DWP interview under caution

Danday

Nick_C wrote: »

Where a case can be dealt with either by Magistrates or at the Crown Court, I thought the defendant had the right to a trial by jury?

I do believe that to be the case. but he pleaded not guilty at the magistrates court who then sent it to the Crown Court where on advice he pleaded guilty without a jury being sworn in.
That wasn't the end of it either. He came out of prison one very angry individual. I found out later that he had his membership of the accountancy body taken off him which meant he could no longer work as an accountant. He then spent the next 5 years or so claiming benefits as when he tried to get a job his criminal record was used against him. I think he had to wait about 10 years before he was allowed to say that he did not have a current convictions.

maxmycardagain

Danday wrote: »

He then spent the next 5 years or so claiming benefits as when he tried to get a job his criminal record was used against him.

I think he had to wait about 10 years before he was allowed to say that he did not have a current convictions.

if asked "do you have any spent or unspent convictions" and he said no he leaves himself open to another offence or dismissal, also it would be on any DBS check.

so he sat on his arris claiming?

I found out later that he had his membership of the accountancy body taken off him which meant he could no longer work as an accountant.

Yes, the FSA are fussy who they certify

Danday

maxmycardagain wrote: »

if asked "do you have any spent or unspent convictions" and he said no he leaves himself open to another offence or dismissal, also it would be on any DBS check.

so he sat on his arris claiming?

Certainly not, that was the problem. Every time he went for a job he said YES I do have a conviction - he never hid it from any prospective employer - hence why he could not work in the business that he was previously qualified in. Not too sure as we parted ways at the time but what I do know is that for at least the next 5 years he claimed and lived on benefits. I know he was honest with the Jobcentre telling them that he had this conviction and that he believed this was the reason for no one wanting to employ him. He eventually found a job after about 10 years when it was acceptable to deny that he had any unspent convictions.
During this first 5 year period I know that he claimed that he was suffering from anxiety and depression because of the position he was in and received additional benefits because of those complaints,
As an aside I dread to think how much it cost the taxpayer to fund his benefits for those 10 years

TELLIT01

Danday wrote: »

As an aside I dread to think how much it cost the taxpayer to fund his benefits for those 10 years

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting that nobody should be prosecuted because it might affect their ability to get a job? Or that theft shouldn't affect the ability of a person to continue working in an area where trust is essential? I would suspect that anybody working in financial services found guilty of theft would have difficulty in finding work in that sector again.

maxmycardagain

Having "a past" does not mean no-one will employ you nor that there is no market for a business start up... but its a great excuse to do SFA

and I should know (ref the first bit)

Danday

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting that nobody should be prosecuted because it might affect their ability to get a job? Or that theft shouldn't affect the ability of a person to continue working in an area where trust is essential? I would suspect that anybody working in financial services found guilty of theft would have difficulty in finding work in that sector again.

The point that I think that I am trying to make is that my friend was sentenced not on the basis of what he did but on the fact that the Judge made reference that he was making an example of him purely because of his status. We talked about this afterwards when he was released and to be honest given what he was convicted of it could be said that if a window cleaner or labourer had carried out this act of theft would he have received a similar sentence - highly unlikely.

Sentencing should be based on the offence, any previous record and his previous good character and not because of who is was.
Hence because of the fact he was held out to be made an example of resulted in years of benefit claims for financial support paid for by the taxpayers. It was the fact that he had received a custodial sentence that made life extremely difficult for him and not the offence itself.
It would have resolved this if he was given a non custodial sentence as what would have been the case if an ordinary bloke would have received.