Advice needed please - Interview with police on Tuesday

sexyeyes83

Anihilator wrote: »

So there are 2 seperate allegations of theft ? Yes?

Thats correct and ive never said anything different.

Anihilator wrote: »

Involved/Linked is the same thing.

At the end of the day I would be amazed if a tribunal decides the employer didnt have just cause to dismiss. There is far too much smoke here.

Your only hope is procedural problems and if they deem the case for dismissal was fair these may not stand up to much.

In relation to your points in red.

1) I'll have a look back through the thread later on and highlisght these. Some of these may not have been posted as in the last couple of months ive found more and more discrepancies.

2) Statements are evidence, in which case the statement provides different information to which was reported at the time.

3) I had the chance to take a union rep or collegue along. Im not a member of a trade union and was told not to contact staff or it would be a case of gross misconduct. At the time I was given an out of date policy which stated I could take a friend along, however this was denied when they advised the policy was out of date - This is all mentioned in the thread.

4) In the first incident there were 4 or 5 people that had the opportunity, however they were not suspended like I was.

5) Ive never been to court for anything to be proven. I have never been accused of theft until this started.

6) -

7) -

8) Because it would have been impossible to accept. They offered me hours they knew I would not be able to do.

4) Police officer intimated that he felt there was substance to the claims
This is not a police officers job. A police officers job is to gather evidence. Its the upto the CPS as to whether there is any substance and a judge and jury to decide on guilt.

At the end of the day thats a seperate issue for you to complain to the police on. The employer was provided this info and used it. They would be unfair if they didnt use all the evidence they had.

Again, It is not a police officers job to imply this, They are there to gather evidence.

sexyeyes83

robredz wrote: »

Sexyeyes, you MUST ensure your case is watertight, and stick to Relevant evidence that doesn't stray from the applicable points.

Just spent the last few nights sorting out folders with all the documentation in. Tonight im going to sit down with my partner and complete lists of discrepancies, breaches of company policy, breaches of Acas policy and points showing the lack of investigation in this matter.

robredz

rupee99 wrote: »

It does not matter how many allegations there are and of what crime. There have been no convictions (or cautions which would mean an acceptance of guilt).

In the UK there is the presumption of innocence, so unless you have incontravertible evidence of Sexyeyes' guilt, which you should disclose to the police, then you should shut up about it.

Quite correct, only problem as you have already pointed out is our authorities skewed view of rights and wrongs, along with knee jerk legislation that follows the law of unintended consequences due to them being badly and hastily constructed.

Anihilator give it up now rupee99 will have a better knowledge of the law and it's application than you imho, by the way Anihilator did you get your Llb?

Lets just reverse things a little Anihilator, suppose YOU were a courier/postie delivering a parcel to the building where Op had been and package was tampered with, you entered the building, found no one in and left a card, would the police have taken an interest in YOU and tried to find out who you were by contacting the parcel company, interviewed you and tried to pin it on you if they couldn't fit up OP . I think they would.

DVardysShadow

robredz wrote: »

This is going to be the big problem with the procedure of the new ISA vetting and barring scheme, when innocents are barred because of tittle tattle/unfounded police comments, just to show they are ticking their boxes, and barring people. When the Voluntary and Care sectors collapse as a result, the powers that be will throw their hands up in the air and say "Where did we go wrong, we only want to protect ickle children and frail vulnerable people ... "

Actually, [Off Topic], I don't think they care very much about ickle children and frail vulnerable wrinklies. You can see how their agenda fits into Anihilator's thinking. They are after his vote and that is about it.

robredz

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Actually, [Off Topic], I don't think they care very much about ickle children and frail vulnerable wrinklies. You can see how their agenda fits into Anihilator's thinking. They are after his vote and that is about it.

(off topic)
And once they have got his vote they will go after him using the "Acting Beyond Authority" everyone's a potential criminal gve us your DNA Common Purpose doctrine. And he won't know why.

Uncertain

I have read all of this saga but much of it a long time ago.....

Apologies if this has been said before.....

Very sadly it is also true that an employer doesn't need "criminal" level of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) to dismiss for suspected dishonesty. In effect they only need to get over the "civil" hurdle of more likely than not.

It is therefore perfectly possible to have a situation where the police drop the matter but the employer can still fairly dismiss.

This could even (at least in theory) happen if the police had prosecuted but the OP had been found not guilty.

I appreciate this is sometimes not an easy concept to grasp and is certainly not nice.

Sorry

rupee99

Uncertain wrote: »

I have read all of this saga but much of it a long time ago.....

Apologies if this has been said before.....

Very sadly it is also true that an employer doesn't need "criminal" level of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) to dismiss for suspected dishonesty. In effect they only need to get over the "civil" hurdle of more likely than not.

It is therefore perfectly possible to have a situation where the police drop the matter but the employer can still fairly dismiss.

This could even (at least in theory) happen if the police had prosecuted but the OP had been found not guilty.

I appreciate this is sometimes not an easy concept to grasp and is certainly not nice.

Sorry

It is quite correct that the employer only needs to prove their case on the balance of probabilities test (or preponderence of evidence if you prefer); however what the OP has disclosed (caveat: on the parts of the thread I have read) does not meet the requirements of that test. Unsubstantiated allegations, based upon hearsay evidence, even that of a police officer, are not permissible evidence in front of a court or tribunal in England and Wales. If the matters are directly within the knowledge of the employer or the police officer gives evidence that is another matter.

robpw2

hey sexy eyes read this from the beginng and i just wanted to say i feel for you and its nice to see you havent given up etc

however my only point of negativity is please whatever you do use the ignore option on anhilator you dont need to be arguing with him/her .. good luck with everything rob

Uncertain

rupee99 wrote: »

It is quite correct that the employer only needs to prove their case on the balance of probabilities test (or preponderence of evidence if you prefer); however what the OP has disclosed (caveat: on the parts of the thread I have read) does not meet the requirements of that test. Unsubstantiated allegations, based upon hearsay evidence, even that of a police officer, are not permissible evidence in front of a court or tribunal in England and Wales. If the matters are directly within the knowledge of the employer or the police officer gives evidence that is another matter.

Yes, good point and you are of course right.

Let us just hope an ET takes a firm line on this as I'm sure the employer will try to get it all in. They can sometimes be very "relaxed" about hearsay.

At the risk of going OT a little.....

Would the OP be in a better or worse position if they HAD been prosecuted (and found not guilty)?

The prosecution would be a matter of public record.

The employer could, if they wish, have sat in and heard every word.

The CPS would (should !!) only have prosecuted if they felt there was a realistic prospect of a conviction and it was in the public interest to do so.

However the acquittal is final (well 99.99% final even these days) so it is no longer in limbo due to "insufficient evidence" as it could be argued to be at the moment.

So, would this strengthen the employers case or not?

blue_monkey_2

SE, please do not waste your time posting everything on here to satify one or two posters who have you down as guilty until proven innocent. They more or less say the same on every thread they post one so really try and ignore it and save your time and energies for the tribunal and seeing a solicitor next week.