Police final warning.....HELP please

[FHCNICK]

folks,

Bit long winded but a friend of mine's 15 year old son was arrested for ABH a few weeks ago, this lad had been present at a scuffle of a minor nature but 2 months after the event a lad accused 2 people of assault and a couple of the bystanders too.

My mates lad had apparently (backed up by witness statements) hit this other lad over the head with a long piece of grass :( yes grass you know the ones that have the seeds on the end.

Anyway the police after interviews have decided to give this lad a "final warning" (apparently 1 up from a caution) and have taken mug shots, fingerprints and DNA samples.

Now i maybe wrong but this seems severe to say the least, the lad has never been in trouble before and is worried sick over this incident (he wants to join the army and thinks this will go against him).

My initial response was that i would strongly suggest to my mate that she doesn't accept the warning and tells the police to prosecute but i'm no expert and don't want to give bad advise.

any thoughts?

regards
Nick

[princeperch]

id say take it and learn from it, most employers only ask if youve been convicted of a criminal offence in the past 5 years (or in persuance with the rehabilitation of offenders act), and what he has is not a conviction.

If his joining the army at 18 then no probs as I think these drop off at this point. If his joining at 16 id make a few enquiries as to what the disclosure demanded at application is..

[FHCNICK]

thanks for the responses, i guess it wouldn't be the end of the world if it does vanish from his record in due time, just gets my goat that he was charged with ABH when he obviously left no marks on the "victim" nor even hurt him!! I'd really love to know what the CPS would think of the case but as you have pointed out the judicial system is like a lottery

[xxplod]

The juvenile cautioning system usually works by issuing a "Reprimand" on the first occassion, assuming the offence is not too serious. A second occurrence leads to a Final Warning, again assuming the offences are not too significant. We would not warn a juvenile for a GBH for example. If however the offence was sufficiently serious, or had certain aggravating factors then you can go straight to a final warning, having not been in trouble before.

Here is my spiel I give when issuing just such a thing:

A reprimand or caution is not a conviction. Only a Court can convict. It is however a record which will be kept by the Police for a period of 5 years, (or until aged 18, whichever is later). If you are subsequently found guilty by a Court of any offence in this time, the COurt will be aware of this reprimand/final warning and it may affect how they sentence you.

Obviously I waffle on a bit more, but you get the gist. As far as employers go - shouldn't worry about it. The military certainly won't be too bothered. It's much more of a problem if the record is for dishonesty offences.

[FHCNICK]

xxplod said:

The juvenile cautioning system usually works by issuing a "Reprimand" on the first occassion, assuming the offence is not too serious. A second occurrence leads to a Final Warning, again assuming the offences are not too significant. We would not warn a juvenile for a GBH for example. If however the offence was sufficiently serious, or had certain aggravating factors then you can go straight to a final warning, having not been in trouble before. Here is my spiel I give when issuing just such a thing: A reprimand or caution is not a conviction. Only a Court can convict. It is however a record which will be kept by the Police for a period of 5 years, (or until aged 18, whichever is later). If you are subsequently found guilty by a Court of any offence in this time, the COurt will be aware of this reprimand/final warning and it may affect how they sentence you. Obviously I waffle on a bit more, but you get the gist. As far as employers go - shouldn't worry about it. The military certainly won't be too bothered. It's much more of a problem if the record is for dishonesty offences.

thanks for that, i realise the police are not part of the judicial system and thus cannot "convict" someone it just didn't feel like this lads involvement warranted the final warning.
i wasn't there when his mother went to the police station but apparently the pc said that it had gone straight to a final warning as it was a public order offence.

All in all it looks like its better just to accept the situation even though it seems the punishment far outweighs the "crime"

[apache]

mk6fiesta said:

No more was heard for a couple of weeks and I had forgotten about it until BiB turned up on my doorstep with the intention of charging me for assault on this guy. The bloody cheek of it!

did he have witnesses or something?

[Mr Whippy]

So let me get this straight.

They want to do the lad for ABH because he hit someone with a piece of grass on the head?

I would assume then that throwing a balloon at someone is now grounds for ABH?

Dave

[FHCNICK]

Mr Whippy said:

So let me get this straight. They want to do the lad for ABH because he hit someone with a piece of grass on the head? I would assume then that throwing a balloon at someone is now grounds for ABH? Dave

Exactly but they kind of have you caught between a rock and a hard place, do you take it on the chin even though you are 99% certain the CPS will chuck it in the bin or take that risk and maybe the 1% of your fears will bite you?

[havoc]

mk6fiesta said:

...any sort of conviction would be disastorous for my career, so in the end i took it on the chin and let the scum win

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what's wrong with today's system!!! The scum don't care as they have no ambition or pride, while the decent folk have far too much to lose to take any chances.

[xxplod]

This is difficult. Did this lad have a solicitor? Whilst the Police don't have to, there is no reason why the Police should not give some disclosure as to the nature of the evidence available.

Any offer of a caution should be an ethical one. The Police cannot force a person to take a caution. It is a detainees right to refuse a caution and ask the matter to be put before the Court, and the Police in offering a caution should be satisfied that the "threshold test" (the minimum evidential requirement to consider charging) is met. If it isn't a caution should not be offered, and the detainee either released with no action, or bailed for further enquries and/or CPS advice to be sought.

[FHCNICK]

xxplod said:

This is difficult. Did this lad have a solicitor? Whilst the Police don't have to, there is no reason why the Police should not give some disclosure as to the nature of the evidence available. Any offer of a caution should be an ethical one. The Police cannot force a person to take a caution. It is a detainees right to refuse a caution and ask the matter to be put before the Court, and the Police in offering a caution should be satisfied that the "threshold test" (the minimum evidential requirement to consider charging) is met. If it isn't a caution should not be offered, and the detainee either released with no action, or bailed for further enquries and/or CPS advice to be sought.

No the lad had his mother present (who herself has never been in trouble and was petrified) and i'm pretty sure the only discussion pertaining to evidence was to confirm that during this scuffle the lad only venture within 3 metres once to "assault" the "victim" with a stork of grass

[Zod]

I would suggest an initial consultation with a criminal specialist solicitor. H emay be able to set the lad's and his mother's minds at rest, or have a word with the Police or, in the worst case, advise on taking action.

[FHCNICK]

Zod said:

I would suggest an initial consultation with a criminal specialist solicitor. H emay be able to set the lad's and his mother's minds at rest, or have a word with the Police or, in the worst case, advise on taking action.

I think i'll have a word with the pc dealing with the case and as has been suggested by xxplod ask them what evidence there is.

[autismuk]

xxplod said:

This is difficult. Did this lad have a solicitor? Whilst the Police don't have to, there is no reason why the Police should not give some disclosure as to the nature of the evidence available. Any offer of a caution should be an ethical one. The Police cannot force a person to take a caution.

This is a bit naive. The Police will use cautions as a bullying tactic (i.e. most Op Ore "convictions". It's the same game played by the Scamera Pratnerships.

It's fairly typical this, sadly. Scumbags know how to lie to the Police, and the Police encourage them.

[docjan]

Was gonna make a post when I read the thread, this post really was a coincidence though!:
[quote]In reality no, but apparnetly his friends 'saw' it from a distance. There was also some marks in his neck. I consulted a solicitor who advised that I had a pretty good case if I went to court, but he wouldnt advise it just in case we caught the judge 'on a bad day' etc. Im hoping to be an airline pilot and any sort of conviction would be disastorous for my career, so in the end i took it on the chin and let the scum win [/quote]

Im also interested in flying and am currently seriously considering this as an option... regardless to say perfectly clean record except back in January I was at uni and needed to get into central. had no money so just borrowed a mates pass.
Anyway, got stopped by an inspector and he decided to push for fair evasion (I should have just lied and said I forgot the ticket please forgive meee!).
Anyway, was in court a few weeks ago, the magistrate made me pay the £2.80 ticket cost plus £30 costs.
Never mentioned anything about a record though when I asked they mentioned that it would be best if you did mention it at jobs :/.
Went downstairs, had a chat with the "seasoned" court doorman and he very heavily implied without implicitly saying that the offence wouldnt go on any police central database and that theres no need to ever mention it.


Any input on this?

[Dwight VanDriver]

>>>>>Any input on this? <<<<<

What you did was not a Recordable Offence only a summary offence of fare evasion. Bit like using a motor vehicle without an Excise Licence.

DVD

[docjan]

... so am I boned for the rest of my life or even the next five years? .

[streaky]

docjan said:

... borrowed a mates pass. Anyway, got stopped by an inspector and he decided to push for fair evasion ...

Well, you know what they say, "fare exchange is no robbery" [sic] - Streaky

[bluepolarbear]

FHCNICK said:

folks, Anyway the police after interviews have decided to give this lad a "final warning" (apparently 1 up from a caution) and have taken mug shots, fingerprints and DNA samples.

The police and Stassi UK are very keen to build a DNA database of everyone in this country to go with their compulsary ID card system as it is a core part of their idealogy.

Of course they know the public would not stand having their DNA taken for no good reason so use lots of sneaky ways to get it. Main three being

1) Taking DNA when there is no good reason too or for trival offences, such as in this case. Why have DNA, not required for evidence or identification

2) Using the "holiday" factor. Everyone likes holidays and doesn't mind paying for them. So they have included the need for DNA samples for all passports from November 05. Of course the data wouldn't be used by the passport office it is passed straight across to the DNA database

3) Refusing to destroy any sample of DNA taken in the course of their investigations even where they have taken from innocent people such as in mass screening excercises.

All of these methods required law changes to remove the protection built into the orginal law regarding police use of DNA. Changes which New Labia were happy to implement.

[FHCNICK]

just a thought but hasn't there got to be some evidence of actual bodily harm to charge someone with ABH?