ONDIVORCE GENERAL AND CONTACT MESSAGEBOARD
[ADD YOUR COMMENTS] [LIST ALL SUBJECTS]
Subject: F.A.O Simes
Posted By juggler on 20-11-2009
Please could you tell me what the following means:
Make false representation to make gain for self or another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk on xx/xx/08
Fraud Act 2006 s1 (2) (a) +s.2
Prosecuting agent: CPS
It would be great if you could tell me what all that means! FINALLY had the ex's police files (after the court saying he must provide them by the end of July....)
My immediate thoughts are a) there is not nearly as much there as I had been led to believe and b) blimey, this alleged crime happened ages ago, early in 2008!!!
I don't know what has happened to the other incidents I've been told about. Perhaps he wasn't charged? I suppose all records would be wiped at that point.
From what I've read, it seems they are still investigating him about this and can't tell us anything more incase it jeopardises their policey stuff.
Quite odd reading the other stuff including a phone call from one of my friend's to the police in January 2005 when I went to the refuge with the boys. She had given a precis of what my life had been like to the police (over the phone) and had highlighted how long it had taken me to leave, how she had sneaked into work to talk to me and about how another colleague had had a spare car key cut for me so I could get away. Rather sad, really.
Follow up comments
Added By juggler on 20-11-2009
Ah, having had a re-read, I can see his solicitor has only included incidents which involve me!!
So the police being called out to other things (such as turning on his mother in the street.....) has been left out.
Strange that.
We also asked specifically for info on any proceedings in court and they have put that bit in.
Added By Stuart on 20-11-2009
Jeez....I have to ask, why are you so interested in what your ex does and has done?
Dont mean to sound harsh but cant you just let go and get on with your life??
Added By juggler on 20-11-2009
Is your name Simes.....? :-D
Added By Stuart on 20-11-2009
Well clearly not....lol...
Just trying to give a bit of advice....of course, if you wish to spend the rest of your life submerged in worrying about what the ex is doing then thats fine....
Added By Simes 2p on 20-11-2009
Jugs,
You need the Court to order disclosure from the Police of his complete record and any outstanding charges against him. His sol won't give you more than he has.
1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are—
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
Section 1(2) (a) is as stated above 'section 2 (fraud by false representation),'
Which is defined as:
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
It could be as simple as him trying to con someone out of £5, to something far more involved.
Added By sometimesitdoesn'twork on 20-11-2009
I'm not Simes but in case he isn't about over the weekend I'll have a shot at answering. It means he was prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, who prosecute criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales, and found guilty of offences under the relevant sections of the Fraud Act 2006. As I understand it the position is similar to here in Scotland and criminal record checks include convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings but cannot include matters under investigation as it is assumed someone is innocent until proved guilty and it puts in jeopardy their right to a fair hearing.
Added By sometimesitdoesn'twork on 20-11-2009
Sorry, crossed posts!
Added By juggler on 20-11-2009
Thanks, all.
Just to clarify, he hasn't been to court yet (has had his bail extended). At the top of the sheet it says "Impending Prosecutions: 1 Offence(s): 1.
To my untrained eye it looks like the incident happened early in 2008 but he wasn't arrested until September this year. I don't quite follow how the different number (s1 etc) relate to Simes' post but will re-read.
I'm still of the opinion that this is only a fraction of his police files.
Added By Simes 2p on 20-11-2009
Jugs, another possibility of fraud is that he fiddled his expenses and flipped his second home too many times. 6 MP's are to be prosecuted.
Anyway, Fraud Act 2006 s1 (2) (a) +s.2 means:
Section 1 lists the offence. Fraud.
Para 2 shows which part of fraud it is.
Sub para (a) refers to Section 2 Fraud by misrepresentation.
Then go to Section 2, and that lists the details of what fraud by misrep is.
If you could get his Police Record disclosed, that will list everything he has ever been involved in, how he pleaded and the sentence. Anything that has ever happened in his life will be on the Police record, spent or otherwise.
Added By juggler on 20-11-2009
Thanks, Simes.
The accompanying letter from West Mercia is as clear as mud. The court asked him to disclose his police files. This is easy enough, you just download the right form off their website.
The police letters fronts the 3 incidents when I was involved (domestic violence incidents) but there is nothing else.
The covering letter (police letter) says "Copies of incidents relating to your client enclosed. If you are to specift exact nature of "police file" requested, and require further detail we will oblige".
The ex's solicitor has constantly procrastinated and claimed not to know what a police file is, then put off, then sent a weird letter asking which "umbrella agency" had got my police files for me. We have written saying about the downloadable form and then we get this letter with just 3 files in it.
Added By Simes 2p on 20-11-2009
Jugs,
His Sol is protecting his client by asking for the minimum that he thinks he can get away with.
Your Sol should be demanding the complete criminal record of your ex as it will paint a picture for the court as to his previous conduct.
it should be a joint letter, or a court order. Leaving it to your exes sol will only ever produce the bare minimum.
You can also ask for statements to the Police to be released as well.
Added By obiwan_kenobi_again on 20-11-2009
if the prosecution is impending- I dont think the court can get statements- criminal always takes priority over civil...
they could say its sub-jude ...
also... remember impending is not convicted.
Added By juggler on 21-11-2009
Yes, I do understand the reasons behind not stating what the current prosecution is all about.
Its all the other bits of his police files that I wanted. To show the numbers of times his neighbours have had to call the police out and about the other alleged crimes.
Added By EnglishRose on 21-11-2009
"police letter) says "Copies of incidents relating to your client enclosed. If you are to specift exact nature of "police file" requested, and require further detail we will oblige"."
You say there is a court order - send the court order back to the police - a copy of it - saying that the order is for all police records held about him or whatever the order says and not just relating to you (as Simes says).
Added By Stuart on 23-11-2009
Can I ask why the interest?
If its to put a case for children not having contact with their dad then surely "evidence" gathering is the job of the CAFCASS staff?
Im a bit confused....
Added By Simes 2p on 23-11-2009
Stu, didn't we go through this same conversation last time Jugs posted?
Mr Jugs is hitched up with a rather unsavoury lady of the night, I mean woman, with a drug habit and whose own kids have been removed from her care for various unpleasant reasons. Mr Jugs wants the kids to play happy families with him and new bird, and between periods spent at her majesties pleasure due to various criminal offences, could give it a go. If only Jugs would get off his case and allow contact to happen, everything would be grand.
But Jugs, in attempting to protect the kids from some unspeakable horror, is making enquiries.
Fair enough in my opinion.
Added By Stuart on 23-11-2009
Yes, I do remember this.....but I have slept since....lol
I understand where Juggler is coming from but surely the detective work is for the court appointed person to do (CAFCASS)?
Or am I missing something else...
Added By juggler on 23-11-2009
I would like to point out that Mr Jugs IS having contact with his sons, at the level that HE requested. Quite a small level but then, as he explained, his fiancee "couldn't be expected to manage" without him for more than 3 hours at a time...
Cafcass are no longer involved, it was deemed (by a judge) to be more appropriate for Children's Services to do the report, since our county was ONE of the counties that had had dealings with fiancee lady.
Mr Jugs has always taken ME to court. I did apply for a divorce but have never taken him to court about it. I am on Ms fiancee's case because she is extremely odd. I'm not on Mr Jug's case especially except when I've heard he has done something particularly nasty.
I am on his case about what he may/may not have done because I don't think he can "supervise" his fiancee when my boys are there. Firstly, because I don't think anyone can supervise a very strange heroin addict. And secondly, because, from his alleged actions, he really seems to be all over the place at the moment.
Thirdly, because he has been such a shifty, lying prat just recently that I am tired of it, frankly, and would like to get to the truth.
I would also like to point out that no, I don't think about the ex and what he is doing all the time, just when I am speaking to the solicitor, hear something untoward about him or am writing on here. Strange that I should mention him here, this being a divorce forum and all....
I could write about what a lovely day I have had, ending up sitting in front of the woodburning stove with a glass of damson gin watching television! But that wouldn't be relevant. Unfortunately, Stuart, whoever good your intentions, suggesting I shouldn't be interested and should "get over it" isn't going to make me suddenly erm.... stop being bothered.
Added By juggler on 23-11-2009
P.S I wouldn't say I am doing any detective work. The court ordered the ex to provide certain documents and he provided some (I don't think all, however). I just asked Simes to explain what one small part of one of the documents meant.
Added By Stuart on 24-11-2009
So the court has told you to do all of this detective work and to set about proving your point that your ex is a " shifty, lying prat" and cant be trusted with the children?
Im not having a go at you so please dont see it as a personal attack but if the court shares your concerns (and Im not saying you are making them up!) then there are mechanisms there to do all of this work for you...
Added By evr on 24-11-2009
Stuart, surely this is a child protection issue in any case. If I were in juggler's shoes I would be doing the same and quite honestly I think you would too. You can't trust different counties to communicate effectively as social workers are notoriously overloaded with cases. If a child is potentially at risk it often takes little bits of information coming in from many different sources before any action can be taken.
Yes, the court has asked for information, but if they don't get it then there could be a substantial delay in sorting this out. And I have to say the way you respond to juggler's posts does seem odd. She is worried about what her ex is up to because her children are often in his care. Thats not being obsessional or refusing to move on with her own life as you suggest.
Added By obiwan_kenobi_again on 24-11-2009
in my experience - social services don't always immediately take the stance that heroin addicts are a threat to a child... (perhaps they should)...
I think that the court probably wouldn't mind where the data about pre-cons etc came from as long as it is verified...
Thing is - due to information sharing protocols we have with Social Services- they could get the court/defense PNC/INTEL prints by just asking.
It is VERY difficult for ordinary members of the public to get access to those files- other professionals can get them no problem...
good luck- sounds like you are going to need it...
| 
