A question of a criminal nature
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NI
Age: 38
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question of a criminal nature
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?
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?
Champagne anyone...?
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......
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......
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
trusted the police
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hove
Age: 72
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NI
Age: 38
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Awaiting Redundancies
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ooop north
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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
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
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
ps wouldn't recommend putting details of your proceedings and thoughts about it on a web site
Last edited by BlackIsle; 10th Feb 2008 at 09:51. Reason: add ps
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
Last edited by November4; 10th Feb 2008 at 12:20.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Don't know what your 'attack dog' lawyer cost, but you'd have been better paying me.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.