TV Licence article Discussion

pphillips

Cornucopia said:

Presently (AFAIK/IANAL) the TVL interview process in England & Wales is not fully compliant with the latest version of the PACE codes.   When pressed, the BBC cite a legal precedent that is now quite old, and probably outdated (McNamara) which says that non-Police agencies do not have to include the Right to Legal Advice in their caution.   They could still include it, but they choose not to.  

I recently wrote to TVL and asked them about the practical detail of accessing a Solicitor during their interview on the doorstep.  Their initial response was that it was not possible to arrange (which is obviously not an accurate statement of law).   When I escalated, they walked back from that and said that the interview would be delayed until something could be arranged, but were still unclear about how that would work.

The bottom line is that there are both legal and practical questions about all of this, and it's very unclear that the law was ever intended to work in the way that BBC/TVL have implemented it.    

McNamara is an old case and a curious one for TVL to cite. What happened in this case is that Mr McNamara was visited by TVL and they asked if he had a television set, he confirmed he did and he also confirmed he did not have a licence. Then after being cautioned by the officer from TVL, McNamara refused to answer any more questions and did not co-operate with the investigation any further. TVL then obtained a witness statement from Sky confirming that television services had been accessed at Mr McNamara's address (today's data protection law would have severely hindered the production of any such statement) and Mr McNamara was duly convicted. 

Mr McNamara appealed to the High Court on the basis that he had incriminated himself prior to being cautioned, he also argued that the caution was invalid. TVL disputed this, their core argument was that Mr McNamara had not said anything to incriminate himself and the prosecution had been based on Sky's witness statement. The High Court agreed with TVL and Mr McNamara's appeal was rejected. Although the High Court gave its opinion as to the contents of the caution in their judgment, this isn't considered legal precedent if what they said was not essential to the outcome of the case.

In my opinion, none of the facts in the McNamara case support the creation of a new legal precedent that non-police agencies do not have to include the right to legal advice in their caution. TVL's own evidence is that nothing Mr McNamara said before or after the caution was incriminating and the High Court agreed, so it doesn't matter what the caution included, it could not have changed the outcome of the appeal.

Cornucopia

pphillips said:

Cornucopia said:

Presently (AFAIK/IANAL) the TVL interview process in England & Wales is not fully compliant with the latest version of the PACE codes.   When pressed, the BBC cite a legal precedent that is now quite old, and probably outdated (McNamara) which says that non-Police agencies do not have to include the Right to Legal Advice in their caution.   They could still include it, but they choose not to.  

I recently wrote to TVL and asked them about the practical detail of accessing a Solicitor during their interview on the doorstep.  Their initial response was that it was not possible to arrange (which is obviously not an accurate statement of law).   When I escalated, they walked back from that and said that the interview would be delayed until something could be arranged, but were still unclear about how that would work.

The bottom line is that there are both legal and practical questions about all of this, and it's very unclear that the law was ever intended to work in the way that BBC/TVL have implemented it.    

McNamara is an old case and a curious one for TVL to cite. What happened in this case is that Mr McNamara was visited by TVL and they asked if he had a television set, he confirmed he did and he also confirmed he did not have a licence. Then after being cautioned by the officer from TVL, McNamara refused to answer any more questions and did not co-operate with the investigation any further. TVL then obtained a witness statement from Sky confirming that television services had been accessed at Mr McNamara's address (today's data protection law would have severely hindered the production of any such statement) and Mr McNamara was duly convicted. 

Mr McNamara appealed to the High Court on the basis that he had incriminated himself prior to being cautioned, he also argued that the caution was invalid. TVL disputed this, their core argument was that Mr McNamara had not said anything to incriminate himself and the prosecution had been based on Sky's witness statement. The High Court agreed with TVL and Mr McNamara's appeal was rejected. Although the High Court gave its opinion as to the contents of the caution in their judgment, this isn't considered legal precedent if what they said was not essential to the outcome of the case.

In my opinion, none of the facts in the McNamara case support the creation of a new legal precedent that non-police agencies do not have to include the right to legal advice in their caution. TVL's own evidence is that nothing Mr McNamara said before or after the caution was incriminating and the High Court agreed, so it doesn't matter what the caution included, it could not have changed the outcome of the appeal.

Thanks, that's all very interesting.  

I imagine that TV Licensing are drawing support for their Caution approach from that overall High Court opinion.   It's been said by them to me and other respondents often enough for me to be clear that it is their policy.   The actual Caution wording they use is printed on their interview form, and it doesn't reference any "secondary" information like Right to Counsel or the right to require TVL to leave the premises.

It's messy though (as expected) in that some of their higher-level statements say they respect all the requirements of PACE, but this does not appear to be the case from their more detailed documentation.   The document below has been released by them under FOI, and it purports to be their definitive visiting procedure.   But, it doesn't even include the words "solicitor", "counsel" or "lawyer" in the interview context.   There are a few redactions, though.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5537d8c5e4b095f8b43098ff/t/5ed508a4567ae13913170975/1591019690326/Visiting+Officer+Procedures.pdf

FreeBear

Cornucopia said: The actual Caution wording they use is printed on their interview form, and it doesn't reference any "secondary" information like Right to Counsel or the right to require TVL to leave the premises.

And I bet the victim is not shown this form until they are asked to sign it, and at no point are they made aware of the relevant paragraph(s).

Cornucopia

FreeBear said:

Cornucopia said: The actual Caution wording they use is printed on their interview form, and it doesn't reference any "secondary" information like Right to Counsel or the right to require TVL to leave the premises.

And I bet the victim is not shown this form until they are asked to sign it, and at no point are they made aware of the relevant paragraph(s).

I think there's an option to have them read it for themselves, but as I say, it doesn't include any reference to Right to Counsel, so that won't help them.  

The basic problem is that it's not in TVL's interest to have people well-informed about their rights, and even less to actually exercise them.   That interview on the doorstep or on the sofa is fundamentally not set up to ensure TVL's legal compliance.

Mutton_Geoff

Cornucopia said:

The basic problem is that it's not in TVL's interest to have people well-informed about their rights, and even less to actually exercise them.   That interview on the doorstep or on the sofa is fundamentally not set up to ensure TVL's legal compliance.

And I read that almost all prosecutions & convictions are secured via the self incriminating Capita paperwork signed by the person that forgets their rights to just close the door on these sales people when they come knocking.

There are no detector vans or any other method other than a goon knocking on your door and steering you into a conversation that cannot end well for you.

FreeBear

Mutton_Geoff said: There are no detector vans or any other method other than a goon knocking on your door and steering you into a conversation that cannot end well for you.

Oh, I disagree.... Just one short conversation...

"You are to leave the premises. If you do not go peacefully, reasonable and proportional force will be used.. You will resist, won't you..."

Cornucopia

Mutton_Geoff said:

Cornucopia said:

The basic problem is that it's not in TVL's interest to have people well-informed about their rights, and even less to actually exercise them.   That interview on the doorstep or on the sofa is fundamentally not set up to ensure TVL's legal compliance.

And I read that almost all prosecutions & convictions are secured via the self incriminating Capita paperwork signed by the person that forgets their rights to just close the door on these sales people when they come knocking.

There are no detector vans or any other method other than a goon knocking on your door and steering you into a conversation that cannot end well for you.

Yes - the vast majority of TVL cases revolve around the so-called TVL178 form documenting a confession to the offence.   You're quite right that an assertive person, confident about their situation can deal with this effectively and decisively, but what about other people?  

As you can probably tell, I've been following this topic for a fair while, and whilst there are quite a few videos that feature those confident people sending TVL staff away, there's a distinct lack of evidence about how the process works when TVL get to run the interview without much resistance.   Personally, I think it's quite likely that they will be trained to use every conceivable trick to try to make the suspect think that they have no choice but to allow the interview to go ahead.   I imagine some people will find the situation difficult to deal with before even considering TVL tactics.   The undercover video with a TVL manager is supportive of these conclusions (ISTR he even talked about targeting vulnerable people).  

In case anyone is wondering, the rights are extensive, and all in favour of the suspect, none in favour of TVL.

- The interview is fundamentally voluntary.  You can decline to take part at all.  You can also go "No Comment" to any/all questions.   You can require the TVL person to leave your premises, irrespective of how far they are within their process.  (In fact, PACE talks in terms of them requiring your informed consent to remain).

- You have a Right to Counsel - you can consult a Solicitor before or during the TVL interview and TVL MUST accommodate that, although they are not required to pay for it.   

- You have a Right to Silence - you do not have to say anything at all.

- You do not have to provide any personal information, including your name, date of birth or NI number.

Mutton_Geoff

If they knock on my door, they wouldn't get very far at all.

"Hello, can I help you?"
"I'm from TVL"
"Thank you, not interested"
> sound of door closing <

My concern is that more vulnerable people or those who are passive to unsolicited door to door salesman might feel they are obliged to answer the questions ("under caution"). I bet there are a fair few people that have been bullied into buying TV licences they don't need or were not aware that with a slight modification to their viewing habits, they do not need.

 

HillStreetBlues

• If I have a smart TV and only watch catch-up, do I need a licence?

  Yes if you're watching BBC iPlayer, but technically no if you only use other catch-up services. But proving it will be difficult, especially if your TV is connected to an aerial or satellite dish and is capable of receiving a signal, so it's possible you could find yourself in a tricky situation.

Since when did the law change where you have to prove you're not watching live TV or the iplayer?

Cornucopia

HillStreetBlues said:

• If I have a smart TV and only watch catch-up, do I need a licence?

  Yes if you're watching BBC iPlayer, but technically no if you only use other catch-up services. But proving it will be difficult, especially if your TV is connected to an aerial or satellite dish and is capable of receiving a signal, so it's possible you could find yourself in a tricky situation.

Since when did the law change where you have to prove you're not watching live TV or the iplayer?

You don't, and in reality, there won't be a "tricky situation" because TV Licensing aren't interested in that kind of confrontational examination of equipment, and their access to do so on a routine "visit" would be questionable.

The problem for MSE and other mainstream journalism is that the whole TV Licensing regime is incredibly complicated, somewhat counter-intuitive, and the BBC have done a good job in preventing certain definitive details from entering the public domain.   I'm also sure no journalist wants to be seen to be lukewarm on law and order, or to be disloyal to the BBC.   Nevertheless, the Public is not well-served when journalists hedge their bets like this.