A question of a criminal nature

[tuscarora]

Hey, I posted a while back asking about the meritocratic nature of the RAF, and received a very helpful and encouraging set of responses. I hope you have enough patience left to deal with another question from this RAF wannabe. (Or, for the more optimistically minded, gonnabe!)

Through a neighbour dispute and some very lazy, and frankly appalling police work I have ended up having my hand forced into taking a caution for common assault.

So my question is thus, how will the RAF view that mark on my otherwise squeaky clean record?



For some background (I've got statements/court papers as well, I don't know if they'd be worth bringing to an interview..) I foist upon ye, the patient and long-suffering posters, this account of events.

I was in my backyard practicing throwing knives at a door. Yeah I know, knives are not good in this day and age, but I must stress that this is a hobby about skill and dexterity, not gore and destruction. Knives do not fly like in the movies, it takes practice to even get them to stick into the target. The knives are about 3" long blade - very small, and of a very specific throwing design, no 'grips' as such. I was also shooting a catapault at a can on the ground that day. Wholesome summer activities!

On this day my neighbour claims he was working in his garden, not in the adjacent house, but the one beyond (a separation of 48' from where I was standing, with a 6' fence between us). My brother, with his squinty hands and insistent tone was allowed to have a go and managed to punt one just over the top of the fence (I've never thrown a knife over personally). It landed a matter of inches beyond my property at a very low speed. This was not so good. My neighbour Mr. A phoned the police. He did not contact me at any point before doing this and I haven't talked with him through the whole process (or indeed for months before this incident).

The police turn up after I had stopped my throwing, with my knife in their hands. They explained that someone had complained, established what happened, and asked me to stop, then gave me back my knife. I took it, thanked them and haven't thrown them since. Ceasing and desisting is, I believe, the term for this response.

Three weeks later more police turn up at the door, ask me to come down to the station with them, and interview me. Ceasing and desisting was not a 'satisfactory resolution' to Mr. A and he pushed them to take it further. I trusted the police and allowed them to stitch me up. Shortly I received a letter informing me that the PPS wanted to give me a caution, which, after hiring a lawyer and deliberating for a week I refused.

There was no further investigation, no corroborating statements collected, no map of the area and no scaled picture of the knives in question. This woeful case file was presented to a magistrate with a well-established reputation for convicting the vast majority of cases presented to her, an attack dog in short. She refused a binding over, saying that she never goes for them.

Faced with this, and the certainty that a conviction would rule me out of the RAF, I was unwilling to toss them dice and opted for a caution.

NB; Mr. A is under several cautions and warnings, has physically assaulted my younger brother (we didn't press charges), has intimidated 4 families out of the neighbourhood and refused police mediation when all of the othe neighbours were willing. The officer dealing with my case also dealt with all of this and knew his character.



So I'm left with a caution and little recourse, although I will shortly be contacting the Police Ombudsman. I would have done this at the time, but according to the word of police and lawyers alike, often opening a complaint file against the police will scupper your chances of a caution and they'll close ranks, and really try to hammer you. Justice in action.

For those of you who didnt expire trekking through that expanse of text, and for those of them that know about these things, what would your advice be regarding the RAF interview? How much detail should I go into? Should I declare my caution and bring my court papers? How serious an impact will this have on my application?

[StopStart]

Take yer throwing knives and impress the interviewers with your ninja skills. Any problems with them I'd be tempted to go for a Jedi mind trick or a Vulcan death grip on em.

Seriously though, they'll probably overlook it as we're pretty short on people with knife skills. Throwing Stars we're good for, but knives.....

Keep feeding that llama Napoleon......

:hmm:

[TheInquisitor]

If it's any help to you, I joined aged 18, and had 2 police cautions on my record from my early teenage years. The interviewing officers hardly batted an eyelid.

The one thing you must NOT do is try to hide them or dismiss them in any way, as this would call your integrity into question - a definite bar to joining.

[AliasBoris]

You're nicked, Sunshine!

You now have a criminal conviction. Stop whinging. You freely admitted the offence. It was not beaten out of you by Saddam Hussein's henchmen whilst they tried to slice off your foreskin with a rusty old razor blade.

A CRB check done by the RAF / MOD will disclose your conviction.

You are NOT a suitable character for RAF service.

Try the Army. Particularly the Infantry. They will train you even more in unsuitable traits, whether on duty or in the NAAFI. Many successful trainees go on to become muggers, thugs, robbers, wife beaters, and even killers of innocent people in sandy places. See various media in recent years for case histories. Phone ex Col Mendonca for a first hand report of how some of his troops really went OTT, and then lied about it at Court Martial.

[Tigs2]

You need to ask the help of a solicitor first. Is the title of your thread correct? Have you been found guilty of a criminal offence? I don't know what a caution means. If your brother threw the knife over the fence, why did he not take the rap?


trusted the police

You may have already learnt the lesson, but never ever EVER trust the police. There are many who frequent here, but sadly it is a fact of life. Never ever tell them anything, and never under any circumstances however much they may try and persuade you, talk to them without a solicitor at your side.

Good luck

Research under the 'Rehabilitation of offenders act' to see if a caution is included.

ps As he types quicker than me Everything Inquisitor said in the last bit of his post.

[clicker]

Yes as Tig2 has stated some of us that work for the police do linger here.

Although I'm a civvie and therefore not fully aware of the legal side or proceedings I can say that yes an offence was committed.

However that said it the few similar cases that I've seen have ended up with the officer giving words of advice and in a few cases where idiots have been shooting air pellets at wildlife had the weapon taken away.

My first reaction is that either Mr A does equal Mr A-Hole or the PPS have taken it further and beyond the control of the police officer in order to get a detection, although words of advice should have done that anyway I believe.

Any self respecting officer should have gone back to Mr A and said "We've dealt with the matter, hard luck, piss off"

How old is your brother? If he's under 18 I can understand why you where the subject of the investigation as you would have been deemed the adult. If over then, as already mentioned, he should have the one spoken too.

Also while I understand what you say about the knife throwing, what’s in the catapulting?

In the back of my mind I can't help but think there's more to this than has been told so far to have made the PPS act as they have.

.

[Tigs2]

So is there anymore Tuscarora? Still don't talk to the police!!:ok::ok:

[tuscarora]

Aye I learnt my lesson about trusting the police, won't be doing that again anytime soon.

Well let's see, more details. My younger brother is under 18 although my mother was present so I don't know where the onus of responsibility lies there.

The charges were nothing to do with the knife going over the fence - he was 'in fear' which apparently is the same as walking up and breaking someone's face for them these days.

As for the catapault, I shot it at the can which was on the ground against the fence, and shot it into the field behind my house. The police said please could I shoot it into the field although it wasn't illegal to shoot it at my own fence. They threatened me with the Vagrancy Act, saying that basically means that you can't do anything on your own property if the police don't like it. It wasn't a problem because I didn't mind complying with their requests (still trusting at this stage).

On receiving my court summons I found that Mr. A had claimed that I had 'turned round, looked at him and shot the catapault at him'. This was never put to me in the interview, and I was unaware of this allegation until the court date. No supporting statements were taken regarding this incident. The police asked me questions like, 'Do you own a catapault?', 'Does it have yellow bands?', 'Did you fire it on the day in question?'. If they'd asked me directly had that happened I would have been very angry and had witnesses to support me, perhaps would have caught Mr. A out on a lie.

The police should have told him to wise up, they know what he's like. They took the path of least resistance because they knew he would kick up a fuss and his daddy's a policeman dontyaknow, he's just twisted the law because his dad knows the tricks. Oh for more info the neighbours have an 'incident log' about him, a copy of which is stored at the police station. In the possession of the officer that dealt with me.

It might be worth noting too that my 'caution' involved a police seargent coming to the house, getting me to sign a bit of paper then saying "You know we could have had all this sorted out 6 months ago hardeharhar" at which point I and my family confronted him about the ongoing harassment from Mr. A towards everyone else who lives in the street. He scarpered right and sharpish mumbling somethin about 'only bein able to deal with one case at a time mumble gotta er mumble hear my squad car calling.. or something...'

I wasn't 'cautioned' in words for my behaviour because I had already ceased and desisted. They didn't warn me or give me any pointers on my behaviour. I've never carried a knife and obeyed everything the police wanted me to do. That wasn't enough for Mr. A, he wanted to see me hammered, and the lazy police just screwed me over because I trusted them.

[AdanaKebab]

It all sounds very close together and quite a rough neighbourhood.
Have you thought about joining the Infantry.

The RAF should only accept individuals whose home address is 48MILES from the next house and whose convictions include accidents with shotguns not broken over the arm correctly brought by the neighbour whose daddy is the Chief Constable.;)

[bwfg3]

A word of advice here...a caution IS a conviction. I was old and wise enough to know this (and I was cunning enough to smuggle a mobile into the cell to get advice off a mate who is a copper) when I was arrested for assaulting my neighbour. The ONLY defence for hitting someone is self defence. Police officers are often lazy and go for the easiest target to obtain convictions. In my case my noisy, irritating and drunk neighbour attacked me and ended up with two broken wrists.. therefore I must be the guilty party?? I refused a caution,and when I turned up to answer bail, the case was dropped. This was explained as "your witnesses backed you up and it was self defence" So I forced the police to arrest my neighbour, as they had admitted that he'd assaulted me. Apologies for being long winded, but a word of advice.. NEVER trust the police. DO NOT accept cautions if you are in the right and GET YOUR OWN BACK as soon as possible... my neighbour enjoyed writing out a cheque for 800 quid with broken bones, to pay his fine for common assault. Your solicitor must have been as bad as the chimp I was offered, lazy and disinterested. P1 were on the phone to me the next day asking about it.. I told them rather forcibly to keep their nose out, but it proves that the mil system will find out, so admit it, dont hide it. You dont need to live in a rough area to have morons on the doorstep, however my neighbour has sorted his drink problem out now as he cant take the p1ss taking in the pub! I'm sure that the RAF wont hold this against you, so admit ti it , but learn from this, if you are in the right, dont admit to being in the wrong.

[Rigger1]

I don't think a caution would matter, however one word of advice, if you think civvie police are bad, when you get in, never ever ever trust an RAF copper. Avoid them like at all costs, once you are on their radar they will get you for something, even if it is totally fabricated.

[NRU74]

tuscarora
I think what you have is a Conviction not a Caution. Courts don't issue Cautions, these are given by the police under the rules laid down in Home Office Circular 30/05 and are either verbal or written Cautions.These should not be confused with the 'Caution' given to a suspect both on arrest and again prior to a taped interview.
You've probably been sentenced by a District Judge to a Conditional Discharge although you don't seem to know for what offence - so - either go to, or write to the Mags Ct, and ask for a Memorandum of Conviction [it'll cost you 50p or £1] so then at least you'll know what you pleaded to.
How does this affect you joining the RAF ? No idea ...but you must level with them and declare it.
Good luck

[StopStart]

I still think your future lies in Ninja assassination duties.

[BlackIsle]

A caution does show as a criminal record as such it is essential you declare it. I would be extremely surprised if it alone would preclude you joining if you have aptitude for whatever it is you want to do and you are good at your interview. Try not to get another one though!


ps wouldn't recommend putting details of your proceedings and thoughts about it on a web site

[November4]

What was the Caution for?

As you mention that there was something about putting him in fear, I am guessing that it ws Section 4 of the Public Order Act?

A person is guilty of an offence if he -

a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked

If it was this then - you need a much better lawyer!! For this you have to have the intention of causing immediate fear of violence. As you say, the knife went over the fence accidently then you did not intend the neighbour to fear.

To be honest either there is more to this than you have said, which I suspect is the case, or....it is another case of the police chaisng targets for detections. By you accepting a Police caution (and that would not go court nor would a court issue a Caution) then the officer has something to show for the hours of work that they have put in investigating the complaint. If you refused a caution then they would either have to charge you and take you to court or would drop the case.

Either way - you do not go to court to get a Police Caution. The idea of a caution is that it does not clog up courts with minor cases.

Cautions (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/)



A caution is a warning given by the police to adults who admit they are guilty of an (often first-time) minor offence, such as vandalism or petty theft. A caution acts as a first official warning and deterrent to anyone from getting involved in crime.

Simple cautions
A 'simple caution' - previously known as a formal caution - is used to deal quickly and simply with those who commit less serious crimes. It aims to divert these kind of offenders away from appearing in court and to reduce the likelihood of them offending again.

If you are given a simple caution you will be officially warned about the unacceptability of your behaviour, and the likely consequences if you commit any further crimes will be explained to you.

The main aim of a simple caution is to prevent offenders reoffending. So if you offend again, you're likely to be charged with the crime instead of getting a second caution unless:

the second offence is a minor offence unrelated to the first
two years or more have elapsed since the original offence
When do police use simple cautions?
Police can only issue a simple caution if:

there's evidence an offender is guilty
the offender is eighteen years of age or over
the offender admits they committed the crime
the offender agrees to be given a caution – if the offender does not agree to receive a caution then they may be charged instead
There are no rigid rules about the particular situations in which cautions should be used – this is at the discretion of senior police officers.

The only exception to this is for indictable-only offences - these are the more serious crimes like robbery - which must always be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Will a simple caution go on my criminal record?
A simple caution is not a criminal conviction, but it will be recorded on the police database and may be considered in court if you are tried for another offence.

The record will remain on the police database along with photographs, fingerprints and any other samples taken at the time.

The decision to give a caution is down to either a Police Sgt or Inspector unless it is a more serious offence when the CPS would be involved. A mgistrate is not involved in the decision. It the case goes before a magistrate then either the caution is not suitable for the offence, has been refused by the suspect or no full admission (Officer, if you say I did it then I must have as I was drunk at the time.....despite best efforts, this is not a full admission!). The you are charged or summonsed for the offence and will go before the magistrate who will decided the punishment if they find you guilty and it won't be a caution you get.

OK just seen your reply, seems to be a case of getting the suspect to admit to an offence, give a caution....Detected crime! However more to this than it seems to my mind.

As for you reporting a possible offence....Harassment...and the Sgt ignoring it. Give their Proffessional Standards dept a ring and quote National Crime Recording Standards at them in particular

2.1 All reports of incidents, whether from victims, witnesses or third parties and whether crime related or not, will result in the registration of an incident report by the police.

[bjcc]

November4

The original post says the Caution was for common assault, which it could well be given the circumstances discribed.

The Met Police definition of assault is:

"The intentional application of force to the person of another, without thier consent, or the threat of such force, by act or gesture, if the person threatening has, or the person threatened believes that he has the present ability to effect that purpose"

While thats not word for word what it says in the Offences Against the Person Act, it is a good way of defining the offence.

The original post goes on to say that, there is some suggestion of pointing a catapult at the victim, that would be common assault, as not only has the person threatening got the present ability, but the person threatened would believe that he has.

I can't see how the throwing of a knife by other person has any barring on a caution for common assault. Clearly it going over a fence by accident is not an intentional application of force.

Like you, I was suprised at the circumstances discribed after that point. A decision is made as to the disposal of the case, and that decision is then stuck too. If the orginal decision is to caution, then a refusal to accept that, used to lead to no further action. Once charged though a back track to a caution is not possible. Again, the story gets a little more clouded, as it is apparent there had been a first apperence before the Magistrates.

I think you're right, there is more to this than has been said.

[dallas]

The Prosecution need a witness to say you threw the knife that Mr A took offence to. Otherwise, unless you admitted it to a Police officer - and he recorded it in his notebook (or he had a witness) - it is hearsay.

Don't know what your 'attack dog' lawyer cost, but you'd have been better paying me.

[bjcc]

dallas

No, the prosecution don't need at witness other than the victim.

Nor is an admission made to a police officer hearsay.

[dallas]

He said the victim was the other side of the fence, so nobody saw him chuck a knife - a point proven by the fact that it was apparently his brother!

And an admission to a Police office must be recorded if it needs to be relied upon in court, although I grant you even unrecorded would have some weight.

[bjcc]

Apparently not no. Thats is the point in investigation. The fact remains that an independent witness is not required.

However, is that the act which led to the caution? I think not, the act of throwing a knife and it missing it's intended target landing near someone else, does not support a charge of assault. No intentional application of force, or threat involved. And more so, as the person cautioned wasn't the person who threw it!

Hence why I pointed out that the catapult part is probably the cause of the outcome. It does fit the evidence required for common assault, the knife part does not.

[StopStart]

Sounds like a job for Judge Judy.

[November4]

Sorry missed the bit about the caution being for an assault.

It is true that the contact does not have to be made for the assault - but PNLD (Police National Legal Database) does say that if no contact has been made then consideration should be given to the actual offence and it maybe that a Sect 4 POA - Fear of Immeadiate Violence is more appropriate (or words to that effect).

Also there is no need for an independant witness if the suspect admits that he did it. That is the whole point of a Caution...the suspect agrees that he has done wrong and accepts a "warning". If the suspect does notmake an admission then the caution is not appropriate.

If you are offered a caution and refuse then it is either No Further Action or you are off to the magistrates. An example of this is the lady who walloped the lad who she thought had damaged the war memorial near Bristol - she was offered a caution, refused it and is off to Magistrates. Once refused - it is not re-offered later. As an aside - she wants to plead not guilty yet has admitted hitting him on live TV and in various newspaper articles!

[tuscarora]

The whole thing is a sorry mess, and I went from being naive and trusting of the police to cynical and a bit more experienced in how these things work.

My common assault is because he was 'in fear' of getting hurt. The fact that I wasn't aware he was there, or in fear, had no intention of doing him any harm has no bearing on it. He says he's scared, or rather, says that twice and makes a statement, pushes all the right buttons, then the police rip me a new one.

I don't know if this has any bearing but at the time I lived in a wee commuter settlement, very quiet, not much crime, not much violence (I've never seen a fight there or anything) and the police station only open 6 hours a week. Also I'd been throwing my knives for several years beforehand without any problems.



Sequence of events with some different detail.

• Day of incident (already been over that one). Cops talked to me, said that I could be arrested under the Vagrancy Act but that wasn't going to happen because I seemed like a reasonable person, and everyone left amicably.
I thought that was the end of it.

• A while later, police come to my door and took me to station for a written interview saying that Mr. A is 'not satisfied with the resolution' of the matter. I am still trusting the police and allow them to stitch me up, not bringing any legal counsel and not asking what the exact allegations are against me, just answering questions. They didn't even have any 'charges' at this time, just asked me questions to make me look as bad as possible. Assured me that this would probably go no further.
I thought that was the end of it.

• They came back to me with the whole 'we want to give you a caution about that' situation. I asked them for a week to think about it, talked to a lawyer and family and friends and other cops that I know, decided to refuse the caution.
My logic was thus; they will come and investigate it properly, see what a gross misunderstanding and abuse of the law this could turn into and drop it, or just drop it without any investigation.
Neither happened. In a few months I received court summons with no further attention having been paid to the incident. Nearly half a year has passed since the day in question at this stage.

• I hire a solicitor, discuss my options and go to preliminary hearing or, argh I can't remember the name. At this time, having looked at my options, my solicitor approaches the magistrate about a binding over. She turns it flat down and I'm left back in the situation of; request a caution or fight the case.
I know this ain't the end of it.

• After some soul-searching and research, as well as finding out the my magistrate likes convicting people rather than neccesarily applying justice, I opt to eat state faeces and request a caution. The contest is cancelled and the PPS agree to caution instead of prosecution. I couldn't risk a conviction barring me from the RAF - it wasn't worth it. I'm glad to know that having this caution isn't going to stop me, so I guess I played the smart move in the end.
I immediately regret it because I think 'oh they musn't have been confident in case then!!!'. But I knew I'd feel bad about it because I'd just pissed all over my own principles.

• The police seargent arrives at my door, and sheepishly gets me to sign my caution, without actually offering any advice or words of warning about future behaviour. He scarpers when we try to see why this was handled so badly, and Mr. A is allowed to continue harassing his neighbours, and now even using the police to do so.

My family has since moved out of there, in large part due to Mr. A's behaviour.

[Tigs2]

You need a lawer to review the whole thing, from what has been said by others re cautions it does not sound like the law has been followed. How long ago was this?

[Pontius Navigator]

Did anybody notice tuscarora's location?

NI.

[November4]

Yes but still same rules apply there as on the mainland - just Scotland that has diferent rules AFAIK

[EdSet100]

On receiving my court summons I found that Mr. A had claimed that I had 'turned round, looked at him and shot the catapault at him'. This was never put to me in the interview, and I was unaware of this allegation until the court date.

I opt to eat state faeces and request a caution. The contest is cancelled and the PPS agree to caution instead of prosecution.

You therefore had the opportunity to defend yourself in court against an allegation made by a person known to the police. His word versus yours. You blew it. It was your decision to accept the caution; not the court's, not the police, not even Mr A's.

You are now trying to join the RAF on a technicality.

Take your knives and catapult and join the circus, sonny.

[Professor Plum]

tuscarora:

Why don't you phone up OASC and get the answer from the horses mouth? I'm sure they'll let you know whether a caution is acceptable or not.

[NRU74]

Well spotted Pontius ... the Tuscarora were Red Indians/Native Americans well versed in tomahawk throwing etc
I digress
The problem you have, tuscarora, is that you now have a Verbal Caution [V/C]
I suspect this won't be a problem with the RAF but it will be a problem if you apply to join any other organisation which is involved with vulnerable people eg Education, NHS, Social Services -- they will all demand a copy of all previous Reprimands/Warnings/Cautions/Convictions etc
This V/C will also affect any future applications for mundane stuff such as House/Car Insurance etc
Unfortunately the damage is done.
The lesson is that everyone needs a Solicitor in all Police Station Interviews either as a 'volunteer' or if under arrest- it is 'free' ie at public expense

[ARINC]

Bit of a shame really seemed well qualified for the underwater knife fighting course at least.

[minigundiplomat]

Mate,

forget the legal stuff, the fact that your hobby is throwing knives leads me to suspect that your more likely to end up joining care in the community, rather than the military community.

Forget playing in the garden with blades, and get a proper hobby like starting arguments online, or drinking until taking all your clothes off is really funny, like the rest of us.

AIDU - Have you been logging on as someone else?

[tuscarora]

It is a 5-year formal caution. I gritted my teeth and signed it. After gritting my eyes and reading it!

The main thing is that it's not a bar to the RAF, that's all that I wanted, and the reason I took it in the first place. Some battles are worth fighting, other times the risk just outweighs the gain. Still sticks in yer throat though.



@ EdSet100 :D

Right mate, I'll tell you what I was thinking - if I get convicted I'll definitely be scuppered for joining the RAF, and just because a neighbour had a vendetta against my family; if I have a caution it isn't a conviction and my information at the time said that it was a police matter, I only recently found it that it's on a criminal record. Again, it was the police that told me that semi-truth about it only being on police computers and not showing up on a background check.

Trying to join the RAF on a technicality? What's that supposed to mean?

Wise up, you're telling me that you have faith in the courts, that they will do things right and apply justice? You think this whole debacle inspired my confidence in the legal system at any point? The law's an ass and I wasn't gambling my future on a magistrate with a reputation for vindictive convictions.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tusc, what exactly are you hoping to do in the RAF?

As someone said earlier, the Army changed its policy a while back to allow young offenders to join.

Your problem is that you are a known criminal with a record whereas you are an unknown prospect in to the system. We have your record on the one hand and your uncorroborated story on the other.

We are a Government body, the police and judiciary are Government bodies; whose word would you give greater credence to? Why take the risk, there are lots more wanabees out there.

I would suspect you will join the discard pile. Sorry.

[dallas]

Sorry to keep popping up with technicalities, but I doubt a caution is regarded as a criminal record as a court hasn't found him guilty, nor has he pleaded so in a court. I suggest he may have a police record, which is slightly different. IIRC an interviewer is obliged to ask what adverse contact a person has had with the police, and while this weights the points, it doesn't make the decision if they're otherwise a good candidate.

[Regie Mental]

A Caution is not a conviction, but it does appear on a criminal record.

To summarise the legal position, three conditions need to be satisfied before a matter can be dealt with by way of caution:

1. the evidence is sufficient to have warranted a prosecution;

2. the offender admits his guilt;

3. the person being cautioned agrees to it being dealt with by caution.

Accordingly, with guilt admitted it is very difficult to have the Caution set aside once administered.

Had the caution not been accepted the matter would either have been dropped or proceeded with to a trial where the neighbour would have attended to give evidence. The solicitor who advised here would have seen the neighbour's statement which may differ from the version given on this thread. I anticipate that the advice given was 'if you do not accept the caution the matter will proceed and having admitted throwing a knife which landed near to someone your chances of acquittal are slim.'

Don't have a scooby how this affects your chances of joining but you need to think long and hard how you answer the questions you'll inevitably get over this.

[Wader2]

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/faqs.cfm

http://www.connexions.gov.uk/partnerships/IcantdothatcanI/avd_cop.htm - scroll down to RAF

[EdSet100]

Trying to join the RAF on a technicality? What's that supposed to mean?


It means that the RAF doesn't want people with criminal records and you are trying to say that you were misled into erroneously pleading guilty by people advising you.

you're telling me that you have faith in the courts, that they will do things right and apply justice? You think this whole debacle inspired my confidence in the legal system at any point? The law's an ass and I wasn't gambling my future on a magistrate with a reputation for vindictive convictions.

I think you've just encapsulated an aspect of your character that the RAF interviewers will be most interested in. I have a friend who is a magistrate. They are given very clear guidance on how to weigh up the evidence presented. Let me guess which part of the community feels that the magistrate is vindictive. I doubt that it would be the law abiding majority.

If an RAF OASC interviewer reads this discussion, as though it was a part of your interview, I would expect him to mark you down. We don't need to take risks. Joining the RAF is no longer (if it ever was) about getting ticks in the right boxes and avoiding the wrong boxes. Yes, sure, its a starting point to sort out the wheat from the chaff but, more importantly, we look for much more than that. There are thousands of young people in the country with squeaky clean lives, just as keen as you, to apply for the ever diminishing places available.

[Regie Mental]

If you'd pleaded Not Guilty the case would have been adjourned and it would be highly likely that you would not have come before the same Magistrate twice.

Further, it's three magistrates who would decide, not one.

What's unclear is why you didn't go for a Bind Over - was this possibility explored?

Finally, it's very rare indeed that you hear Magistrates being criticised for being too harsh. Usually it's the complete opposite (except for Stipendiaries).

[Tigs2]

Ed I think you are being a little hard.

As the WO said to me at my first CIO interview many moons ago 'The battle of britain was not won by angels'!

[tuscarora]

]Let me reiterate; I feel that I had my hand forced into taking that caution, through a combination of shoddy policing and bad luck, and was only slightly misled by the police - but I knew it was an admission of guilt, and it was my decision in the end. I wasn't willing to risk a conviction barring me entry from the RAF, so I made a judgement call.

The caution will count against me, I know that, but it doesn't automatically exclude me and that's what matters. I think I'd be an asset to the RAF, obviously I'm hoping that they'll feel the same! I'm going to do my best at every stage of the application process, and hope I can impress them enough to get my spot on IOT.

The 'part of the community' that feels the magistrate is vindictive were the three solicitors and two police officers I talked to that knew of her, and had dealt with her. There are bad eggs in every walk of life, it's a shame when one gets into a position of power over you, I got unlucky.

I'm not surprised that the courts don't worry you at all EdSet - friends in high places!:}

Thanks Wader2 and FlyingOfficerKite - I had a read of those links, good info.

[StopStart]

Brilliant.

I hope that after all this guff and nonsense you don't fail the aptitude tests.....

:rolleyes: