Accepting a police caution question

[Hiddentext]

My other half accepted a caution for criminal damage to a van a year ago, he felt railroaded into accepting it despite many reservations, but we just wanted it done and gone at the time, never having been in trouble with police before. We now regret not challenging it, without going into too much detail, the people alleging criminal damage waited a month before bringing it to our/police attention, the policeman involved admitted not having seen scratches in person, or seeing proof of payment of repairs. We never saw scratches in person. We are now challenging this as part of a larger complaint/investigation. There is however cctv footage, police will not release CCTV footage used, photos which he said he saw but we never saw, and will not address the point of whether they saw proof of payment for a pretty large amount of money for scratch repair. Does anyone know where we stand on this? Are we wasting our time pursuing a year after event?

Accepting a police caution is effectively pleading guilty in court. That's done and dusted and you'd need a judicial review to undo it.

For all the guff they teach in schools about pronouns and hairstyles, teaching the basis of law and drumming into people that accepting a police caution is just pleading guilty on the cheap (so shows up in DBS check, with all that implies).

It didn't go to court, it was done in a police station if that makes any difference.

He accepted it, pled guilty!

I think that the pp said it’s LIKE pleading guilty, because it is exactly that without going to court (so hence not pleading anything because there is no court to plead to).
Is the issue that your DH is claiming that he in fact wasn’t responsible for criminal damage but just accepted he was to make it go away? That’s not making sense, though maybe it happened.
Surely if the police has CCTV of your husband intentionally damaging property there isn’t much to contest...or am I missing the point of your post?

You are only eligible to receive a caution if you admit the offence.

@Hiddentext

It didn't go to court, it was done in a police station if that makes any difference.

That's the whole point - to avoid court.

Only as you have sadly found out in hindsight, it's the same as going to court and pleading guilty. Done and dusted. Unless you can get a judicial review. And quite aside from the expense of that, you'd need to have grounds other that "I don't like it now.".

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cautioning-and-diversion

Yeah, he'd only have been able to accept a caution if he admitted his guilt. If he's saying he's innocent, that he told the police this at the time and as such he has been essentially unlawfully convicted, that's a different ballgame.

Has he got a copy of the record of interview?

@SoddingWeddings

Yeah, he'd only have been able to accept a caution if he admitted his guilt. If he's saying he's innocent, that he told the police this at the time and as such he has been essentially unlawfully convicted, that's a different ballgame.

Has he got a copy of the record of interview?

Part of the problem is that the police don't have to show that the suspect understood what they were being told. They only have to show they explained to them. And unless you are used to dealing with the police, it can be very hard to fathom exactly what they mean. (Why do you think the caution comes as a preset text ?).

There isn't a set text for offering a caution. So the police will say that "if you accept a caution, it won't go to court" (which is true). However they don't have to explain that it's the same as pleading guilty in a court. So most suspects - grateful to get home for the match or whatever - just say "Yes", sign the form and skip off home.

There has been repeated concern over the use of cautions over the years. Both because they are used to leverage a suspect to accept (which is case closed for the police) but also because they have been used inappropriately - for very serious offences. Bearing in mind once accepted, it's very difficult to then try to seek a harsher punishment which can be a let down for a victim.

@ProfessorSlocombe if he denied it in interview, he wouldn't have been eligible for a caution. That's the main crux.

Did he cause criminal damage to the van?

He obviously did the damage, if he "accepted" the caution. What's his beef with it now? Has he just understood the ramifications?
Tough, really. He did it, he accepted the caution, it's done.

[quote SoddingWeddings]@ProfessorSlocombe if he denied it in interview, he wouldn't have been eligible for a caution. That's the main crux.[/quote]

He may have thought he denied it. Which isn't the same thing, I'm afraid.

The polices main job is to police and that means convictions. It can be a lucky day when they get the right person or that a case is decided properly.

He may have thought he denied it. Which isn't the same thing, I'm afraid.
Can you explain that?

He may have thought he denied it but because he signed the caution it’s an admission of guilt. He will have a criminal record on the local police database and PNC. The outcome is the same as if he had attended court and been found guilty - he has just bypassed that part of the process and police have an easy win.

the people alleging criminal damage waited a month before bringing it to our/police attention, the policeman involved admitted not having seen scratches in person, or seeing proof of payment of repairs. We never saw scratches in person.

All points which you should have brought up at the time. In any case, your other half has admitted the offence and it’s considered dealt with now.

He cut down a shrub, which we were told a month later had done £800 worth of scratches by falling on the van.
Yes all the points were raised at the time, but I guess when you haven't been in trouble before you're like a deer caught in the headlights and have to make a decision. Thanks for responses it is as I suspected too late to change, lesson learned.

He cut down a shrub, which we were told a month later had done £800 worth of scratches by falling on the van.

Did it fall in the van? Did it cause damage? I mean he must have known, he was there, cutting it down.

Sounds like he's bang to rights, tbh.

@ChickenwingChickenwing

He cut down a shrub, which we were told a month later had done £800 worth of scratches by falling on the van.

Did it fall in the van? Did it cause damage? I mean he must have known, he was there, cutting it down.

All of which is irrelevant to a charge of criminal damage. Which presupposes an intent to do the damage, or that it occurred in the course of a criminal act.

Sounds to me like this is the almost poster child for "It's a civil matter sir/madam".

I'm suspecting there's a backstory here. Certainly some significant facts have been omitted.

I'd never go as far as to say no one should ever accept a caution. But there have been a few times when people have refused and nothing more has happened. The CPS don't automatically prosecute if you decline - they have their own criteria for prosecution.

In this case - given what's been posted - if the OPs DH had refused, then it would have been up to the police to pass the details to the CPS who would have decided whether to proceed or not and there isn't the evidence to go to court.

But that's hindsight.

All of which is irrelevant to a charge of criminal damage. Which presupposes an intent to do the damage, or that it occurred in the course of a criminal act.

Sorry, my mistake, I did not know this. I was just trying to find out if he did it or not, I thought that was the relevant point

Sorry, my mistake, I did not know this. I was just trying to find out if he did it or not, I thought that was the relevant point

Not really. Why would anyone ever waste time with a trial then ?

It's possible the OPs DH did damage a van in the course of felling a shrub. Shit happens. But unless he was spectacularly reckless (and that is an important word) then it's an accident and they just need to make good the damage - usually by paying to repair it. It's almost as far removed from being a police matter as retweeting a limerick.

The fact the police have decided to wade in suggests that it was a slow crime day in the OPs area, or there's more to this than we are being told. It would have to start with the van owners kicking up some sort of stink and giving the police enough prima facia evidence that the OPs DH intended the damage.

Yes there is Back story which I don't feel able to go into publicly. But no damage to van was not intended, and didn't happen at time of shrub being cut by partner, but later, allegedly. Without going into Back story we know it was engineered. I appreciate it's difficult for you to assess without Back story so I'm happy to leave it there for now and accept it as a lesson learned.

Not really. Why would anyone ever waste time with a trial then ?

I acknowledged my mistake.

And yes we must have slow crime days here because later in June my partner was arrested by same officer for theft of a pencil placed on our land, by same people, I kid you not, it's only just been discharged as "not in public interest" to pursue.

Obviously there are neighbour issues. For him to have pleaded guilty he must have meant to damage the van , no matter what he is now saying. Otherwise you'd just say it was an accident and arrange to pay for any damage,