Wrongly Accused of Fly Tipping - Help!

neverdespairgirl

gazter wrote: »

The use of the questioning 'under caution' is to intimidate you.

Not really. If a person is suspected of an offence, he must be interviewed under caution, not without it.

Otherwise it can render the evidence inadmissable.

Guest101

NDG you're absolutely correct, but in this case it's used to intimidate the OP into going to the interview, normally he/she would need to be arrested for such an interview to take place.

wymondham

Having read this thread out of interest, the amount of conflicting advice is alarming and confusing. Are people giving 'advice' when they don't really know the answer?

Guest101

wymondham wrote: »

Having read this thread out of interest, the amount of conflicting advice is alarming and confusing. Are people giving 'advice' when they don't really know the answer?

Everything i've said is 100% true, but if you have specific queries, ask. ill do my best to explain

TeamLowe

Guest101 wrote: »

Fair enough,

Just so you know, you cannot be arrested on the say so of the council, he cannot 'have you arrested'. It's bogus. He an report the offence to the police (which he has done so) and they will conduct an investigation. By arranging to have you interviewed, he is trying to ascertain he has some kind of authority over and and the police.

This isn't entirely true. The Police delegate powers of investigation and prosecution to the Council, in particular I believe to the head of paid service (a statutory role, usually the chief executive), who will then delegate to certain trained officers.

So the officer does have the authority to investigate and bring this case before a judge
It depends entirely on their agreement with the police what happens if they find a dead end- they may have an agreement that the criminal investigation is passed back and the police will obtain a warrant. Doubtful that would ever happen but that could be the agreement

Guest101

TeamLowe wrote: »

This isn't entirely true. The Police delegate powers of investigation and prosecution to the Council, in particular I believe to the head of paid service (a statutory role, usually the chief executive), who will then delegate to certain trained officers.

So the officer does have the authority to investigate and bring this case before a judge
It depends entirely on their agreement with the police what happens if they find a dead end- they may have an agreement that the criminal investigation is passed back and the police will obtain a warrant. Doubtful that would ever happen but that could be the agreement

I do have to question that view, but if you can cite an example that would be good.

Anyone can carry out an investigation, I could investigate you or anyone else, as private citizen in order to obtain evidence of an offence. But the council can only bring, like me, a civil prosecution. A criminal prosecution can only be brought by the CPS, on the recommendation of the police.

Since the police are interviewing, under caution, this is a criminal investigation, which the counil can only act as expert witnesses.

Certainly they have absolutely no powers of arrest, and have no powers to have th OP arrested. Simply to supply the evidence they have collated. Just like me and you could.
(outside of common law powers of arrest ofcourse, which we all have)

sinbad182

Guest101 wrote: »

But the council can only bring, like me, a civil prosecution. A criminal prosecution can only be brought by the CPS, on the recommendation of the police.

Not true I'm afraid, for example, London Underground prosecute people and gain criminal convictions for Fare Evasion - they have an in house prosecutions team and neither the CPS nor the Police are involved.

Guest101

Fare evasion is probably covered by bylaws, however i'm not sure about the inhouse prosecution team. How exactly do they proescute, with no power of arrest? I'd imagine this was a case for the british transport police?

It's an interesting point, but without more information i couldnt comment really

Yorkie1

DWP investigates and prosecutes - only recently was the prosecution function taken within the CPS.

sinbad182

Guest101 wrote: »

Fare evasion is probably covered by bylaws, however i'm not sure about the inhouse prosecution team. How exactly do they proescute, with no power of arrest? I'd imagine this was a case for the british transport police?

It's an interesting point, but without more information i couldnt comment really

Nope, fare evasion is a criminal offence under the regulation of railways act 1889. Bylaw offences are also presented in court but generally only concurrently with the statute offence of fare evasion.

LU inspectors stop, caution, question and report under PACE. The prosecutions team present it in court, with the inspector acting as witness if necessary. An individual doesn't have to be arrested to be questioned under caution, although inspectors have the legal power of arrest for fare evasion offences under Mulberry vs Allsop. I never advise them to exercise this though, as its hugely contentious!