Procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje

The study Aims:

 review ways fraud is being committed with a focus on online fraud;

 outline issues relating to sentencing these offences such as culpability/seriousness of offences and aggravating or mitigating factors; and

 explore the impact of different types of online fraud offences on victims.

The overall objective of the study is to inform future sentencing guidelines regarding

‘confidence fraud’ and ‘possessing, making or supplying articles for use in fraud’.

NOTE: The participants are unlikely to be familiar with these offence categories. The interviewer should ask them to describe the fraud offence they have experienced in detail and use this information to ascertain the type of offence they have experienced. All of the participants will have been ‘screened’ to ensure they fit in at least one category prior to setting up an interview.

Generally

 Explore their experience of online fraud;

 Understand the impact of this online fraud offence on the victim;

 Explore the different types of ‘harm’ victims experience because of fraudulent activities;

and

 Map the factors impacting on the culpability of offender/seriousness of online and offline fraudulent offending, including mitigating and aggravating factors.

Guidance for interpretation and use of the topic guide

The following guide does not contain pre-set questions but rather lists the key themes and sub-themes to be explored with each participant. It does not include follow-up questions like ‘why’, ‘when’, ‘how’, etc. as participant’s contributions will be fully explored throughout in order to understand how and why views and experiences have arisen. The order in which issues are addressed and the amount of time spent on different themes will vary between interviews.

It is important to note that the interviews may deal with sensitive information for the participant. Researchers should allow participants to lead the discussion and make clear they do not have to answer any question they do not wish to. Probing should be done sensitively. Researchers should also plan time for general chatting at the beginning and end of the interview to create a safe discussion space for

participants.

Introduction

 Introduce researcher(s) and NatCen;

 Explain who the research is for (describe Sentencing Council and their role);

 SC produces guidelines on sentencing for Judges and magistrates;

 Check that they have read the research leaflet and that they understand the content;

 Explain research:

 SC review the appropriate sentence for different offences;

 SC would like to know about how fraud is being implemented and how this impacts on victims, especially focussing on online fraud;

 duty to incorporate views of victims; and

 one to one interviews allow views to be explored in depth and privately.

 Explain the interview will last between 1 and 1.5 hours. The discussion will focus on:

 their views on the impact that different types of online fraud offences have on victims, including their own experience of fraud;

 their views on the different types of ‘harm’ victims experience because of fraudulent offences;

 their views on the factors which impact on the seriousness of the offence;

and

 their attitudes towards sentencing fraud offences, both generally and with a focus on online fraud.

 Check that they understand the content of the interview.

 Explain voluntary nature of interview:

 no right or wrong answers;

 participation is voluntary – can have a break or choose not to discuss any issue/answer any question;

 potentially sensitive to discuss but they are in control of the interview; and

 check that they understand that participation is voluntary and that they can withdraw at any time without giving a reason.

 Explain recording, data storage and confidentiality.

 Explain we wish to avoid using full names or addresses of any victims/offenders mentioned.

 Explain that the interview will be digitally recorded and written out word for word afterwards and that the recording and interview transcript will be stored in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

 Explain reporting process and that no individual will be identified in the report or details of their offence that may identify them. Data will be destroyed on

completion of the research.

 Explain disclosure policy i.e. everything they say will be treated confidentially, in accordance with the Data Protection Act. Their answers will only be used for research purposes. The only potential breach to their confidentiality may be if they talk about a suicidal intent or a risk of harm to themselves or somebody who can be identified and is not able to speak for themselves, and/or they talk about an identifiable offence for which they or others have not been charged or convicted.

 Check that they are happy with data and disclosure policy.

 Check if any questions before we start (remind them they can have a break or stop at any time and only answer questions they wish to).

 Check to see if they happy with the process and gain verbal consent for them to take part in the research study.

Interviewer note: Verbal consent does not need to be recorded as long as you are confident that the respondent is well informed of the process and happy to take part.

 Ask for permission to start recording.

START RECORDING

Background and context

Aim: to get respondent talking and to find out some contextual information about his/her current circumstances and allow them to feel at ease in the interview situation.

 Age, main daytime activity;

 Household, family and relationships (where living, whether live alone or with others, level of contact with family/friends);

 Spare time activities/interests;

 Relationship and employment history;

 Current state of health (mental/physical); and

 Experience of the internet and being online.

Overview of fraud experienced

Aim: to briefly explore the offence that was committed again them.

Interviewer note: Some participants may wish to recount this in some detail and the

researcher should balance active listening and allowing them to ‘control’ the interaction with ensuring they do not become overly focused or upset by the description. If participant has experienced a variety of fraud we want to focus on those that are in scope for this study i.e.

confidence fraud and possessing, making or supplying articles for use in fraud (participants may not be familiar with these terms).

 Ask the participant to describe the online fraud they have experienced chronologically:

 what happened;

 who was involved;

 what was the value of the fraud?

 how was it uncovered/prevented; and

 was it reported to any agency/person (bank, police, Action Fraud)?

IF ONLINE FRAUD REPORTED TO POLICE – will cover in more detail in section 5:

 investigation/Charges brought;

 court appearance; and

 outcome (i.e. guilty or not); charges and sentencing.

IF NOT REPORTED TO POLICE:

 reason;

 overview of any other fraud(s) they have experienced:

 type/nature of fraud;

 when this took place; and

 who was involved.

Experience of harm (online) and most significant harm

Aim: to explore the experiences/impacts of fraudulent offences on the victim, the different types of harm that exist and the extent of this.

 Impact of fraudulent offence;

 Description of harm caused by offence; and

 Types and dimensions of harm.

Note: Interviewer to ensure each dimension is mapped but without listing these terms verbatim. Allow participant to lead on identifying harm to them.

 financial (e.g. during and consequent repercussions)/extent of financial loss;

 emotional/psychological (e.g. anxiety, anger, distrust, loss of self-esteem, self-doubt);

 social/social standing;

 physical and physical safety (e.g. blackmail);

 physical health;

 personal relationships (e.g. relationship strain);

 wider impact;

 other people in the victim’s social network e.g. family, peer group;

 wider social and economic harm; and

 change to their behaviour (i.e were they more/less confident dealing with financial issues before the fraud).

 Extent harm caused affected by:

 characteristics of perpetrator;

 characteristics of victim;

 vulnerability;

 financial status, including extent of financial loss; and

 repeat victim;

 nature and method of the offence;

 duration of offence;

 relationship between victim and offender (contact/non-contact);

 embarrassment/humiliation of victim;

 online manipulation/disinhibition;

 ongoing effect on victim;

 number of offences committed/victims targeted;

 extent of support received;

 any press reports on case;

 satisfaction with resolution of case;

 whether funds reimbursed;

 whether outcome involved criminal prosecution and sentencing;

 any other factors.

 Types of harm that were most significant/had most impact;

 why these were most significant; and

 how they impact on victim.

 Factors that have supported participant/reduced harm:

 press reports;

 experience of known others;

 support received;

 time taken to rectify situation;

 friends/family; and

 financial recompense.

Views on factors that influence culpability of offender and seriousness of offence Aim: to explore what factors influenced the culpability of the offender and seriousness of the offence (in relation to culpability)

Interviewer note: Explain how having explored their own experience of fraud and its impact we would now like to think about the offence they have experienced in relation to other areas which are an integral part of sentencing – culpability of offender, seriousness of offence, and aggravating and mitigating factors. Briefly explain what each term means.

 Views on factors that influenced culpability of offender:

 financial gain/high level of profit from offence;

 motivation for fraud;

 extent of pre-planning vs. opportunistic;

 number of offences committed/victims targeted;

 deliberately targeting vulnerable victim(s);

 relationship between victim and offender (contact/non-contact);

 abuse of position of trust;

 complexity of fraud;

 acted along or with others/role in offence;

 fraudulent commercial enterprise;

 characteristics of offender (e.g. vulnerability, repeat offender);

 attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence; and

 harm to others (e.g. family members).

 Other perceived aggravating and mitigating factors.

Views on reporting the fraud and the sentencing process

Aim: to explore the experience of reporting the fraud and the sentencing process (if they experienced this and more generally)

Note: Interviewer may provide information on sentencing practice here to assist participant make informed suggestions if they have limited knowledge of sentencing fraud

 Awareness of different sentence and sanction types for online fraud offences more generally:

 types of sentence;

 appropriateness of sentence(s); and

 sources of evidence.

 Awareness of aggravating and mitigating factors for other online fraud offences;

views on these:

 sources of evidence.

 Which body/bodies fraud was reported to:

 CJS; and

 voluntary support groups.

IF FRAUD WAS REPORTED:

 Extent to which body/bodies reported to recognised impact on victim, types of harm caused and the most significant:

 any differences in views between victim and body/bodies reported to; and

 reasons for differences.

IF PARTICIPANT HAS SEEN THEIR CASE PROSECUTED:

 Experience of the sentencing process:

 overview of process – steps involved; were they in court to hear the sentence;

 how they found the process/experience;

 outcome of sentencing process;

 views on sentence given; what factors were taken into account by the judge

 what was the effect of the sentence on them;

 sentence proportionate to the effect/harm (as described previously);

 sentence proportionate to the culpability of offender (as described previously);

 how important was the sentence to them;

 or was the conviction more important (the recognition that offender guilty);

and

 anything else on how sentencing has affected them.

In document La formación del profesorado y otros profesionales de la intervención (página 136-139)