Accused of Flytipping - Advice Needed

Guest101

Peter333 wrote: »

Oh dear OP. Your sister is in a bit of a conundrum.

I would - if it were me - definitely go. I think it's a bad idea not to. The council may not be the police, but they can - and will - press charges against you, and remember fly-tipping is taken VERY SERIOUSLY. Please do not forget that.

I would go to clear my name. If she didn't do it, then there is no way they can have any proof. Maybe they can take a legal representative with them? I would recommend they do.

This is an example of one council, but they all pretty much work in the same way.

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/fly_tipping

Pay particular attention to this paragraph from that article.

The fly tipping of controlled waste, which requires a waste management licence for its treatment or disposal, is a serious criminal offence which carries a fine of up to £50,000 or one year imprisonment. If the case is very serious and goes court, an unlimited fine may be imposed and the prison term can be up to five years.

I think some people on here are being way too flippant about this, as it is classed as pretty serious. I agree with Cheeky Monkey's post. It is very unwise to ignore this.

I would strongly recommend they both go.

There is no indication this is a controlled waste issue.

The interview will go along these lines (OP can confirm if they go through the interview ):

Caution: you do not have to say anything.... Etc

A series of leading questions, which the defendant is not prepared for. Which are designed to cause them to stumble ( the council do believe they have the right person after all).

The defendant may well stumble, indirectly admit the possibility that some of their waste ( ie a letter ) is in the trash.


The council offer a fixed penalty notice, as a 'good' way to avoid further action.


If I were in the position, I would politely decline the interview, and provide a statement to the effect that: I do not know anything regarding this waste. That I have not commited the offence. And that I will rigorously defend my position should this proceed to court. Add any additional details are required. ( notably this would be evidence of not being at the property at the time of the incident if the date is provided)

I would also make it clear that this is the same statement I would make at interview.

The caution - if anyone bothers to find out- is quite clear that anything you say may be used against you. No where does it say that this will be used to defend you.

It also says it MAY harm your defence if you do not mention now, something which you rely on in court. The onus there is for the answer to be immediate. Thereby providing no time to formulate any defence.

Why not just leave such information for if it were to go to court?

The serious sentence is not a reason to throw away basic logic, that this is an investigation to ascertain your guilt, not innocence.

Peter333

jc808 wrote: »

agreed with guest101 why go and tie yourself in knots

i wouldn't attend

This is very dangerous advice. The OP's sister is more than likely to be prosecuted without further ado if she simply ignores the council's correspondence.

The next piece of correspondence she will receive will be a summons to court if she ignores the council regarding this matter.

OP, your sister will bury her head in the sand at her peril. She must attend, and take a legal representative with her.

[Deleted User]

Peter333 wrote: »

The next piece of correspondence she will receive will be a summons to court if she ignores the council regarding this matter.

I agree this is a very likely outcome of refusal to attend.

In relation to "leading questions", all the interviewee has to do is stand their ground and deny all knowledge and liability for the dumped rubbish.

Guest101

Peter333 wrote: »

This is very dangerous advice. The OP's sister is more than likely to be prosecuted without further ado if she simply ignores the council's correspondence.

The next piece of correspondence she will receive will be a summons to court if she ignores the council regarding this matter.

OP, your sister will bury her head in the sand at her peril. She must attend, and take a legal representative with her.

And? At this point she will be able to formulate a full defence.

It's not like you've gone to court, you're guilty. That is where this is decided.

She will also have access to much more of the evidence against her, rather than go in blind.

Guest101

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I agree this is a very likely outcome of refusal to attend.

In relation to "leading questions", all the interviewee has to do is stand their ground and deny all knowledge and liability for the dumped rubbish.

Which she can do by submitting a statement now, in writing, along side the letter declining to attend.

mjoneseyjones

I, and anyone else with an iota of common sense or knowledge of the subject, can only echo the sentiments above.


Not going to the interview is an exceedingly risky move, it will be used as an indicator of possible guilt when the argument to take further action is made, and it serves no benefit in terms of not being sucker punched with leading questions, as this would still happen if the case was heard in court anyway - but with the added bonus of you not knowing it was coming as you won't have been party to their approach until then.


The council will (or certainly should) be conducting the interview under PACE guidelines, which will mean that only questions asked after caution can be used to prove intent. Our learned friend guest101 has failed to mention that this caution will also mention that you are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time, completely negating the worry about being flustered into a corner. If this happens, you just leave.


I'd also like to add that the courts look very dimly upon prosecuting authorities using leading questions to prove intent, so even if this did happen it wouldn't be accepted as evidence of intent.


You and your sister ultimately need to make this decision yourselves, and I would suggest researching very carefully what history your council has of pursuing prosecutions like this, how aggressively they push their cases, and what their success rate is. Only this will tell you how serious the accusation is and how you should play it. Certainly don't take dangerous, unsubstantiated advice from keyboard lawyers who type in text speak and pass their advice off as gospel.

Peter333

This ^^^ with bells on.

Can't add anything else really, except to say to the OP, PLEASE tell your sister she really must go, and to take a legal representative with her.

[Deleted User]

Peter333 wrote: »

take a legal representative with her.

Needless cost at this stage. Only engage legal representation if it ends up in court.

Guest101

mjoneseyjones wrote: »

I, and anyone else with an iota of common sense or knowledge of the subject, can only echo the sentiments above.


Not going to the interview is an exceedingly risky move, it will be used as an indicator of possible guilt when the argument to take further action is made, and it serves no benefit in terms of not being sucker punched with leading questions, as this would still happen if the case was heard in court anyway - but with the added bonus of you not knowing it was coming as you won't have been party to their approach until then.


The council will (or certainly should) be conducting the interview under PACE guidelines, which will mean that only questions asked after caution can be used to prove intent. Our learned friend guest101 has failed to mention that this caution will also mention that you are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time, completely negating the worry about being flustered into a corner. If this happens, you just leave.


I'd also like to add that the courts look very dimly upon prosecuting authorities using leading questions to prove intent, so even if this did happen it wouldn't be accepted as evidence of intent.


You and your sister ultimately need to make this decision yourselves, and I would suggest researching very carefully what history your council has of pursuing prosecutions like this, how aggressively they push their cases, and what their success rate is. Only this will tell you how serious the accusation is and how you should play it. Certainly don't take dangerous, unsubstantiated advice from keyboard lawyers who type in text speak and pass their advice off as gospel.

Clearly their not under arrest and are free to leave. I think that's obvious by the fact it is the council, not the police, who are investigating.

moneyistooshorttomention

Personally, I think she would be wise to go and I would do so in her position.

She should always pause for a moment and take surreptitious deep breath (to help keep herself calm and focused on answering questions carefully) before answering any question/comment from them and basically just keep repeating time after time after time "Show me this evidence you say you have" and "I didn't do it" alternately.

It isn't going to be easy to stay calm I do know, as I've been twice been in a position where I was accused of something I didn't do and I did get upset one of those times, but I just kept repeating words to that effect and reminding myself that the first I knew about these things was when I was (wrongly) accused of them.