To tell you never to accept a caution?

[brasty]

Or at least not without legal advice.

The police often offer cautions in cases where they know there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction. So if you refuse a caution in these cases, the case will simply be dropped. The caution is offered so that the police can officially say the crime has been cleared and dealt with. But many people accept cautions when they are innocent, because of fear of going to court.

bratsy I've worked in a domestic unit and have seen men get away with no criminal convictions. But I don't think for a second a woman should get away from seriously assaulting her husband, particularly when he has contacted the police. And many many forces don't allow people to "withdraw charges". We certainly don't in Scotland.

Out of interest, would you have had the same opinion if the poster was a man and had injured his partner?

Queenie I agree that is retaliation. Obviously policeman was in the wrong.

Butchy I think everyone including guilty people should have legal advice. In some cases that will mean accepting a caution.

So do I.

But it's one thing being advised in a legal setting by one's solicitor about accepting a caution. And a completely different thing being advised by a poster on an online message board to potentially not accept a caution if you are guilty (but the evidence isn't there).

One might just as easily say, if you are a fundamentally decent person who knows that you have done wrong/committed a crime, then you should accept the caution irrespective of what evidence there is.

Butchy Read my post, not just the heading, that is what I say.

Butchy Read my post, not just the heading, that is what I say.

I read your post. What are you talking about?

bratsy regarding the poster who hurt her H, would you have had the same opinion for a man who had hurt his partner that badly?

That badly. Honestly I deal with families where women, and occasionally men, that have been treated like absolute shit by their partners. And trying to get justice for them can be hard. Nobody should be hurt by their partner, but I see women who are at risk of being murdered if they do not get away.
So no I do not think he was hurt "that badly".

He had to go to hospital. So because you have seen people get away with worse then no one should be made to be accountable to their actions.

When I return to work after my days I will be allocated new cases. I think I will call them and say "suck it up, there are people being assaulted/robbed/de frauded worse than you".

Hmmmm I'm thinking that's not how it works, is it.

No of course not. I am bridling at your phrase - that badly. Obviously a crime is a crime.

I haven't read the full thread but I think OP is right here.

Many young (men) particularly have accepted cautions and they do not realise that this goes against them as a criminal record.

If they are ever subject to an enhanced clearance for anything by DBS (used to be CRB) then this will show. It causes major issues for young people wanting to go into careers like teaching.

and to clarify I don't mean that I don't think that a caution should ever be accepted just that the person being offered one should take legal advice first.

I'm gonna have to google what "bridling" means. But I'm astounded a poster has minimised domestic violence so much, particularly when they are at pains to say how much experience they have in that field.

When does an injury become serious in your opinion?

Yes exactly, if innocent never accept a caution. If guilty, take legal advice first.

and to clarify I don't mean that I don't think that a caution should ever be accepted just that the person being offered one should take legal advice first.

I'd be curious to know what the stats are for %age of cautions accepted after legal advice set against %age accepted without legal advice ? Because hand-in-hand with the advice to never accept a caution is the equally good advice to never talk to the police without a legal representative .....

Lots of innocent and naive people do talk to the police without legal representation. Because they think, I am innocent so it is fine. Not realising how what they say me miscontrued or misunderstood.

Well, if they choose to do that then that is their choice as long as they understand what they are doing.

Young people are notoriously bad at seeing consequences for their actions. Arrested late at night or out where they shouldn't have been it is easy to see how someone would want to get the whole thing over with, worrying about the short term consequences (parents, employer, child care) rather than the longer term consequences (DRB checks in the future).

Lots of innocent and naive people do talk to the police without legal representation. Because they think, I am innocent so it is fine. Not realising how what they say me miscontrued or misunderstood.

With the caveat that the US legal system is backstopped by the Constitution, and the UK doesn't have anything as plain and simple as the 4th and 5th amendments video lecture is well worth watching and remembering. All you really need to know is that no attorney would risk themselves talking to the police without representation.

I'm usually a silent reader - but on this occasion I just had to put fingers to keyboard!

Some of the comments I've read are absolute twaddle and that's me using restraint!

Firstly, contrary to what has been said cautions are used by the police if there is enough evidence to charge the person. However, if the offence is relatively low level stuff and usually if it's the first time the offender has been arrested then a caution is offered as an alternative to court.

Secondly, cautions aren't convictions - they are supposed to be expunged from police records after 5 years. You don't have to declare them on job applications unless specifically asked if you have had a caution.

I know people who have been arrested for offences where there is more than sufficient evidence and potentially carries a prison sentence; and with the right solicitor representing you the offence has been down-graded. Meaning a caution has been offered and accepted thus eliminating the risk of a prison sentence at court.

The plain fact of the matter is if you find yourself at the police station whether you're innocent or guilty the best thing to do is to get a solicitor to represent you at the police station. This is a service offered to all who are arrested at the police station when arrested and is still FREE.

Finally the reason is know this is because I represented hundreds of clients at the police station as a criminal defence lawyer.

ENOUGH SAID!!

For once it feels like the defence lawyers and the police are working together to dispel the myths!
Good innit! We’re all saying the same thing!

Apart from me as I have no idea how cautions work as I'm in Scotland! Haven't been able to add my tuppence worth in about that!

the US legal system is backstopped by the Constitution, and the UK doesn't have anything as plain and simple as the 4th and 5th amendments

The UK doesn't have a written constitution at all ... something which some of us feel we're sorely in need of

Firstly, contrary to what has been said cautions are used by the police if there is enough evidence to charge the person.

Yes, that's what the guidelines and press officers say. But in the real world there are people who have refused cautions and not been prosecuted - suggesting there wasn't enough evidence to start with.

All of this is maybe interesting froth on the cappuccino. Perhaps part of the problems is we have so many laws growing annually which the police have to enforce with resources shrinking annually ?

The nasty truth is we can have the laws we can afford.

lurking I have reported cases numerous times where prosecutions haven't followed and there has been sufficiency of evidence. It is not a sign that there wasn't enough evidence in the first place.

@foodiefil - it’s five years ago now so the caution is spent and as i will be retiring in four years time, i doubt that it will have a significant impact on my job prospects. I did complain to the police subsequently about how it was handled because the arresting officer told me the police take harassment seriously because it ‘leads to murder’. I asked why called someone ‘a f*cking slag’ is evidence of plotting to murder them and why, if they thought that, they didn’t advise my husband’s girlfriend to stay away from me instead of telling me she had the right to walk wherever she wanted. I didn’t dispute that she had this right but sometimes you have to use your common sense! But of course she wanted to provoke. Eventually i had an interview with a sargent and was able to prove, by dint of the electoral roll, that she had lied to police when she told them she was moving to Exeter and had in fact bought a property with my ex-husband in swansea. He was a bit sheepish and agreed that they had gone over the top and that it would be ‘handled differently nowadays’. Didn’t help, as far as i am concerned. I have no confidence in the police. I think they just want to bully law-abiding middle-aged women like me whose taxes pay their salaries rather than tackling violent criminals. How anyone who works with the general public could be as naive as the ones who fell for my husband’s girlfriend’s lies is beyond me. I would have expected a bit more healthy cynicism and common sense.