We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Accused of fly tipping. Interview under caution
Options
Comments
-
The OP says the letter is from the council, so they are being invited to attend voluntarily. The legislation that the allegations against the OP are being made under should be in the letter. You have to be told what offences you are being invited in for interview for. You then really do need to seek advice from people who have knowledge of that legislation. There will be law firms who specialise in that area and some offer 30 mins advice for free. I would also strongly suggest trying to get to a CAB. No one knows what the facts/evidence held is so IMO it is irresponsible to make that claim. It does not help the OP to tell them to bin the letter and imply no more will be heard of the matter.
People need to understand that it is not just the police who investigate crime and it also includes bodies that are not recognised under PACE as being a "Constable", ie someone with the power of arrest. It is up to the OP whether they wish to attend or not. The interview will follow PACE guidelines so they will be cautioned before the taped interview starts after the standard preamble. This is not to be confused with a Police Caution, it is simply the statement that starts "You do not have to say anything ............"
Duty solicitors/free legal advice DOES NOT apply when it is a voluntary interview at council premises. The suspect is not under arrest. It is very important for people to understand that. They can have a legal representative with them if they chose but it IS NOT paid for by the council, it is paid for by the person being interviewed. Whether that is fair or not is a separate discussion, but as the law stands that is how it is.
The OP can ask for pre interview disclosure though and from that they can see what the council wishes to speak to the OP about during the interview. If the council is going to refer to documents / other evidence during the interview then that should be disclosed. That does not mean they have to disclose the whole of the case, just what they are using for the interview.
The OP can then decide whether to attend, and if they do they can leave at any time during that interview as they are not under arrest. They can no comment or give an account. They can bring a prepared statement and answer no further questions if they wish but as I said at the start, try and get some legal advice from people who deal with this type of investigation0 -
We’ve debated this before; but even ignoring the obvious discussion about free legal advice.The OP says the letter is from the council, so they are being invited to attend voluntarily. The legislation that the allegations against the OP are being made under should be in the letter. You have to be told what offences you are being invited in for interview for. You then really do need to seek advice from people who have knowledge of that legislation. There will be law firms who specialise in that area and some offer 30 mins advice for free. I would also strongly suggest trying to get to a CAB. No one knows what the facts/evidence held is so IMO it is irresponsible to make that claim. It does not help the OP to tell them to bin the letter and imply no more will be heard of the matter.
People need to understand that it is not just the police who investigate crime and it also includes bodies that are not recognised under PACE as being a "Constable", ie someone with the power of arrest. It is up to the OP whether they wish to attend or not. - indeed. But that The interview will follow PACE guidelines so they will be cautioned before the taped interview starts after the standard preamble. This is not to be confused with a Police Caution, it is simply the statement that starts "You do not have to say anything ............"
Duty solicitors/free legal advice DOES NOT apply when it is a voluntary interview at council premises. The suspect is not under arrest. It is very important for people to understand that. They can have a legal representative with them if they chose but it IS NOT paid for by the council, it is paid for by the person being interviewed. Whether that is fair or not is a separate discussion, but as the law stands that is how it is.
The OP can ask for pre interview disclosure though and from that they can see what the council wishes to speak to the OP about during the interview. If the council is going to refer to documents / other evidence during the interview then that should be disclosed. That does not mean they have to disclose the whole of the case, just what they are using for the interview.
The OP can then decide whether to attend, and if they do they can leave at any time during that interview as they are not under arrest. They can no comment or give an account. They can bring a prepared statement and answer no further questions if they wish but as I said at the start, try and get some legal advice from people who deal with this type of investigation
Free legal advice is paid for by legal aid.
It being voluntary is not the test.
Never go no comment on s voluntary interview- the court can draw adverse inference.
Edit: https://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/8jwjd-hi-asked-attend-interview-caution.html suggest the advice would be means tested0 -
We’ve debated this before; but even ignoring the obvious discussion about free legal advice.
Free legal advice is paid for by legal aid.
It being voluntary is not the test.
Never go no comment on s voluntary interview- the court can draw adverse inference.
Edit: https://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/8jwjd-hi-asked-attend-interview-caution.html suggest the advice would be means tested
Don't even go to a voluntary interview. The court cannot draw adverse inference from not answering questions that were never asked.
If they had all the evidence needed, you would have been prosecuted already. The interview is solely for the council to let you supply the evidence they don't yet have.0 -
As others have said you will have been asked to voluntarily attend an interview under caution which will be conducted in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, (PACE).
The council would have asked you to come in for an interview as they have reason to suspect you have committed an offence, in this case fly tipping.
They may as other's have said found evidence in the flytipped waste which links you to it, e.g. bills with your name on it. They will have asked you to interview to gather information about the waste.
Don't ignore the letter as others have suggested (I used to carry out interviews under PACE). You do not have to attend but it is best to contact you LA and say you are not attending due to your ill child and the lack of childcare available to you.
They can then send you a letter asking you question relating to why the waste has ended up where it is. It could be in your interest to explain the situation, pointing out that you did not put the waste in the alley.
Ignoring the letter won't make it go away sadly.
Good luck with it and I hope you little one feels better soon.0 -
In your situation I think you do need to explain. But you definitely need a legal representative.
If they decide to prosecute you on the evidence they already have there's a good chance you will be found guilty.
If the waste is dumped in the alley and it has your name and address inside the waste, that is probably enough to get you the conviction.Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.0 -
In your situation I think you do need to explain. But you definitely need a legal representative.
If they decide to prosecute you on the evidence they already have there's a good chance you will be found guilty.
If the waste is dumped in the alley and it has your name and address inside the waste, that is probably enough to get you the conviction.
The issue is, and this is key.
The OP can issue a statement at any point. Written and sent in. But agreeing to an interview can raise surprising questions which could lead to more harm then good.
Refusing the interview has no downsides. Whether they choose to prosecute or not, refusal wont have any adverse effect.
Whereas attending and answering honestly on this complicated law can be as good as admitting guilt.0 -
In your situation I think you do need to explain. But you definitely need a legal representative.
If they decide to prosecute you on the evidence they already have there's a good chance you will be found guilty.
If the waste is dumped in the alley and it has your name and address inside the waste, that is probably enough to get you the conviction.
If the council believed you would be found guilty with the 'evidence' they already have, they would have started proceedings already, wouldn't they?0 -
Not if they think there might be an explanation.General_Applause wrote: »If the council believed you would be found guilty with the 'evidence' they already have, they would have started proceedings already, wouldn't they?Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.0 -
The important thing though is the OP needs to get professional advice on this complicated area of the law, rather than relying on the views of people on an internet forum.The OP can issue a statement at any point. Written and sent in. But agreeing to an interview can raise surprising questions which could lead to more harm then good.
Refusing the interview has no downsides. Whether they choose to prosecute or not, refusal wont have any adverse effect.
Whereas attending and answering honestly on this complicated law can be as good as admitting guilt.
There is also a difference between your position and those whose advice amounts to 'ignore it and it will go away'. A professional adviser might feel that the OP's specific circumstances are such that attending the interview would be beneficial.
I agree. The OP has a specific set of circumstances.Not if they think there might be an explanation.
They were placed in the accommodation by the council. They are dealing with difficult family circumstances. The landlord appears to have unlawfully flytipped the OP's rubbish without their knowledge. Even if responsible, it is probably unlikely to be in the public interest to take action against the OP.
For all any of us know, the Council might be asking the OP to attend an interview in order she can 'grass up' the landlord who might have a history of doing such things.
We don't know - which is why the OP needs professional advice."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Not if they think there might be an explanation.
But then we giving evidence to the council that they will use against you. Don't forget you would be talking direct to the prosecution and you just don't do that. They will spend as much time as they need to pick holes in your 'explanation'.
If the OP is absolutely certain that the rubbish bags did not contain anything with her name and address on, I would advise her to sit tight, ignore the 'invite' and see what the council do.
If they do prosecute, they will have to supply you with the evidence they have beforehand and you are perfectly entitled to state your case to the court and have the judge decide,which is what they are paid handsomely to do. There can be no adverse inference taken from lack of answers to questions that were never asked.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards