presume then you have a rep order, with contributions from income?

usually, any contributions paid will be refunded if found not guilty, or cps drop it.

your sol/counsel will 'guide' you pre, at the pcmh and after.

Yes, I think so, but I am yet to hear how much this will be because my case just got transferred to Crown Court.

I don't see them dropping it really, the police seem determined to get to the bottom of such 'an elaborate £30 [problem]'.

pcmh is quite straight forward. your sol will (should) advise on it prior. and may attend it with counsel. if not, then w/b just counsel. where you'll discuss the case with just prior.

once discussed and then in, count read out, you enter your plea. j then makes any directions in the circs if applicable, or date for trial, maybe re warned list.

Thanks for letting me know, I am sure the solicitor will advise and represent too. I am not particularly worried about pcmh but the trial.

Yes, I think so, but I am yet to hear how much this will be because my case just got transferred to Crown Court.

 

.....

it seems then that your disposable income satisfies the income contributions criteria where you'll have to pay a set amount periodically. otherwise, w/b re capital contribution payable after, if guilty.

I do not know, I have applied for legal aid and got a refusal for Magistrates court representation. They mentioned if it goes to Crown we will write again. I believe it will be contributions. I have no capital!

I am worried and want to discuss my case details more than this though, as much as money is a big issue too.

Thanks for letting me know, I am sure the solicitor will advise and represent too. I am not particularly worried about pcmh but the trial.

your sol and counsel will discuss your case with you, and your defence, and 'chances', re the evidence.

its about the evidence, and whether that is enough to convict, coupled with advocacy skills.

the j makes its sum/directions to the jury at the end of the trial.

your sol and counsel will discuss your case with you, and your defence, and 'chances', re the evidence.

its about the evidence, and whether that is enough to convict, coupled with advocacy skills.

the j makes its directions at the end of the trial.

Thank you. I revealed earlier that it involves a store from the Arcadia group. Hope that information will be useful to some of you.

I do not know, I have applied for legal aid and got a refusal for Magistrates court representation. They mentioned if it goes to Crown we will write again. I believe it will be contributions. I have no capital!

 

I am worried and want to discuss my case details more than this though, as much as money is a big issue too.

no capital, then is income cont'ns.

you asked about procedure re cr ct as well, hence my (brief) posts on that.

re case details. it really is something for your lawyers to provide legal advice on. and they will.

re 'arcadia group' you mention, which one within?

Having been the recipient of an obviously used item I can quite see how this could happen. If a company can send me a supposedly brand new vacuum cleaner dirty and half full then it's perfectly possible for OPs item to be a previous return which was put back into stock without proper checks.

I am wondering whether I will be able to make ends meet this Christmas.

I have said previously that my pcmh is mid Feb.

I wanted some information on when do you start paying Crown Court contributions.

Online I found this excerpt:

''When will I have to pay?

Within 28 days of your case being committed to Crown Court. You will be posted a Contribution Notice or Order detailing the amount you have to pay.''

Does this mean before as in anytime now or after my pcmh date? Thanks a lot for your help.

the regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3328/contents/made (as amended)

seems unlikely before xmas. when was the mags?

the regs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3328/contents/made (as amended)

 

seems unlikely before xmas. when was the mags?

Thanks a lot Ford!

I am looking at the amount payable under income contribution order (9).

Blimey, does this mean they can get up to 6 x £900, regardless of the severity of the alleged offence committed?

Because then 9 (4) says:

The amount payable under an income contribution order is not to exceed the specified amount for the class within which the offence with which the individual was charged falls (regardless of the classification of the offences charged in the indictment).

But mine is a lesser offence than any of the ones listed...so will I still end up paying 6 x £900 if they calculate my disp income to be that much?

Or does it fall under this? (f)Class F: other offences of dishonesty (specified offences and offences where the value is £30,000 or less) - £6,754;

not necessarily

you should've been assessed.

the round 900 etc is re the income assumption re 8 (10)

also, they shld say prior what the likely conts wld be 6

did you give them your full income details, re 5 for eg? if so wld be assessed on that, and not 'assumed' as per 8 (10) ie the 900...

I have done and I should hope so. I took £900 as a worst case scenario and also it seems to equate what's left of my salary after paying rent (aka disposable income?) since they take about 90% of that, it would be around £900. Anyway, shall wait and see. Not many fortunate people around here seem to have gone to Crown Court, let alone for a matter like mine, so noone can share similar experiences really and I appreciate the huge amount of help I've got so far, nonetheless. Cheers

ok. you'll get an order as assessed then.

i dont know what its like as a defendant. but i will help if i can otherwise.

thing is, re crim matters, partic as liberty cld be at stake (prob not in yr case though if a first), then the best advice is usually always to see a crim solicitor.

what is the count against you?

Am I missing something here, or has the accused actually elected for a Crown Court trial by jury??? (as is their right, as the offence can be tried either way).

If so, why?? Going to Crown Court, for fraud of any value, substantially increases the risk for more severe sentencing options if found guilty, and the costs generally start to spiral out of hand. The sentences a Magistrates Court imposes are generally much more lenient than those handed down by the Crown.

If I was in the OP position I would have tried my hand in the (less formal, less powerful, and more "everyday"), Magistrates Court first, pleading Not Guilty (assuming the OP genuinely is not guilty), and seeing what happens. If that fails and I end up convicted, and given a medium-high community order, I'd then be inclined to then appeal against conviction and sentence to the Crown Court.

Occasionally, some people (not necessarily the OP) try and get EW offences into the Crown Court in the hope that the CPS/Prosecuting Authority will abandon the case, which is rarely the case, or as a delaying tactic for whatever reason, (perhaps to avoid imprisonment over Xmas, witness availability etc etc). If the Crown Court judge deems that the OP has elected for a jury trial purely to try and frustrate the case, if found guilty, the sentencing may well reflect that.

If the OP is guilty, (and just doesn't want to admit to it), I would arrive at the Crown Court early and find out who the prosecutor is, and attempt to arrange some sort of plea deal. If you're solicitor isn't bent then he could do this for you too. By "plea deal", I mean instead of copping to fraud by false representation, you could offer to plead guilty to some other sort of lesser offence.

That said, there's not many other offences which fit, if the money was refunded back to your debit/credit card or bank etc, you could consider (TH68136) Section 24A Theft Act- Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit, but this is arguably just as, if not more serious then the Fraud Act 2006. Regardless, if it was a cash refund, you can't use this offence.

I'd rather see "Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit" on a criminal record rather than "Fraud by false representation" personally!

Something isn't right here though!

1) The Magistrates, based on the information received, have decided there is sufficient evidence for a case to answer.

2) The CPS wouldn't run a Fraud Act 2006 prosecution, (which is quite complex to manage, and always requires the local police force to pass the case to a specialist department within the City of London police force to also check over), unless there were solid grounds for conviction;

3) Presumably somebody has informed the OP about the risks of going to Crown Court over a relatively trivial fraud; yet the OP is still going? Why not try the Mags first, then appeal?

4) A shop would normally write £30 off in cases like this, as the cost of pursuing it, staff hours, resources involved etc outweigh the benefits, which makes me think that there must be more to this somewhere.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility the retailer is trying to get out of paying a legitimate refund by levelling a false allegation at the customer seeking the refund. I have come across such cases in the past. I have also come across multiple retailers who try to use the "company policy not to give refunds" ploy which is illegal under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (as amended).

At this stage, nothing is clear. As stated previously, the evidence is very circumstantial and, in my view, the police have not conducted a sufficiently thorough investigation. Because of the severity of such an allegation - Fraud by False Misrepresentation - all angles have to be investigated. I am not convinced this had been done.

Because of the severity of such an allegation - Fraud by False Misrepresentation - all angles have to be investigated.

Misrepresentation would be a civil matter.

The criminal offence is "fraud by false representation".

"Representation", not "misrepresentation".

Misrepresentation would be a civil matter.

 

The criminal offence is "fraud by false representation".

"Representation", not "misrepresentation".

That's what comes of posting when you've been out celebrating. Lol! Seriously, you are correct, it is Fraud by False Representation.

The OP didn't return here to update their thread.

However, they have posted a new thread at

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?443960-Will-a-conditional-discharge-affect-the-immigration-process-to-the-UK

Which seems to suggest their plea was not guilty, they were found guilty, and received a conditional discharge.

Am I missing something here, or has the accused actually elected for a Crown Court trial by jury??? (as is their right, as the offence can be tried either way).

 

If so, why?? Going to Crown Court, for fraud of any value, substantially increases the risk for more severe sentencing options if found guilty, and the costs generally start to spiral out of hand. The sentences a Magistrates Court imposes are generally much more lenient than those handed down by the Crown. Because I was told that Magistrates tend to side with CPS and I could receive a fairer trial at Crown Court, money not being an issue since this offence would have a detrimental effect on my life I went for it.

 

If I was in the OP position I would have tried my hand in the (less formal, less powerful, and more "everyday"), Magistrates Court first, pleading Not Guilty (assuming the OP genuinely is not guilty), and seeing what happens. If that fails and I end up convicted, and given a medium-high community order, I'd then be inclined to then appeal against conviction and sentence to the Crown Court. I am not guilty and pleaded not guilty in both places.

 

Occasionally, some people (not necessarily the OP) try and get EW offences into the Crown Court in the hope that the CPS/Prosecuting Authority will abandon the case, which is rarely the case, or as a delaying tactic for whatever reason, (perhaps to avoid imprisonment over Xmas, witness availability etc etc). If the Crown Court judge deems that the OP has elected for a jury trial purely to try and frustrate the case, if found guilty, the sentencing may well reflect that. I had no reason to delay other than waste more of my time, nerves and money on the case. I wouldn't be sent to prison and this was at the Magistrates a while before Christmas so that point is not valid. If anything, because I couldn't get on with my life, dragging it out to Crown Court was what ruined my Christmas AND my day to day life.

 

If the OP is guilty, (and just doesn't want to admit to it), I would arrive at the Crown Court early and find out who the prosecutor is, and attempt to arrange some sort of plea deal. If you're solicitor isn't bent then he could do this for you too. By "plea deal", I mean instead of copping to fraud by false representation, you could offer to plead guilty to some other sort of lesser offence. They asked me to plead guilty in exchange for a very lenient sentence on several occasions and I refused.

 

That said, there's not many other offences which fit, if the money was refunded back to your debit/credit card or bank etc, you could consider (TH68136) Section 24A Theft Act- Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit, but this is arguably just as, if not more serious then the Fraud Act 2006. Regardless, if it was a cash refund, you can't use this offence.

I'd rather see "Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit" on a criminal record rather than "Fraud by false representation" personally!

 

Something isn't right here though!

 

1) The Magistrates, based on the information received, have decided there is sufficient evidence for a case to answer. There was circumstantial evidence aka the shirt in question even though they didn't catch me returning it, in fact I was arrested a week after I had been to the shop and the police searched my house finding nothing. They did nothing to prove the shirt they accused me to have returned was the one returned by me on the day. They look virtually identical and they only presented a photo of the online shirt to compare to the other shirt so nothing material. This was criticised by the judge but accepted nonetheless.

2) The CPS wouldn't run a Fraud Act 2006 prosecution, (which is quite complex to manage, and always requires the local police force to pass the case to a specialist department within the City of London police force to also check over), unless there were solid grounds for conviction; The CPS did no work at all on the case, simply relied on the shirt in question as evidence as well as 12 copies for each member of the jury, one of the original online invoice for the item (nothing to dispute there, my details and what I had purchased) and the photo of the online shirt which looked identical to the one produced).

3) Presumably somebody has informed the OP about the risks of going to Crown Court over a relatively trivial fraud; yet the OP is still going? Why not try the Mags first, then appeal? As explained above, I was told I would get a fair trial and it was shambolic. I don't know how they proved my guilt beyond reasonable doubt even though the jury came up with the verdict in under 15 mins after the 1 hour trial, I thought my defense would make an application for not sufficient evidence heard to satisfy law requirements.

4) A shop would normally write £30 off in cases like this, as the cost of pursuing it, staff hours, resources involved etc outweigh the benefits, which makes me think that there must be more to this somewhere.Well it was exactly for that amount, nothing more or less, and they did pursue it. They received their £30 compensation which I have to pay on top of my very high defence and CPS costs for the trial.