under caution interviews by the csa

pd001

Wasteland_Drifter wrote: »

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.

All very good advice here. I would go to the interview and see what happens.

nautilus3a

Dizzydusty wrote: »

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

I agree, as they are not Police officers, I assumed if they were truly legally authorised "designated persons" under PACE Regulations, they would need authorisation (written acreditation) from as you indicate, the Secretary of State. Therefore, as they were suggesting I had committed a criminal offence, I felt my repeated letters to the Agency seeking confirmation of this accredited authorisation, which were ignored were reasonable requests, especially in view of the CSA Commissioner's submission to first tier tribunal which stated, it was totally unacceptable not to reply my correspondence under the Child Support Agency Client Charter.

I am unable to locate reference anywhere in the Child Support Act 1991 for a "designated person". The three page letter I received from the Agency proposing this interview was very detailed and stressed that it would be conducted exactly as indicated with PACE regs. Many thanks for your guidance and your time, much appreciated.

nautilus3a

nautilus3a

parkgrange wrote: »

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.

I cannot find PINS or any other accreditation indicated in PACE (CODE E) to authorise non-police officers as "Dedicated Persons" to cary out under caution interviews outside a police station.
I have been informed that accreditaion for non-police officers
needs to be from the secretary of state. I have repeatedly asked the csa to provide written confirmation of their accreditation as "designated persons" under PACE. However, my requests have been ignored.

Your suggestion sounds like a good idea. I could also raise the above in a pre-prepared statement. Many thanks for your help and guidance.

reagrds nautilus3a

kelloggs36

nautilus3a wrote: »

I agree, as they are not Police officers, I assumed if they were truly legally authorised "designated persons" under PACE Regulations, they would need authorisation (written acreditation) from as you indicate, the Secretary of State. Therefore, as they were suggesting I had committed a criminal offence, I felt my repeated letters to the Agency seeking confirmation of this accredited authorisation, which were ignored were reasonable requests, especially in view of the CSA Commissioner's submission to first tier tribunal which stated, it was totally unacceptable not to reply my correspondence under the Child Support Agency Client Charter.

I am unable to locate reference anywhere in the Child Support Act 1991 for a "designated person". The three page letter I received from the Agency proposing this interview was very detailed and stressed that it would be conducted exactly as indicated with PACE regs. Many thanks for your guidance and your time, much appreciated.

nautilus3a

As I said in a previous post, the CSA did not interview under caution prior to 2001 at the very earliest, as until then, there was no criminal offence to fail to provide info or to knowingly provide false info - and so the 1991 Act would not have reference to it. You may find it under subsequent Acts.

kelloggs36

Just out of interest - if they provide you with the info, what do you plan to do??? I feel you are just wanting to fight in the vain hope that you will get out of it - an organisation such as the CSA may be difficult, but it cannot and does not make up the fact that they can interview you under caution - you arguing the toss won't stop the process - the most you can do is delay it, but the eventual outcome will be the same. You are just trying to delay things.

Wasteland_Drifter

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Just out of interest - if they provide you with the info, what do you plan to do??? .

You tell the Interviewers, - "Interview Suspended, so I can make further enquiries and check your evidence"

Leave the room and take a copy of the evidence and the tape with you.

kelloggs36

I meant proving that they can interview him under caution - I get the feeling that he is hoping that he can get out of what is to come by trying to prove that they can't do it, when they actually can - a complete waste of time and energy.