I have a number of reservations about this leaflet (and have told the authors) because it's not strong enough on options, such as the right not to attend, submitting a statement in lieu of answering questions, obtaining disclosure before they ask questions, stopping the interview for disclosure when new evidence is introduced, challenging hypothetical questions or questions designed to lead people into admitting dishonesty - especially in the more legally and factually complex areas such as alleged living together and ineligibility for DLA ("So, you are not virtually unable to walk?").
Not being able to find a suitable adviser can be grounds for not attending an IUC/not answering questions. The worst thing is to attend and make up a story.
Having read internal DWP guidance and endless IUC transcripts it's clear that they follow a set formula and are primarily designed to aid the investigative process and obtain evidence for a prosecution. They are not there to give people the chance to "have their say".
I know it can be difficult, but it is very important that advisers liaise with criminal law practitioners about IUCs rather than attempting to substitute for an adviser who is familiar with PACE and criminal law and procedure. Equally, one hopes that criminal law practitioners would liaise with welfare rights advisers in order to ensure that clients are properly advised.
I've also heard a couple of allegations, (unsubstantiated, so I don't know what truth there is in these) of some fraud investigators suggesting to clients, off tape, that if they cooperate with an IUC they won't be prosecuted.
|