under caution interviews by the csa

nautilus3a

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Nautilus3a - I have to agree with Kellogs, GO to the interview, take a solicitor or Mackenzie friend with you if you feel the need, but if you dont comply the CSA will just prosecute you anyway.

By procrastinating and arguing over every minor point of law you are just dragging the process out until the CSA will hit the go to jail (or court in this case) rule,

The Agency state they will not answer any questions at an under caution interview unless it concerns their singular issue agenda for the interview.

Maybe if you were aware of my historical 12 year and ongoing unacceptable service from the Agency, which is currently being investigated by the ICE office under maladministration, you would have a better understanding of my position.

Therefore, I can assure you, I am not procrastinating and arguing over every point of law, I am merely requesting clear legal confirmation of the Agency's claim that they are compliant to current laws, which authorise them to carry out "under caution interviews".

Just because the CSA suggests that a NRP may have commited a criminal offence, does not dismiss a NRP's legal right to be treat in accordance with their civil and human rights and importantly the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 covering under caution interviews.

Although the Agency may disagree, similar to NRP & PWC, the Agency is not above the law and they have a legal responsibilty to act in accordance with current statutory laws they claim to be compliant with.

Due to inappropriate explanations/no replies from CSA, I feel it is a very important legal issue for all NRP's to understand their legal rights. Therefore, I hope any personal unfounded and unsubstantiated comments I have received, will not distract other NRP's from the fundamental central legal issue here regarding their legal rights for under caution interviews.

Hopefully, in due course, the ICE office and the Upper Tier Tribunal Service will clarify this important issue.

If only! Due to my 12 year legal costs for several court contact orders for contact with my daughter, which my exwife continues to breach with a Publicly funded solicitor, I am without any funds to pay for a solicitor.

Thanks for your reply.

nautilus3a

Dizzydusty wrote: »

Nautilus3a,

The interview will be conducted as stated in PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) which means that the Interview under caution will be dealt with in exactly the same way as it would if the police were conducting it. This is the only way that evidence will be admissable in court, as evidence gathered without a caution being issued could be seen to be circumstantial or entrapment. It will either be tape recorded or contemperanious notes will be constructed and you will be asked to sign to say these are an accurate representation of the interview.

I was an investigator for DWP, my powers of investigation were granted to me via a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, I would suggest that this is the same as the CSA investigators. My warrant however did not mean that I could arrest people etc, but it did mean that when it came to investigations relating to the Social Security act, and in this case the Child Support Act, then I had the power to Interview and issue a caution.

I am also PINS trained (1-7), this is a widely recognised external qualification issued by Portsmouth University. I am sure that you would find information on it if you did a google search.

To be honest, the CSA has been doing IUC's since the CSA came in to being. I am sure that this legislation has been gone over many times! You wont be the first or the last to question this.

However, an IUC is not a threat. It is conducted because the Investigation team have reason to believe that there has been an offence under the CS legislation. The IUC will be conducted to gather information that will either confirm or deny this. I would suspect that in order to get to an IUC situation then the investigation team must have evidence to suggest an offence has been committed. They should present you with the evidence at the interview for you to look at and confirm or deny that said evidence is true or not. They should not ask deliberately leading questions or target non corroborated evidence. Evidence must be corroborated for it to stand up in court. The ex stating that you had won the pools is not corroborated evidence, them producing a copy of a bank statement showing the win or a statment from the 'pools' people confiming you winning and receiving the cash would corroborate this. Third party evidence is hearsay, e.g. your ex saying that she was told by her next door neighbour blah, blah is hearsay, the next door neighbour would have to corroborate this.

You have the right to silence, however it can be viewed very dimly by the court if you then decide to say something you refused to say at the interview. You can take a third party with you such as a solicitor or someone reliable. They will not be able to answer questions on your behalf though.

Seriously, if you are sure you have done nothing wrong (and I make no assumptions here) and have not done anything deliberate to withhold information from the CSA then let them interview you as you will see exactly what they may or may not 'have' on you. Keep calm, think carefully about your answers and it should be OK. You may be able to give them evidence that they did not know about before hand that means that there is no alleged offence!

I agree with Kellogs, they may not have agreed to a face to face as this could have impacted on the ongoing investigation. They still should have had the decency to reply to you though!

Hope this answers some of your questions!

The criminal offence suggested by the Agency was that I had not provided the information they requested, which was correct. However, I did not provide this information because the Agency had not responded to my many letters to them from March 2007, which the CSA Commissioner's submission to the First Tier Tribunal hearing stated, it was totally unacceptable for the Agency not to reply to my historical correspondence concerning my current case.

However, due to an administration error by the First Tier, this submission was not presented to the hearing - hence my complaint is now with the Upper Tier Tribunal service.

Subsequently, I made many written unsuccessful attempts to the Agency for confirmation from part 4 of PACE regulations and written accreditation, which authorised them to act as a "designated person" to carry out under caution interviews under PACE regulations.

As the Agency did not supply this information, I complained under their complaints procedures, which is now being investigated by the ICE office.

Many thanks for your detailed helpful response.

regards nautuls3a

CSA_Help

What did you not disclose to the agency if you don't mind me asking

You could always go and refuse to comment once you get the just of the questioning

kelloggs36

BTW the CSA have only had the powers to interview under caution since 2001 - prior to that it was not an offence to lie to them!!!!! I was PINS trained too and conducted many IUCs both as Benefits Fraud investigator, and a CSA investigator. The PACE Act 1984 to which you refer has many sections and the CSA have to comply with the relevant section of it which is interviews. They do not have the power of arrest, and it purely refers to the interview procedures. You will be offered a copy of the Act at the interview. If you are not, they are in breach of the Act.

nautilus3a

kelloggs36 wrote: »

BTW the CSA have only had the powers to interview under caution since 2001 - prior to that it was not an offence to lie to them!!!!! I was PINS trained too and conducted many IUCs both as Benefits Fraud investigator, and a CSA investigator. The PACE Act 1984 to which you refer has many sections and the CSA have to comply with the relevant section of it which is interviews. They do not have the power of arrest, and it purely refers to the interview procedures. You will be offered a copy of the Act at the interview. If you are not, they are in breach of the Act.

I am aware of the procedure under PACE, which you describe above. However, the central isssue of my concern I indicate below.

The PACE Act 1984 may well have many sections. However, there is only one section which concerns my position and that is Code of Practice E "Audio recording interviews with suspects".

With reference to Section 1.6 (a). As CSA inspectors are not Police Officers they would need to be an authorised "Designated Person" under the Police Reform Act 2002. Under this Act - Part 4 "Police Powers etc" - Chapter 1 points 38 & 39 covers all legal requirements for under caution interviews and authorisation for a "Designated person".
Importantly, authorisation can only be carried out by a Chief Police Officer or a Director General.
Section 47 refers to "Interpretation of Chapter 1 -Director General means (a) the Director General of the National Intelligence Service or (b) The Director General of the National Crime Squad.

CSA inspectors claim their training whether it be PINS or other, legally authorises them to carry out these interviews under PACE Regulations. From these regulations, I cannot find any reference whatsoever to legally justify this claim or reference to external training, which is recognised by PACE to allow a Chief of Police or Director General to appoint them as a "Designated Person" to carry out under caution interviews, especially outside a Police Station. However, if I've missed anything in PACE, which would indicate if and how csa Inspectors could be legally "Designated Persons" I would be obliged for specific reference in these regulations.

Regards nautilus3a

dizzydusty

Hi Nautilus3a.

I have lifted this from our own guidance (DWP), it will be the same for CSA,

"Section 67(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 states that:
“Persons other than Police Officers charged with a duty of investigating offences or charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard to any relevant provision of a code of practice made under the Act.”
With the introduction of the Welsh Language Act an interview conducted in Wales may either be in English or Welsh.

3.

PACE Code of Practice (COP) C 11.1A states that the questioning of a person regarding their involvement in a criminal offence must be carried out under caution. Code E covers the audio recording of interviews with suspects. Jobcentre Plus investigators must be conversant with the content of these codes and apply them when interviewing persons under caution."

As mentioned before, the Secretary of State has the power to grant members of staff investigative powers within DWP and CSA. They do not come under the remit of the police force therefore would not have this charge put on them by the police authority.

They are bound to carry out their investigations as laid down by PACE or the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act which is why they make reference to it.

I would think that the social security act or the Child Support Act (if thats what its called) would make reference to who is a Designated Person within the remit of these acts. I have not seen the wording that makes reference to PACE on your letter. What I think it means is that the interview under caution will be conducted under the PACE code of practice - in as much as it will be conducted in a certain way.

If I get a chance to look at the Child Support Act in my lunch I will.

Dizzy

parkgrange

Just a few thoughts (I currently work as an investigator).

Have a google for 'disclosure' - if insufficient disclosure is made prior to the interview then it may be appropriate to refuse to answer questions on the basis that you haven't been provided with appropriate background information to enable you to answer the questions put to you.

Consider also handing over a pre-prepared statement at the interview and advising at the start that you will read it out loud but will not be answering any questions during the interview. This happens a lot but usually with legal representation.

It is not usual practice to be given a copy of the interview tapes unless you are charged with a criminal offence. You will be given a form that tells you how you may obtain a copy of the tape.

PINS isn't the only accreditation that allows non-Police officers to conduct IUC's under PACE.

I wish you well.

dizzydusty

Back again,

Sect 15 of the Child Support Act 1991 refers to the Secretary of state giving authority to a disignated person under the powers of this act,
Section 14 of the Child Support, Pension and Social Security Act 2000 also refers to this.

From what you say, CSA are correct in their investigation as you did not provide requested information - regardless of the history behind your case, this is the offence committed. However - you have stated that there were a mitigating circumstances as to why you did not provide this information. You know these and If I were you, I would make a detailed list of what they were and why you chose not to provide the requested information. Only you know the impact that the CSA, not replying to your letters or requests would have on your case. Keep it factual, becoming emotive, angry or whatever just stresses you out and is non productive in an IUC situation. In fact being able give examples of all of the requests you made and when you made them, and if you got a reply on tape may not be a bad thing. If it ever goes to court its there in black and white in the transcript.

Best of Luck.

Wasteland_Drifter

nuatulis3a.

I had this several years back now. I was asked to attend an interview under caution. I was interviewed by two CSA officials concurrently, male and female.

I asked the interviewer to state what I am suspected of, and provide compelling evidence. They were unable to show me anything and insisted on interviewing me. My two interviewers constantly talked each other with impertinent questions which I sat there remaining silent.

I then decided to give a No Comment Interview and left the room. It all came to nothing.

The moral is, if in doubt, say "No Comment" then get up and leave the room.

You dont have to be interviewed at all if you dont want to be. If they still want to charge you with an offence, then let do that, you have a right to see what you are acused of and you have plenty of time to prepare your defence. For now, give the CSA Nothing.

If you are asked for an interview, it usually means the CSA are fishing for something and want you to admit to something. But, if you got something on the CSA, e.g. a CSA refusal to correct a clerical error, or an officer has made a false representation about your circumstances to increase the money they would otherwise take in child support (Sections 1-5 of the Fraud Act 2006), write it all down, and read it slowly aloud while the tape is still running. That way the CSA cannot hide the facts from the Magistrate.

kelloggs36

If you are being interviewed under caution for failing to provide information, they don't have the info and don't need it - it is purely because you have failed to provide it when legally obliged to do so. If you don't turn up, they will go for prosecution anyway as they offered you the chance to put your side, but you refused. If you go and tell them, then you may end up with no action being taken as they may accept your response but you are still obliged to provide the info. If you still refuse, then again, they can continue to prosecute you. If you say 'no comment' then again, as it is for failing to provide info, and you still refuse to, then they will just go ahead anyway. your call.