to the Wikipedia article on right to silence:
“The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:
Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.”
Thanks guys. I shall ponder the replies and reply later if I still have questions.
“You do not have to say anything”
ditto in court
“There may be no conviction based wholly on silence”
I was interviewed under caution once. Unfortunately I’d had half a bottle of wine when the police officer knocked on the door and I thought it was a joke. Saying ‘ok, you’ve got me banged to rights’ was not the best idea. Luckily our eccentric cat then walked in and defused the situation. I got a serious ticking off and the police officer went home for her dinner.
After much searching and scratching of head I found this which explains better than I can why I asked the question in the first place.
That link is 4 years old.
Has the Gov taken any action to remove the implied prejudice ?
I like the idea that the police would have to reveal all the evidence they have.
From what I have been able to find out, the current statement / caution has been in place since 2003. I have not been able to find any reference to amendments or changes since then.