Advice please re- fraud interview!!

Wee_Willy_Harris

Made me laugh!

Oldernotwiser

ed123 wrote: »

.....you don't have to attend these interviews....I think any solicitor will tell you this.....it is not a friendly chat between equals but an exercise in gaining evidence against you....I would see a solicitor or law centre/CAB......

Why worry if you've done nothing wrong?

cyclonebri1

No "benefit slayer" posted something that was kicked out, you can imagine from the username. My less than polite reply to him was also removed, a fair price paid I think :beer:

Nocoldcallers

Removed. Can't be doing with ignoramuses like sunnyone. Very easy to be smug and anonymous.

roger196

In Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29, the European Court of Human Rights at paragraph 45 said
“there can be no doubt that the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6”.

In Condron v United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 1, the Strasbourg authorities held, over-ruling the Court of Appeal, that allowing a jury to draw an adverse influence from “no comment” police interview after caution was a violation of Article 6.

I would suggest you look at the booklet “Sitting as a District Judge” produced by the Judicial Studies Board at pages 88-89. On page 89 it says
“If, for example, the court considered that he had or may have had an answer to give, but genuinely relied on the legal advice to remain silent, no conclusion should be drawn against him.”

There is a difference between the obligation by the investigating authority to hold an interview under PACE and whether they already hold sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution.

The attraction of a forum such as this is the opportunity to present different views. I look forward to your response when you have time to read the above cases.
As I said before, OP needs the support of a solicitor who specialises in benefit fraud.

McKneff

Yes, i thought that too.

Its very rude and particularly ignorant to tell anyone to 'shut up'
Everyone has a right to speak on a public forum.

hyltonlad

ive had an interview under caution i was ill for the 2 week before when i was interviewed there was a man from the dpwp and a women fron hb they explained what was going to happen in the interview.they went over every claim form i put in and asking if was my signaturethen last year they said i was declairing 12 hours a week which is right but my boss had mixed up my details with someone else giving the details to the inland revenue hence the mix up.the people who interviewed me were polite but firm.

sinstar

I was replying to someone who said something along the lines of "Sounds like the OP thinks benefits are their god given right not a privilege!" but then they deleted their post.

cyclonebri1

no they didn't, they had the post removed for reasons you and I understand, thanks

sunnyone

You played a dangerous (illegal) game and you lost, you have created the situation you are now in and no one else.

Anyone claiming IS signs forms on a regular basis to say the circumstances are still the same, you must have had them after you got your endowerment payment and you didnt inform them that you had a large sum of money that you could access and that made you ineligable for IS and you knew it.

Most people have to pay there own prescriptions, council tax and morgage intrest and if you had done the right thing you would probably still exempt but you got greedy and had two years of having your cake and eating it.

People who have been totally honest have nothing to fear and dont need to do what you suggest here, only people like you that have commited fraud need to worry.