DWP interview under caution

dippy3103

Nick_C wrote: »

Not rare. Latest figures I could find indicate 83% of trials resulted in a guilty verdict. That's a lot of people being found not guilty.

That’s trials. What percentage of cases plead guilty from the outset?

Danday

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Maybe not rare but the odds are firmly against anybody who is taken to trial. I would suspect that a proportion of the 17% of the not guilty verdicts were down to poor presentation of the prosecution case.

Or good presentation for the defence?

Have you not actually considered the fact that they might actually be innocent? Or do you suggest that everybody that is taken to court is guilty but 17% got away with it?

Nick_C

dippy3103 wrote: »

That!!!8217;s trials. What percentage of cases plead guilty from the outset?

I don't know. But would be interested in the figures if you want to research it.

I think the 83% includes guilty pleas. There is now a strong incentive to plead guilty as it results in an automatic one third off the sentence.

But for a complete picture, we would also need to know how many cases are NFA'd following an interview under caution.

tomtom256

Nick_C wrote: »

I don't know. But would be interested in the figures if you want to research it.

I think the 83% includes guilty pleas. There is now a strong incentive to plead guilty as it results in an automatic one third off the sentence.

But for a complete picture, we would also need to know how many cases are NFA'd following an interview under caution.

Not all cases go to court, some result in an administrative penalty and of course some to get closed after interview as they have provided a reasonable explanation.

TELLIT01

Danday wrote: »

Or good presentation for the defence?

Have you not actually considered the fact that they might actually be innocent? Or do you suggest that everybody that is taken to court is guilty but 17% got away with it?

I have not said, or implied, that I think everybody taken to court is guilty. That's why I said 'a proportion'.....

dippy3103

Nick_C wrote: »

I don't know. But would be interested in the figures if you want to research it.

I think the 83% includes guilty pleas. There is now a strong incentive to plead guilty as it results in an automatic one third off the sentence.

But for a complete picture, we would also need to know how many cases are NFA'd following an interview under caution.

And how many are Offered Ad Pens. Plus cases are NFA’d for all sorts of reasons - including social factors.

Danday

dippy3103 wrote: »

And how many are Offered Ad Pens. Plus cases are NFA’d for all sorts of reasons - including social factors.

That I can agree with as have seen it in action. In simplistic terms a professional (lawyer, accountant etc) is more likely than not to be taken to court for benefit fraud whereas for the exact same circumstances of the fraud a non skilled, ill educated person would not face the same. I have seen a case where a young guy from an poor and abusive family be given a non custodial sentence for armed robbery (holding up a garage for money) whereas a chartered accountant was charged with the theft of bricks and stones from the builders who were building the estate to complete a garden project receive a 6 month sentence to serve one month with the balance of five to be suspended for 12 months.

Comms69

Danday wrote: »

That I can agree with as have seen it in action. In simplistic terms a professional (lawyer, accountant etc) is more likely than not to be taken to court for benefit fraud whereas for the exact same circumstances of the fraud a non skilled, ill educated person would not face the same. I have seen a case where a young guy from an poor and abusive family be given a non custodial sentence for armed robbery (holding up a garage for money) whereas a chartered accountant was charged with the theft of bricks and stones from the builders who were building the estate to complete a garden project receive a 6 month sentence to serve one month with the balance of five to be suspended for 12 months.

I'm sure you have, but in both cases those are totally outside the sentencing guidelines and should've been appealed instantly.


Once by CPS, once by Defence

Danday

Comms69 wrote: »

I'm sure you have, but in both cases those are totally outside the sentencing guidelines and should've been appealed instantly.


Once by CPS, once by Defence

Both pleased guilty at Crown Court on advice from their legal aided barrister. As such no appeal could be made. However I agree they could have appealed against the sentence. In the armed robber case it was in his interests to let sleeping dogs lie. As for the accountant no one told him that he could.

Comms69

Danday wrote: »

Both pleased guilty at Crown Court on advice from their legal aided barrister. As such no appeal could be made. However I agree they could have appealed against the sentence. In the armed robber case it was in his interests to let sleeping dogs lie. As for the accountant no one told him that he could.

Crown court? What on earth was it doing there?! (the brick theft atleast)