Is it worth appealing against my conviction?

Soapn

If you do decide, you won't be claiming Legal Aid will you?

System

He could appeal but if he would win or not is a different story. But bear in mind the OP could have been sent to prison but he was not.So he got off lightly considering.

So just be thankful that you are still free as you could have been sent to prison. But you was not.

So my advice is just let it go and get on with your life. You have been given a second change as you are not in prison. Don't make the same mistake again. Barbara.

samantham06

Soapn wrote: »

If you do decide, you won't be claiming Legal Aid will you?

Ha! No they cant as people who have committed benefit fraud arnt entitled to Legal Aid..thank goodness.

OP: If you have any hope of an appeal I would suggest that you get your story straight, as I have read through this thread and seen various discrepencies within your posts!

You quite clearly knew that you should have notified the DWP that you had the money, if you had of done that initially and it was truthfully your sisters then you probably wouldnt be in this situation now!
It sounds to me like you clearly committed fraud, knowing that you had that large sum of money and have tried to make various excuses to get yourself out of it.
And im sorry but I have to say.. I really dont know why you have came and told your "sob" story on here.. its your own fault. In my eyes you deserve much more than an unconditonal discharge.
It is because of people like you that the government is now having to make huge cutbacks to people who really need it! You had plenty of money to live in for a very long time, or even start a buisness and not be a theiving drain on society!
I go to work everyday to a job I hate, just to support myself and my son as I didnt want to rely on benefits, and as a single parent I dont have to do that, especially not when people like you are literally taking money out of needy peoples pockets.

Sorry everyone else for the rant, but this really made me cross!

dodger1

x4xy wrote: »

I am sorry, some posters here don't seem to understand what I am trying to get help for.
The question is if by just not ticking the box -saying do you have any money in trust - is enough for a judge to conclude I made a false statement. I think Rogerblack in his post said it might be not... Now, I would be grateful if readers would focus on this problem if they have any knowledge of it. This is where I need help.

Not in the legal profession but as you didn't tick the box in my unprofessional opinion the judge was correct to conclude you made a false statement. The judge was also probably swayed towards a guilty verdict by the fact you paid the money back, that does make you look guilty.

princess*daisy

Hi,

I AM NOT LEGALLY TRAINED SO THE FOLLOWING ADVICE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS LAYPERSON ADVICE, but I do have some knowledge of the Criminal Justice System.

x4xy wrote: »

The magistrates court with only a judge presiding at the trial

No issues here, perfectly acceptable and legal. Magistrates Courts can either be "sat" by a bench of Magistrates (not legally qualified) or a sole District Judge (legally qualified).

x4xy wrote: »

Is no other evidence than just me not ticking a box evidence enough to convict me?
I'd be very grateful fgor your comments.

In itself, this is sufficient evidence if it meets the burden of proof that you committed a criminal offence (i.e. if the judge - or jury if you had been tried at Crown - is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the offence)

It seems that there may have also been further evidence - another forum member notes that you admitted the overpayment during an interview under police caution?

However, without knowing the full facts of the case (i.e. the evidence presented by the prosecution and agreed as being that which is admissable prior to trial, it is impossible for any forum members to advise whether the conviction is sound. You would need a solicitor to go through this with a fine tooth comb.

x4xy wrote: »

At the trial I maintained that the money over the capital belonged to my sister, given to me in trust. The magistrates court with only a judge presiding at the trial said in her summing up she found me guilty because: I did not tick the box in the capital and savings page of the income support application form where it says "have you got any money in trust."...
No evidence was presented by the prosecution that the money was not my sister's; I always maintained at the interview under caution that it belonged to my sister. Never at the trial the prosecution contested that the money did not belong to my sister.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't the point. The money could have belonged to the Pope, but you still failed to declare it.

x4xy wrote: »

At the trial I was representing myself - which was a mistake but it is too late now for that

This is irrelevant. Your legal rights are clearly explained to you during the course of the criminal justice process - your right to seek legal representation is included in this. You chose not to seek legal representation and that is that.

The fact that you are on antidepressant medication is insufficient in itself to appeal against the conviction. If you wanted the conviction to be appealed on grounds of mental impairment, there would have to be sufficient evidence that you were not of sound enough mind to understand what you were signing to. This would require solid medical evidence. The judge may have chosen to accept your depression as a mitigating factor with respect to sentencing, but you were given almost the lowest type of sentence you can be given in this country (only an absolute discharge is below a conditional discharge, but even an absolute discharge is still a conviction).

The sum that you were overpaid (£16,000) is a high amount - most people would receive at least a Community Order for this level of fraud. Certainly, it is not unreasonable to say that in a different set of circumstances, custody would have been an option. Therefore, you have been sentenced very leniently (especially as you pleaded not guilty). The fact that you paid all the money back prior to your Court case is likely to have been a factor in this leniency, as would other factors including any previous convictions etc.

Of course, you do have the right to approach a solicitor and discuss whether an appeal against conviction hearing would be granted. However, please bear in mind that if you were to appeal the sentence then the appeal judge reserves the right to be able to increase your sentence if he/she feels fit.

macintosh-uk

I have a similar problem.

Also, does it just come down to simply missing a question or a 'tick box' on a form ?

fiesta04

Yes it can, but mainly because you did not inform them ot any change in circumstances.

I am going through this too. But as they say rules are rules!!!

bored_at_home

it also comes down to you signing the declaration on the form that the information is true and correct or words to that effect.

macintosh-uk

Well hopefully they can understand people make mistakes and realise that.

Chrissiew

If I were the OP I would just leave things now, you got a conditional discharge, no community service, and no prison sentence, so you wont have to get up early in the morning and go clean the graffiti of the council offices or have to pick up litter in the local park, I know you will now have a crimminal record but at least you still have your freedom.

The benefits office can be ruthless at times, and if you make a genuine mistake they should take that into account, if you missed a tick off somewhere or put an answer in the wrong box it leads to all sort of problems that result in benefit withdrawal for a few weeks untill they decide if it was a genuine mistake or done for fraud purposes.

Where ever possible they will take people to court, no matter if they have paid back the money or not, just to set an example to others who may have the idea to commit fraud.