Husband accepted police action on behalf of his wife

[FictionalCharacter]

This story is about the police officer's misconduct. But surely it isn't right for a husband to sign this paperwork on behalf of his wife?!

If the plod came to my house when I was out to accuse me of something, I'd expect DH to tell them to get lost come back when I'm home, not sign something to accept that I'm guilty of a crime.

What story?

I cannot imagine that he could unless his spouse does not have mental capacity and he has some kind of courtordet to act on her behalf. If it is true if Inwas her I would be going nuclear.

Is this driving related and he is the registered owner of the car?

What's the crime the woman is accused of?

Is this in the UK?

For some reason the link didn't appear, though it did in the preview. Trying again

Hm, it still didn't work. The report is from Leicestershire: Officer committed misconduct over mushroom foraging report.
The officer lied, said he'd talked to the woman and she accepted a community resolution.

Officer committed misconduct over mushroom foraging report
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn82jqwl1jlo

That's really surreal, had he been reading too much about the Australian case and decided to act illegally thinking she was about to poison her husband??

At least it was picked up on. Don't know why the husband signed it either.

Thank you @BeautifulSongsofLove . No idea why I couldn't post the link - I've posted plenty before with no problems.

Of course it isn't right.

That's why the officer was guilty of gross misconduct.

My guess is the husband thought he was signing to say he’d received the papers (like signing for a parcel).

As you say, he can’t accept guilt for someone else.

Having said that, a lot of people don’t seem to realise that by accepting a caution / community resolution order, they are accepting they are guilty of whatever the offence is.

I'm not sure what your point is, OP.

There's no question about it not being right that the husband signed the papers: his wife should have done so, not him, but that's what the hearing was about. The (ex) officer would have been sacked if he hadn't already resigned.

The husband behaved a bit oddly in signing for his wife. He surely knew that wasn't right? But we weren't there & didn't hear the conversations.

And the woman was wrong to pick the mushrooms because you don't pick flowers and plants in parks, most definitely not when they are areas of Special Scientific Interest, as this one was.

No, it was alleged she was mushroom picking in a SSSI - which is illegal. She says she didn’t pick any mushrooms but accepts she travelled to the site to do so which means he did have cause to serve the CPO.

The officer’s misconduct was leaving the documents with the husband and lying about speaking to the wife and her accepting guilt, not in trying to serve the order to begin with.

Ah OK.

I read this somewhere, shocking, but not surprising we have another bent copper. I agree the husband thought he was signing to accept the papers not to admit his wife’s guilt. If the police officer had explained what he was signing for I’m sure he wouldn’t have. The officer didn’t do anything legitimately, and even the mushroom picker didn’t know she had a police record, the press picking up the story and subsequent investigation discovered it.

The real issue surely is what the bent copper did, not the actions of the dippy husband who was probably manipulated or coerced into signing these forms?

Too late for me to edit my post but I’ve read another article now, and I think the police did explain to the husband about what the offence was and he signed to say she wouldn’t go back in the park. So clearly Bent Copper was not only bent and lazy but a misogynist too.

Mad mushroom lady identifies on her website as Cis Bi and married to a Cis Het with an interest in fungi so I’ll leave it here.

Yes that is literally the whole point of the story and why he was found guilty of gross misconduct and would have been sacked if he hadn't already resigned.

My first thought when I read this story yesterday was how livid I would be with my husband if he started signing paperwork on my behalf, let alone something so significant.

The husband probably just signed the paperwork to get the copper to leave.

As an aside, if I had dealings with this particular police officer - victim or offender - I would request a copy of all my information held on me. If they were slap dash and lazy with this insignificant offence - what else hasn’t been filed in an accurate manner?

I'm thinking about the actions of the husband, not the officer.

If a plod came to my house when my husband wasn't in, and suggested I should sign something that admits his guilt and agrees what he would or wouldn't do in future, I would absolutely refuse.

But I think we all know that the police wouldn't get a wife to sign something on behalf of a man behind his back.

Ah, sorry, misunderstood.

I think it depends what went down. If the officer said "All right mate, since she isn't here, don't suppose you could just sign these to say your old ball and chain accepts it, so I can go back to the gaff and have a cuppa." (or some more plausible version ), then yes, that's outrageous.

But if he said something more along the lines of "You're wife's not really in trouble. It's just a notice. Could you sign here to say I visited and left the papers for her?" then not so much.

Lots of people feel intimidated by uniformed police so don't question what they're told. And the average reading age of adults in the UK is supposedly around 10 yrs old. So he may not have understood what he was really signing, even if he read it all.

Why are you making an assumption that the police officer who was fired for gross misconduct presented the situation accurately to the husband?

It will be the picture. MN need to approve them.

I think you're right @RawBloomers .