Accused for fly tipping

blahhazzalee

I received a letter yesterday from my city council inviting me to an interview under caution for fly tipping. Apparently a neighbour saw me carry a BUSH and leave it on the local recreation ground. That is all the information they gave. However I cut the bush down and took it to the local recycling centre (on my google maps timeline it shows i was there). What do i do?

princeofpounds

You do well to ask the question. These interviews under caution from councils have a mixed reputation. They aren't done for your benefit, but for the benefit of the investigators - they hope you will provide some incriminating evidence or new leads. For example, if you talk to them you will place yourself cutting down a bush at the least, and they can find holes to pick in any evidence you provide. 

Typically in cases of fly-tipping they generally want you to admit to the offence and take a fixed penalty to avoid the risk of being prosecuted. The most controversial part has been where innocent people accept formal cautions (i.e. accept guilt) thinking they are choosing the safe option, not realising this leaves them with a type of criminal record.

Normally they do interviews like this when they don't really have good evidence to build a case, but they have some kind of evidence - I guess the witness statement is probably it, but they may have more.

My understanding is that you are generally advised never to attend without legal advice. You do not have to attend, but if you don't they will probably assume internally that you are guilty and it makes them more likely to want to prosecute IF they have the evidence to build a case. IF what you say is true, they probably don't.

Do you have any idea of why the accusation may have been thrown at you? After all you were cutting down a bush...

NewShadow

Oddly, this is a case where I'd recommend writing to the council declining to attend... 

You should never simply ignore the letter, but writing to decline should* result in the council inviting you to submit a written representation - which should* include detail of any evidence held, therefore helping you understand why they think it was you - at which point you can decide if it's best to provide evidence in rebuttal or simply to state you did not carry out the action as accused. 


*assuming they're following HSE guidance - and if they don't then that would only help your case in the unlikely event this reaches court. 

theartfullodger

HSE is surely not involved in this sort of matter?  If they are, how/why, please?

NewShadow

theartfullodger said:

HSE is surely not involved in this sort of matter?  If they are, how/why, please?

Sorry, reading back my wording was a little clumsy.

Any body carrying out interviews under caution is required to comply with the PACE ACT - that doesn't mean HSE is 'involved' but reading the HSE guidelines can give the OP an idea of what to expect - given I'm aware more than one training provider delivering to local government bodies in England and Wales use large sections of the HSE guidelines cut and pasted* into their training materials on the topic...


*and appropriately referenced, of course. 

akwexavante

Does the recycling centre have CCTV, mine does.   Do you have history with the neighbour involved, is this retribution for something in the past?  If you can honestly say that it wasn't you then say that and nothing else at all.  They have to prove it was you beyond all reasonable doubt.   What do you know about the witness, can you discredit them in any way?

"on my google maps timeline it shows i was there"   It may have been you or it might have been somebody else, you might not of had the bush with you at the time of the visit.  Be firm with this evidence, you did have the bush with you on this visit to the tip, check the tips CCTV footage on that day the time you were there.    The majority of those that are guilty usually trip themselves up.  Don't respond to silence after answering a question by elaborating further.  Silence from the interviewers is deliberate and encourages defendants to speak out unnecessarily therefore incriminating themselves.