Investigatory Tests

[Image: Benefit Fraud Poster]

Test of Fairness

Dealings with persons in relation to benefit sanction investigations should be fair and be demonstrated to been fair and proportionate.

The aspects of our sanction investigations that we consider in the test of fairness are:

our record keeping throughout the investigatory process
officers' awareness of the test of fairness
the interviewee's rights
the interviewee's needs
the level of information given to the interviewee prior to the interview
the level of information given to the interviewee during the interview
allowing the interviewee sufficient time to respond
advising the interviewee what will happen next
delay during an investigation
having transcripts of interviews to demonstrate the above
making the interview DVD, tape or transcript available to the interviewee on request

Evidential Test

Sanction cases should be fit for prosecution and so must be able to demonstrate a suitable level of evidence gathered during the investigatory process.

If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.

The elements of the evidential test that must be demonstrated are:

we must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each defendant on each charge
when deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, we must consider whether the evidence is reliable
when deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, we must consider whether the evidence can be used

Public Interest Test

If a case passes the evidential test then we consider whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. A case is reviewed for factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour.

While this is ultimately the remit of the Procurator Fiscal, we have empirical data from our past prosecution cases that enables us to review our cases for public interest, rather than referring cases to the Procurator Fiscal when we know that they will be marked "no proceedings".

This is justified because if the council is aware that a case will not be successful before reporting it would be a poor use of resources:

for the council to take the time to prepare the case and submit it to the fiscal
for the fiscal deputes to go through the case and mark it as no pro
for the council then to have a mark against it as an unsuccessful prosecution

The Public Interest Factors that are considered are contained in the Benefit Sanction Policy (32KB PDF).

« Back to Benefit Fraud Awareness page