Accused of Flytipping - Advice Needed

Angelicdevil

Guest101 wrote: »

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

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.

Normally your advice is spot on, but it's clear you are neither a criminal lawyer or a serving police officer.

Your advice and understanding of the caution is not correct.

OP, silences and non attendance can be an inference of guilt. It is highly recommended that you attend.

Have a read of Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

stator

Angelicdevil wrote: »

OP, silences and non attendance can be an inference of guilt. It is highly recommended that you attend.

I seriously doubt any magistrate or jury would infer guilt from non-attendance of a meeting with the council. If I were a jurist I certainly wouldn't.

Guest101

Angelicdevil wrote: »

Normally your advice is spot on, but it's clear you are neither a criminal lawyer or a serving police officer.

Your advice and understanding of the caution is not correct.

OP, silences and non attendance can be an inference of guilt. It is highly recommended that you attend.

Have a read of Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Firstly - Thank you

Secondly - I admit, I'm not. My advice is based on a mistake i made, and subsequently spoke with a solicitor and two active police officers.

But I am open to being corrected - given that the nature of person to person interaction - some people will experience humanistic approaches, others more like what i've suggested.

The advice I received was to only speak when absolutely necessary, and to always try to settle anything of this nature in writing. Sometimes the interviewer is trying to find the truth. Sometimes though they are after a result.

CarlBlake

'I' would also suggest getting legal advice - and having a legal representative with you at the interview if possible. I hope you can get legal aid for this. Their advice can be different to what you and I (and other forumites) may think.

It depends whether they have 'evidence' or a 'suspicion' of a criminal act having been committed.

In 'my' case, I was invited to an interview under caution by police (I assume its equivalent to interview by council, but am not qualified to confirm that). They stated that based on their 'intelligence' that they suspected me of having committed some crime. At the time I never really thought whether that meant they had any 'evidence' - if anyone had asked me, I would have said that the police had claimed they had evidence that I had committed a crime (but in hindsight, I came to realise that they had never actually stated that they had had 'evidence'!) I just knew that I had not committed the crime they were stating.

I later discovered that it is critical to understand whether they have 'evidence' or just a 'suspicion'. With only a suspicion, they have nothing to charge you with. With 'evidence', then you would have to be able to mitigate it; explain it away.

Since I didn't appreciate the difference between evidence and suspicion, I planned to go to the interview alone. I had done nothing, and had nothing to hide. I was prepared to answer all their questions openly and honestly, with the expectation that it would prove my innocence.

But a friend (who's brother was a policeman) advised that one should NEVER attend an interview before seeking legal advice. And I am glad I did so, since I then discovered that my planned approach was completely incorrect!

The lawyer explained that they currently had no evidence to charge me with anything. Hence the initial interview was effectively a 'phishing exercise'. To find out as much information as they could - to help them identify any potential avenues of investigation, from which they 'might' find evidence.

Not only was I advised to say 'No Comment' to all questions, but this meant to EVERY SINGLE QUESTION (other than when asked my name and address). Others have mentioned to say 'No Comment', but you may not realise that this means to ALL questions, not just to ones that 'you' feel are irrelevant, obvious, or easy to answer. I was to say 'No Comment' when asked whether I was married, whether anyone lived with me, whether I was friendly with a neighbour, who I worked for, whether I had a car etc. etc. I had to say 'No Comment' to everything!

Of course these were easy questions with obvious answers - questions which the police either already had the answers for, or could easily find them for themselves. But they were going through the motions, trying to get me to provide me with every bit of information that they could get from me.

Now this is rather difficult to do, as you can imagine! And my lawyer confirmed that even hardened criminals found this difficult to do. I felt really uncomfortable - I felt that it looked like I was hiding something. That I wasn't willing to help the police etc... However my legal rep explained that it was fine. It was a common practice that the police knew well, and wouldn't think badly of me for doing it. It was a sort of game. They knew that I was going to say 'No comment' to every question. But they STILL asked me all their questions. They must have had 100+ questions. My interview easily lasted more than hour. With me answering 'No Comment' to every single question they asked. Why didn't they stop asking me? They knew I was going to say 'No Comment'. But they carried on. It WAS like a game. They went through their motions. I went through mine.

My lawyer had also explained to me why the 'No Comment' reply HAD to be to EVERY question! If you answer 'some' questions (probably the easy, obvious ones, like your wife's name, or how many children you have etc..) then it could still be used against you in the future. For example, they could say "Why did you answer the easy questions, yet say 'No Comment' to the others. Did you have something to hide? Could you not think of an acceptable answer? Did you not have an excuse prepared for that question?" etc.etc..

So, despite it being difficult, there IS logic behind saying 'No Comment' to every question! If you DO answer any questions then you might also inadvertently open up a line of enquiry for them that they may not have considered before.

After the interview, they said that they would invite me to a subsequent interview in a few week's time. Of course there was never another interview. They DID contact me, but only to say that they were ending their enquiries.

So they had never found any evidence. Whatever 'suspicions' they had, turned out to be unfounded. 'I' am guessing (though they never told me even though I asked) that someone had just reported to the police that I had committed the crime. But that is clearly not enough to charge me with anything. The interview was just an attempt to find out things about me that they could investigate to find evidence to support their suspicion. Without ANY answers from me, they had no leads on how to pursue any investigation.

Of course, the result would (I hope!) have been the same if I had simply answered all their questions. Since I knew I was innocent. However, the case would likely have taken longer as they followed through all their leads, and 'perhaps' they might have found something that had potential of pointing at me, that I would have to refute etc. Simpler just not to give them any leads in the first place.

My lawyer did explain that the approach IS different if they DO have evidence. In that case, then you DO have to answer their questions. You have to be able to explain away any evidence they have. And if you 'are' innocent, then presumably this shouldn't be too difficult.

So.....to summarise...get some legal advice. Preferably take a legal representative with you to the interview, as they will be able to determine whether the council (or police) have 'evidence' or just a suspicion. They are unlikely to tell you ahead of the interview, so you would only find out on the day. Hence the advice the lawyer would give you is likely to be different on the day, depending on what was presented to you. And for all I know, there may even be different 'levels' of evidence, with different advice being given for each 'type' of evidence presented.

In closing, I just want to make clear that I am no expert. I have no legal training, and in particular have no experience of dealing with councils. (Indeed, have only ever had 'one' dealing with the police, as described above.) I just thought my experience might give you some thought as what to do. And to highlight that the approach may not be as 'obvious' as the general public might think. Indeed, if I had not had my own experience, then 'I' might have just suggested (as some other have also done), to go alone and answer their questions openly and honestly. You know that you are innocent, so have nothing to hide.

But this may, in fact, not be the correct approach.......

Lord_Baltimore

I would attend the interview. As an innocent, I would have nothing to hide and I'd want to help the Council in any way that I could to catch the real perpetrators. The interview would eliminate me from enquiries and let the Council direct their resources elsewhere.

I hate fly tipping and we all ought to get behind whatever authority that tries to minimise it. If I was guilty I would still attend: to apologise for being a thoughtless oaf who will get the mess cleaned up at my own expense.

jamesd

Angelicdevil wrote: »

It is highly recommended that you attend.

By police officers and others seeking to establish guilt. Not solicitors who know the risks and have experience with the screwups that even innocent clients have made.

stator

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

I would attend the interview. As an innocent, I would have nothing to hide and I'd want to help the Council in any way that I could to catch the real perpetrators. The interview would eliminate me from enquiries and let the Council direct their resources elsewhere.

Why on earth do you think that?
Do you think they will believe what you say?

Even if you haven't committed the crime they accuse you of they might find some other obscure law that you don't even know exists and by talking to them you have given them evidence they can use against you.

lonestar1

If it were me I would take along a friend just as a witness and if sure Im innocent would just state ' I have not committed this offence, I can only assume someone has maliciously fabricated evidence that I have and my sole purpose for attending is to find out what this fabricated evidence is' repeat the statement for every question other than confirming name/address until they reveal what they have.

Its more than likely IMO that the previous owner has dumped the rubbish and they have found something with their/your address on it, if so take some evidence of your completion date

Lord_Baltimore

stator wrote: »

Why on earth do you think that?
Do you think they will believe what you say?

Even if you haven't committed the crime they accuse you of they might find some other obscure law that you don't even know exists and by talking to them you have given them evidence they can use against you.

Because I don't take the view that the Council is some kind of evil behemoth intent on nailing me for something I didn't do. I would want to help them; they represent me. They are people like me who want a clean environment and they are prepared to ask questions to find out who is spoiling where we live.

I really think we ought to get away from the notion that the Council is a faceless entity who will ride roughshod over the people they serve. I mean, they are probably called Mabel or Brian not Spectre .

Guest101

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Because I don't take the view that the Council is some kind of evil behemoth intent on nailing me for something I didn't do. I would want to help them; they represent me. They are people like me who want a clean environment and they are prepared to ask questions to find out who is spoiling where we live.

I really think we ought to get away from the notion that the Council is a faceless entity who will ride roughshod over the people they serve. I mean, they are probably called Mabel or Brian not Spectre .

each to their own, good luck.

I'll stick with them being a faceless and immoral organisation hellbent on balancing the books etc