• All threads and posts regarding Coronavirus COVID-19 can now be found in our new area specifically for Coronavirus COVID-19 discussion.

    You can directly access this area >here<.

advice please on reporting a fraud

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
Are you saying that a witness was allowed to be present when a person with dementia was biung interviewed in connection with an offence committed against them?
Whether dementia related or not that is exactly what I am saying.
Obviously if both were being asked to identify someone from an incident they had seen then it would be as you suggested but for something like this there would not be a problem. If the Mother lacks capacity & depending on what she can remember I would say she wont even be made to go through a formal interview process.
 

Wirralson

Account Closed
May 30, 2012
658
Whether dementia related or not that is exactly what I am saying.
Obviously if both were being asked to identify someone from an incident they had seen then it would be as you suggested but for something like this there would not be a problem. If the Mother lacks capacity & depending on what she can remember I would say she wont even be made to go through a formal interview process.
I think we are at cross purposes. My post related specificially toi a case where the statement of a person with dementia was being taken as a formal part of the evidence-gathering process with a view to use in a prosecution. In such circumstances, then the presence of any other witness during that process would risk making any evidence from that statement inadmissible.

If the person with dementia was being interviewed informally, then, as you say, there would be less of an issue, but also less point to the interview, and, frankly, I'd expect the police not to go down this route beyond establishing that the perosn concerned existed. The law on criminal evidence is pretty strict, and in such cases, as I posted earlier, I'd expect the police to rely on forensic accounting and interviews with third parties, simply because they will yield the most reliable and usable evidence. Such cases can be very difficult to prosecute, and prosecution is (normally) secondary to the stopping of the fraud/financial abuse and any potential recovery of assets.

W
 

Wirralson

Account Closed
May 30, 2012
658
I was referring to the stress of Rosie's mum having to give the police a statement - my husband said he'd just check first to see if the statement could come from someone holding POA on behalf of the victim (although he rather thought not) Of course Rosie can give a witness statement of her own......sorry if I was unclear!!
That makes more sense to me now! The answer is simple: as your post implies and in my understanding, it can't - formal statements have to come from the person in their own capacity for criminal prosecution purposes - it is over 30 years since I studied this and a few years since I had to deal with it in my job.

W
 
Last edited:

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
I think we are at cross purposes. My post related specificially toi a case where the statement of a person with dementia was being taken as a formal part of the evidence-gathering process with a view to use in a prosecution. In such circumstances, then the presence of any other witness during that process would risk making any evidence from that statement inadmissible.
I am not at cross purposes at all and I too am talking about a "formal" interview in the circumstances of the OP. There is always a risk of any statement, however recorded, being ruled inadmissible and only one person will decided if it is or not. The aim though is to obtain "best" evidence to put before a court.

Depending on capacity alwaysfrettings Mum may not need to be interviewed and the case can still proceed.


formal statements have to come from the person in their own capacity for criminal prosecution purposes
Not true. There are many instances where an intermediary can be used to help explain questions and in fact answers during the interview process.
 

Wirralson

Account Closed
May 30, 2012
658
I am not at cross purposes at all and I too am talking about a "formal" interview in the circumstances of the OP. There is always a risk of any statement, however recorded, being ruled inadmissible and only one person will decided if it is or not. The aim though is to obtain "best" evidence to put before a court.

Depending on capacity alwaysfrettings Mum may not need to be interviewed and the case can still proceed.



Not true. There are many instances where an intermediary can be used to help explain questions and in fact answers during the interview process.
Thanks for the information - I was aware of the latter point, but confers less flexibility than your post implies. As you say, there is always a risk of evidence being ruled inadmissible. The Police force with which I a little familiarity had what it called a Public Protection Unit and it tended to be very careful about minimising the risk of inadmissibility.

However, in the OP's original scenario, I would have expected (based on my limited experience) that (a) the force might well decide not to interview the OP's mother formally (depending on the potential value of her evidence) and (b) to be a little more cautious than you suggest in its approach if it does carry out a formal interview.

It's pretty academic anyway - any decision to prosecute will nto rest solely on any statement by the OP's mother in any case, and the most important thing is to get the incident reported.

W
 

katie1

Registered User
Aug 5, 2014
122
Kendal Cumbria
Whatever happens if a crime is suspected it MUST be reported no matter who the charge is against
A crime is a crime and thats that.
Not nice though when a vulnerable person has been taken advantage of!