Falsely accused of fly tipping

Comms69

MysteryMe wrote: »

Are you quite sure it is free legal advice? Perhaps to put it to bed once and for all you can provide the relevant section in the PACE codes.


My wording was clumsy but judges always remind juries of the level of proof required to reach a guilty verdict. I think most people knew what I was getting at.


The defendant, or certainly their legal team would know of it's existence as it would be unused material. As it assists the defence / undermines the prosecution that information would be required to be entered on the relevant disclosure form.

PACE doesn’t distinguish in terms of voluntary interview or not. ( I mean all interviews are voluntary in some essence; even when arrested you can refuse to leave the cell to be interviewed ).

Hope the link above is sufficient?

I agree that information SHOULD be disclosed, but whether it is or not...

Comms69

googler wrote: »

Depends how you define 'same area', but FWIW I just tried that for the area of my Costco (6.3 miles away), and it didn't find me.

But presumably if the council searched their local records you would come up?

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

PACE doesn’t distinguish in terms of voluntary interview or not. ( I mean all interviews are voluntary in some essence; even when arrested you can refuse to leave the cell to be interviewed ).

It appears to derive from PACE Code C, which is specifically police detention (and even then, for non-imprisonable offences the advice can just be a phone call).

Comms69

davidmcn wrote: »

It appears to derive from PACE Code C, which is specifically police detention (and even then, for non-imprisonable offences the advice can just be a phone call).

That’s true. But this is actually quite a serious offence so would qualify.

By all means bring your own solicitor if you want, but I would make sure tax man paid.

Comms69

finq75 wrote: »

Mysteryman, I don't know if you realize who you're dealing with. It's not wise to challenge people like this in a public forum. If you mess with the bull you get the horns! He will smoke you! I've never seen him to be wrong not once. Never seen GM to be wrong either come to that.

That kind of talk sounds like fighting talk to me!!!

Ha ha I’m wrong all the time if you ask my Ex!

But in all honesty it’s fine if people don’t agree or want proof; as long as they then acknowledge it

I prefer to think that everyone knows something I don’t and i’ll learn something every time. Doesn’t always happen but when it does, I improve

Comms69

finq75 wrote: »

I'm sorry Comms69 I deleted my post. I sometimes say things and hit send before really thinking through what I've just said. I was trying to be serious and funny at the sam etime and then I saw that mysteryman has got quite a lot of likes so he must be a nice guy.

It was just the way he said it, if we were back in 18th century England he might have been challenging you to a duel. lol

Pistols at dawn!

I figured it was half in jest; the ‘you’ll get the horns’ comment

MysteryMe

The thing is Comms69, I think we have to take a step back from where you have started.

This is a prosecution by a local authority, presumably Environmental Health. Are their officers defined as Constable's under PACE? Do they have the power of arrest? If they don't, then whilst they will almost certainly follow PACE guidelines they are not bound by them. Trading Standards are not recognised under PACE and they (or their council's legal team more to the point) prosecute criminal cases frequently

This is the gist of my argument. If the prosecuting authority is not recognised under PACE and the interview is attended voluntarily at a council office as would happen in this case, then there is no entitlement to free legal advice. So basically the OP can seek whatever legal advice they wish before or during (but preferably not solely after!) the interview but it will not be on the taxpayers dime.

All my opinion of course :-)

Comms69

MysteryMe wrote: »

The thing is Comms69, I think we have to take a step back from where you have started.

This is a prosecution by a local authority, presumably Environmental Health. Are their officers defined as Constable's under PACE? Do they have the power of arrest? If they don't, then whilst they will almost certainly follow PACE guidelines they are not bound by them. Trading Standards are not recognised under PACE and they (or their council's legal team more to the point) prosecute criminal cases frequently

This is the gist of my argument. If the prosecuting authority is not recognised under PACE and the interview is attended voluntarily at a council office as would happen in this case, then there is no entitlement to free legal advice. So basically the OP can seek whatever legal advice they wish before or during (but preferably not solely after!) the interview but it will not be on the taxpayers dime.

All my opinion of course :-)

In terms of interviewing ( obviously not arrest, detention etc.) they must follow PACE guidelines.

Now that said HSE seems to agree with your interpretation. http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness-questioning.htm


BUT https://www.advicenow.org.uk/guides/how-deal-interview-under-caution

Suggest legal aid might be available if you meet certain criteria.


Then these say that police interviewing elsewhere than a police station ( which was the point HSE raised in my first link) would have to offer free legal advice https://www.olliers.com/news/contemporaneous-interviews-away-from-the-police-station/


Oldham Council are silent on the ‘free’ element https://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200186/benefit_fraud/823/interview_under_caution/1


So I’ll say this; as far as I am aware of are entitled to free advice; but there seem to be times when you wouldn’t be ( I can’t find a definitive link in relation to flytipping ).

I’ll go back to my original point, just don’t go. No inference can be drawn - R v Hind - https://sites.google.com/site/ronbarkercrimlaw/refusal-to-be-interviewed

googler

Comms69 wrote: »

But presumably if the council searched their local records you would come up?

...along with all the others who share my surname and first initial, for that's all that's on the card. I struggle to see how, for a common name, someone can definitively link an abandoned Costco card to a household without getting access to Costco's records. If all they have is the card, I don't see how they can get to the point of identifying a household. A card holder with that name could well be from outwith their council area.

How many 'J Smith' will you find in your locale? It's ages since I've had a phone book in the house, but I seem to recall there were at least half a dozen matching my details a few years back... if the OP has a similarly common name ....

AdrianC

googler wrote: »

I struggle to see how, for a common name, someone can definitively link an abandoned Costco card to a household without getting access to Costco's records.

I love the assumption that Costco will refuse to co-operate with the police...