Criminal Damage Investigation - Need your help!

[Pale Rider]

But the caution the OP will get is the same as a person who was throwing missiles at the Police during a demonstration, or fighting in a pub, or threatening people in the street.

If he applies, and that shows on a check, will he even get the interview to have the opportunity to explain that he wasn't throwing bricks at the police?

That could happen, but a caution is not disclosable in the same way.

Anyone who does see the caution is likely to assume it was for a relatively minor offence of its type.

The OP can truthfully answer 'no' to the question about criminal convictions which crops up on insurance application forms, and probably in other circumstances which I can't bring to mind.

Whichever way you look at it, a caution is far preferable to a conviction for the same offence.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

That could happen, but a caution is not disclosable in the same way.

Anyone who does see the caution is likely to assume it was for a relatively minor offence of its type.

The OP can truthfully answer 'no' to the question about criminal convictions which crops up on insurance application forms, and probably in other circumstances which I can't bring to mind.

Whichever way you look at it, a caution is far preferable to a conviction for the same offence.

A caution is treated as instantly spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, unless it is conditional, where it becomes spent once the conditions have been met.

However, if it is his ONLY offence, and the work is exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act, then he MUST declare it for the next 6 years.

 

[mr_cellophane]

A caution could be an issue for the OP if he applies for Security Clearance. That is something he might have to go through for another job, or even if his present employer wishes to tender for work on a restricted site (there are plenty around that most people might think would be OK)
He just needs to be honest though and admit to everything as that is the key thing that is checked, not past behaviour.

 

[russ.will]

FFS, Pale Rider understands exactly the issues at stake. Stop debating them whether it's a black/white right/wrong issue of principle. It's not, because the world doesn't work like that. If you think that's wrong when you're in my position and want to stick it to 'the man' then go knock yourself out. Enjoy the feeling of righteousness and then be prepared to pay for the privilege!

Just to knock a couple of points of debate on the head as of now:

1. My employer couldn't give a flying toss. My FD said he was surprised I didn't punch the bloke. That's two of us then.

2. The rugby club can't see a problem either and I've run it by the bloke who did my CRB check. Plenty of parents have heard the story - and I have recounted the statements I made in the course of the incident based on what the video reminded me of - during conversation over post match/training beer, multiple times. Comments ranged from 'you twat' to 'why didn't you punch him'. Because that would be wrong, is my oft repeated explanation. No matter, I've been up front about it and nobody is concerned, nor raised a complaint to the club.

These debates are over.

Russell

 

[raleighnut]

FFS, Pale Rider understands exactly the issues at stake. Stop debating them whether it's a black/white right/wrong issue of principle. It's not, because the world doesn't work like that. If you think that's wrong when you're in my position and want to stick it to 'the man' then go knock yourself out. Enjoy the feeling of righteousness and then be prepared to pay for the privilege!

Just to knock a couple of points of debate on the head as of now:

1. My employer couldn't give a flying toss. My FD said he was surprised I didn't punch the bloke. That's two of us then.

2. The rugby club can't see a problem either and I've run it by the bloke who did my CRB check. Plenty of parents have heard the story - and I have recounted the statements I made in the course of the incident based on what the video reminded me of - during conversation over post match/training beer, multiple times. Comments ranged from 'you twat' to 'why didn't you punch him'. Because that would be wrong, is my oft repeated explanation. No matter, I've been up front about it and nobody is concerned, nor raised a complaint to the club.

These debates are over.

Russell

I'd have shoved his 'dash-cam up his 'jacksie' as well..............................

 

[swansonj]

..,,
These debates are over.

Russell

I admire your optimism, given that this is CycleChat we're talking about....

 

[jefmcg]

I still wish you were taking legal advice from a lawyer who had seen the video and read your statement , rather than from pale rider , but you are an adult .

 

[Pale Rider]

I still wish you were taking legal advice from a lawyer who had seen the video and read your statement , rather than from pale rider , but you are an adult .

Thanks for the vote of (no) confidence.

Russ has taken legal advice - he watched the vid with the duty solicitor.

This case is not that complicated, it's a serious matter for Russ and like any job, needs to be done properly, but it doesn't need Rumpole of the Bailey.

He could add nothing to it - apart from a large bill.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Thanks for the vote of (no) confidence.

Take umbrage if you like, but I do not think that is what most us are saying, only the duty solicitor has seen the video along with Russ, (unless of course he has forwarded you a copy unbeknown to everybody else) was he fully qualified in this aspect of the law to give a definitive answer? Either way Russ has made his mind up so that is the end of the matter.

 

[Pale Rider]

Take umbrage if you like, but I do not think that is what most us are saying, only the duty solicitor has seen the video along with Russ, (unless of course he has forwarded you a copy unbeknown to everybody else) was he fully qualified in this aspect of the law to give a definitive answer? Either way Russ has made his mind up so that is the end of the matter.

No umbrage from me, it was an attempt at (sarcastic) humour.

There is no definitive answer, decisions by Russ on how to proceed are subjective, taken within the rigid framework of the law and police/court procedure.

As I've remarked before in this type of thread, a lot of it comes down to tactics, the best tactician will generally come out ahead, without exactly winning.

Most punters don't understand the game, not least because they've never played or even watched it.

The playing field is levelled by a competent, experienced solicitor.

There are very few out and out duffers, in that job any weaknesses are quickly and publicly exposed, so they don't last long.

On the other side, a competent, experienced copper is a worthy adversary, as is a competent, experienced prosecution lawyer.

 

[russ.will]

I still wish you were taking legal advice from a lawyer who had seen the video and read your statement , rather than from pale rider , but you are an adult .

I did. She was sitting next to me watching it and whilst the statement was taken. Twice, the copper stepped out of the room whilst I consulted her about answers to questions.

I'm comfortable with this. In the grand scheme of things, this is merely a buggeration, nothing more.

Russ

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

Since Russ has already said he considers the debate over, this looks like a good point to bring the thread to a close.