Advice please re- fraud interview!!

real1314

roger196 wrote: »

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.

You seem to have shifted a long way from your "Say one thing but reserve the right to say another" statement, so the point is no longer relevant.

You also seem to have shifted on the point that they will always attempt an interview, not only when they do not have "enough" evidence. At least now people can see some sort of valid advice.:)

dippy3103

An interview under caution is conducted if there is reason to believe and offence has been committed. The customer is (usually) given three oppourtunities to attend and give their version of events. If they fail to attend the case may well proceed based on the evidence that the authority has, without the customers comments.
Depending on various factors a formal caution may be offered as an alternative to prosecution but only if an interview has been conducted. It maybe that there is previously unknown mitigation that may emerge ate interview.
I have never known anyone be told that the will be "had" if thy reclaim or be called a "benefit cheat" at interview, or be told by the interviewing officer that they "will be prosecuted". In the highly, highly unlikley situation that this happens formal complaints shoud be made.
A solicitor can be of help at interview and can often have disclosure prior to interview so that you go in knowing exactly what the problem is.
Fraud investigators will not conduct the interview by letter.

sunshaeen

just to let you know it all went ok just seemed to be a mix up and i was re-assured at the end of the interview that there looks like a small overpayment which will be easy to clear the matter up, i feel much better now thanks all x

moomoomama27

sunshaeen wrote: »

just to let you know it all went ok just seemed to be a mix up and i was re-assured at the end of the interview that there looks like a small overpayment which will be easy to clear the matter up, i feel much better now thanks all x

That's good to hear! What a relief!