Whilst benefit fraud is a serious offence being found guilty does not automatically result in a prison sentence. If handled correctly many benefit fraud cases can be settled and dealt with outside the court system. In this situation, the case is settled with the repayment of all of or a substantial portion of the amount falsely claimed. There is also usually a fine to pay, and possibly of the suspension of the certain benefits for a period of time, but no prison sentence. Only the serious cases result in a prison sentence. Deliberately making a false statement to get benefits…
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) is very clear about how surveillance can be used. The act restricts the use of invasive surveillance techniques to a small group of circumstances. The use of intrusive surveillance has to be authorised by a judge. Fixed cameras and bugs are by their very nature intrusive forms of surveillance, for which benefit fraud investigators are highly unlikely to get permission to use in the course of their investigation. However, that does not mean that they cannot legally use other investigative and surveillance techniques. It may not be possible for benefit fraud investigators to…
Solicitors and lawyers must demonstrate the value of a qualified family lawyer in divorce cases. We are used to buying practically everything on the internet. Accordingly, why should not we also be able to buy a divorce online? Or is that just too simple and one-dimensional? There are, however, many people who need clear, expert and independent advice about the consequences of separation and divorce, both for them and their children. At the same time, however, it is becoming more difficult for the public to obtain such advice, especially those of limited means. Legal aid, in divorce and family cases,…
The “systemic failings” of the family justice system violated an “irreproachable” father’s human rights by denying him contact with his daughter over a decade, senior judges have ruled. In a ground-breaking judgment the Court of Appeal judges said that they had never encountered a case in which the family justice system had “failed a family so completely”. The man, 60, had endured a dozen years of legal battles against his mentally unstable ex-partner who was “implacably hostile” to any contact between him and their daughter. His daughter now nearly 14, was aged 1 when her parents separated in 2001 and…
In Feltham v Bouskell [2013] solicitors were delayed in preparing held liable in negligence for failing to prepare a will, where there were doubts about the testamentary capacity of the client. Hazel Charlton (the testatrix) was a 90-year-old. She had made a number of wills and since 1990 the same firm had acted for her in relation to her wills and members of the firm were appointed executors. Her step-granddaughter, Lorraine Feltham, was not a beneficiary in any of these wills. The 1998 will left the residue, after some minor legacies to be divided three ways between: Mrs. Atkinson, an…
The simple answer is that yes, you can still leave the country if you are being investigated for benefit fraud. That said, if you have been specifically asked by the investigators not to leave the country, you must not do so. The vast majority of benefit fraud cases are small scale, so it is very unusual for people who are being investigated for defrauding the DWP to be asked not to leave the country. Those suspected of high-level benefit fraud are far more likely to be directed not to leave the country by the investigators. However, if you are being…
Before retirement The value of money-purchase pensions is only decided when you take an income from them. This means that when they are split before the person who has built up the pension has retired, they are rarely divided 50/50. Investment-linked pensions grow more the longer you leave them, so if your spouse is younger than you, their chunk will be worth more when they finally retire (provided you retire at the same age). This has to be factored in when splitting the pension. If it is a defined-benefit pension you are dividing, you will be asked to disclose your…
Life in crime | A narrow ambit for dangerous driving The Supreme Court has raised the bar in respect of strict liability in relation to dangerous driving, and rightly so believes Benjamin Newton This article first appeared in the solicitors Journal on 13TH August 2013 and is reproduced with their kind permission. Strict liability in crime is a controversial principle. In R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56 the Supreme Court grappled with the prospect of double strict liability – i.e. an aggravated offence where both the underlying offence and the aggravating feature were both of strict liability. The offence of…
Drawing up a ‘watertight’ contract is nearly impossible, especially when it comes to exclusion clauses. Clients need to be made aware of the risks and advised accordingly, says Jonathan Silverman This article first appeared in the solicitors Journal on 20th August 2013 and is reproduced with their kind permission. It has always been a problem for lawyers faced with the client asking one to draw up ‘watertight’ terms and conditions of business, especially when it comes to exclusion clauses. Trying to explain that it isn’t as straightforward as it first appears merely curries favour. The reality is that the days…
This article first appeared in the solicitors Journal on 20th August 2013 and is reproduced with their kind permission. Vulnerable witnesses do not have to give oral evidence to employment tribunals, the Court of Appeal has ruled. Its guidance on correct procedure should be noted, says Anna Macey InDuffy v George [2013] EWCA Civ 908 the Court of Appeal provided guidance on the correct procedures an employment tribunal (ET) should adopt when a witness claims to be too frightened to be cross examined. The appellant Michael Duffy, was accused by a fellow employee, Susannah George, of sexual harassment. She brought…
