Renewed application by Mr Otobo for permission to apply for judicial review. He had been called in for a voluntary interview by the council investigating whether any offence might have been committed in his claiming of housing benefit. Though warned that it would be held under PACE, and that he would be allowed a solcitor, they refused his request for advance disclosure of materials showing why he had been called in for interview. He said that this refusal infringed his article 6 rights.
Held: Leave to bring review was refused. HHJ Anthony Thornton QC had correctly set out in detail the reasons why there was no right to disclosure at this stage. He had pointed out that the defendant council was undertaking an investigation as a prelude to deciding whether or not to prosecute the claimant. He noted that the defendant has no right to insist that the claimant attends for interview, and the defendant is not required in law to give prior notification of the basis of the suspicion. Equally, the defendant could proceed with this investigation and, if it considered it appropriate, prosecute the claimant, even if he has refused to be interviewed. The judge concluded that, if the defendant decides to prosecute the claim, the content of his interview may only be adduced in evidence if the interview is carried out under caution and subject to PACE. The judge further notes that Article 6 was not applicable as the interview was not at that stage part of any trial or legal proceedings, since no trial or legal proceedings had been begun. He considered that the proposed procedure was, in any event, fair and beyond reproach, and included an ability of the investigative officer to provide disclosure if he or she thought fit. The claimant could have a lawyer present during the interview.
Judges:
Clive Lewis QC
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 2154 (Admin), [2011] RVR 282
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Benefits, Human Rights
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459707