Apart from the various information produced by local and national government could anyone else detail information, preferably net based, re Interview under Cautuion in connection with alleged benefit fraud?

Thanks in advance,

T.J.Lintern
Welfare Rights Officer

There's some useful stuff on this link (from Rightsnet Toolkit):

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/resources/resource_details.cfm?iPublicationID=11&reason=0

I always direct our clients to the Community Legal Advice leaflet "How to handle an Interview under Caution" available at http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/media/AE2/03/advicenow_iuc.pdf

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.

I also commented on this booklet and made similar comments to the authors.

It's pretty good for what it is, but as Neil says, there is so much missing and so many nuances in the whole area that some folks could inadvertantly, by 'self-helping' themselves, actually cause more harm than good.

For ordinary advisers it's OK as an information resource but I would mirror Neil's words that nothing is a substitue for a good WR adviser and a legal adviser.

The link provided via garden court chambers is very useful I don't think the booklet is of much help or reflects the attitudes which interviewees are placed under while being interviewed under caution.

Just an add-on relating to Neil's reference to "off-the-tape" inducements to clmt.

By way of factual example, there is a recent case where a LA Appeals Officer reported a senior Fraud Investigator had said that s/he would prosecute the clmt if the clmt appealed to a Tribunal.....

That's not heresay. I have a copy of the Appeals Officer's statement.

And I too have had a number of cases where it's become apparent that the offer of an admin penalty has been little better than a form of legalised extortion. Claimants can often agree to the penalty out of fear of prosecution when it's clear to an experienced welfare rights adviser that the department/authority don't even have enough to succeed with the civil/overpayment case.

The Garden Court material is, in my view, the best available.

Feels like there is a need for a publication on this subject aimed at WR workers and criminal practice solicitors, to bridge the gap between the two disciplines. I think we are going to see more and more cases and more 'easy targets' put in the firing line.

True fraud can never be condoned, but I'm afraid in the small number of cases (DLA) that I've dealt with, there was practically no case to answer, subsequently confirmed by the respective tribunals. Had the DWP taken a balanced and considered view they too would have come to the same conclusion.

Unfortunately, meeting targets seems to be the overiding factor, rather than common sense.