Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

bazzyb

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

By the way, the forms from the TVL state that this is a CRIMINAL offence. What a cheek! It's not a criminal offence, is it?

Yes but you wouldn't be imprisoned for it.

Cornucopia

It's not imprisonable and it's not recordable, either. (Meaning it does not feature on the Police database).

Silk

bazzyb wrote: »

Yes but you wouldn't be imprisoned for it.

Over 50 were in 2012/3

gjchester

brewerdave wrote: »

....but it just ain't going to happen especially if licence dodging becomes a civil rather than criminal offence

I didn't say it would happen, I said that if its traced to an address, then the onus would be on the house owner tosay who was accessing live TV, NOT TVL. As you mentioned, if its internet related the ISP would simply point the authorities to the account holder, who either says who did it, or will be the one ho gets the balme.

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

I think you'll see where I'm coming from. It's probably best that I sit quietly and accept whatever the outcome is.

Sorry I was not wanting to pry, only that if there are no grounds for diminished responsibilities (and I know that sound like I'm putting your wife down, I don't mean it like that) then the signed document stands.

Cornucopia

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

Thank you Cornucopia.

I am my wife's full time carer, so I don't know how that would stand up in a court with me living in the same house.

I can't see it being an issue - lots of people live with someone for whom they are also the carer.

In this case, it is your wife's rights that are in question. Even if you felt you were personally negligent in exposing her to the interview process, I think that would be an interesting discussion in Court.

The only possible issue would be if you somehow colluded with TVL so that they interviewed her and not you. Were you even there at the time? I assume not.

The issue is that for the interview to even begin to be fair, your wife must have been cautioned and must have understood what the caution was, and that she was being interviewed in connection with a Criminal offence. Unfortunately, TVL do not tell interviewees that they have a Right to legal advice, even though this is absolutely the case. However, if your wife's understanding of the situation might have been unclear because of her condition, OR if her condition means that she would not possibly have been able to undertake (or benefit from) her own legal research, then I think you have to question the fairness of her treatment.

There is the further question of the behaviour and comments of the TVL staff member. Some TVL staff have been known to corrupt the interview process beyond the issues arising from BBC policy into something more akin to a trap for the unwary. They do this because they are paid on-commission. So it's possible that your wife was misled, and if it's possible that it was easier to mislead her because of her condition, again, that would be relevant.

I appreciate you/your wife may be unable to provide definitive answers as to your "side" of the interview process in Court. However, that is for the Court to worry about, and given that you only have to shed reasonable doubt on the prosecution case for it to be dismissed, it seems like a possible option.

We have lots of correspondence and test results from the hospital which document her condition. Perhaps that will suffice?

Maybe. I am by no means an expert on this. I still recommend you get legal advice. You could also call the Court and ask about facilities for wheelchairs, and maybe see if they have any guidance on the submission of medical evidence?

Personally, I would have thought one letter written in layperson's terms from your GP would be more useful than any amount of medical notes. But IANAL.

Cornucopia

Silk wrote: »

Over 50 were in 2012/3

No they weren't.

They were imprisoned for not paying a fine arising from a prosecution for Licence Fee evasion. We've discussed this already.

Silk

Cornucopia wrote: »

No they weren't.

They were imprisoned for not paying a fine arising from a prosecution for Licence Fee evasion. We've discussed this already.

Depends how you look at it, yes they were sent down for defaulting on the fine but it was a direct result of not having a licence.
The figure is a lot lower than over in Ireland where it was 272 in 2012 and 411 in 2013.

bazzyb

Silk wrote: »

Over 50 were in 2012/3

Incorrect.

If you think otherwise, please provide the source of this information.

Cornucopia

It doesn't pass the cause and effect test.

You're suggesting prison for an offence that hasn't happened yet. It's unnecessary scare-mongering.

Silk

bazzyb wrote: »

Incorrect.

If you think otherwise, please provide the source of this information.

What's incorrect the figure or the fact they have been put in prison for failing to pay ?