The Majority Of Brexit's Impact On...
News11 mins ago
Common Assault Beating
I was arrested by the police for putting a tiny fingernail cut on my husband 's face when I was trying to grab his phone while he was calling the police over our argument. Our argument started with our badly behaved 8 year old who argues with me all the time and that my husband never addresses his bad attitude and behaviour. Instead, he removed him from the room and from me, which I believed further our son's confidence in argue with me. I said no to legal aid when I was in custody for 5 hours as I didn't see myself committed a crime or offence. I admitted the finger nail cut was from grabing the phone. The police offered me a simple caution of beating my husband which I accepted after a period of dispute over it. After that day i couldn't sleep thinking about being labelled as violence and also it's result on future employment. From reading the information from the Ministry of Justice about simple cautions for adult offenders. I have the information and decided to make a complaint to the police for the caution is unreasonable and unlawful and wished for it to be revoked. My complaint was not picked up seriously as far as I am concern. I then wrote an email to our local MP to ask him for help. As MP is forbiden from getting involved in criminal legal issues he passed my email to the our local police and crime commissioner. So that my appeal is going through the right channels and get it looked at ASAP. Soon afterwards, I was contacted by an inspector regarding my complaint who said he was going to look at my case. I had also emailed him the ant relevant extract from the ministry of justice about simple cautions to support my complaint. After 22 days later, that inspector contacted me saying the caution is the right action but because the sergeant who administered it didn't offer me legal aid at the time of administering it. He is able to set the caution aside and to re- administer it in a local police station and offer me legal advice. Amid this reinvestigation, my husband sent an email to that inspector saying he didn't wish me to be cautioned or prosecuted for that is a minor injury and it was nit intended. I refused the re-offered caution. Another 20 days later, I received a letter from the police Professional Standards Department on behalf of the inspector who investegated my case, which basically saying my complaint is settled with the custod sergeant who denied my legal right was advised of the error but no formal action was taken. My case will be refer to CPS. Today, 9 days after that letter, that inspector called me and informed me that the CPS has decided to prosecute me and that I would receive a letter in the post to summon me. I seriously feel the police is so robotic in dealing cases... Wasting public money on small matter that so obvious not in the public's interest. This would be my first migistrate/ court case. Don't know what to expect but just want to defend myself...advice please
Answers
lcg , I understand where you are coming from, but as someone who says they work in mental health I expected you to realise that seeker14 has her own 'issues' and be less 'caustic' in your comments.
20:56 Tue 24th Feb 2015
You should have just accepted the caution, it would be 'spent' by now
https:/
However you now face prosecution for an assault to which you have already admitted. This means you have no alternative but to plead guilty and hope the court lets you off with a conditional discharge.
https:/
However you now face prosecution for an assault to which you have already admitted. This means you have no alternative but to plead guilty and hope the court lets you off with a conditional discharge.
If you push someone lightly you've committed common assault. If you prod them in their ribs with your finger (even extremely gently) you've committed common assault. If you simply ruffle their hair you've committed common assault. If you tickle them you've committed common assault. So I'm at a complete loss as to how you could think that scratching someone with your fingernail isn't common assault (or 'assault by beating', which is simply an alternative wording for the same offence); it most definitely is!
So the caution most definitely wasn't unreasonable and (even though the police sergeant didn't follow best procedure) I doubt that it was actually unlawful. As you've made it clear that you'd refuse to accept a further caution, you've forced the hands of the CPS into taking the matter to court, where you'll have no chance of being acquitted because quite clearly you DID commit the offence of common assault.
So the caution most definitely wasn't unreasonable and (even though the police sergeant didn't follow best procedure) I doubt that it was actually unlawful. As you've made it clear that you'd refuse to accept a further caution, you've forced the hands of the CPS into taking the matter to court, where you'll have no chance of being acquitted because quite clearly you DID commit the offence of common assault.
Read this
http://
Yes, even an absolute discharge gives you a criminal record.
(a caution does not give you a record but too late for that now)
http://
Yes, even an absolute discharge gives you a criminal record.
(a caution does not give you a record but too late for that now)
>>>Does conditional charge has a criminal record?
Any conviction before a court creates a criminal record (as indeed do cautions). Cautions are now removed from criminal record checks after 6 years. Other offences (not resulting in a custodial sentence) are removed after 11 years, as long as the the person has only committed a single offence. (There are exceptions to those rules but they're not relevant here)
For most types of employment applications you don't need to mention cautions at all. (They can't actually become 'spent' because they're not convictions). If you receive an absolute discharge you wouldn't need to mention that on a normal employment application either (because it's 'spent' straight away). If you receive a conditional discharge (which simply means that you have to stay out of trouble with the law for a specified period) you'd be obliged to mention it until such time as that period has ended (when it then becomes 'spent'). If you receive a fine you'd need to mention it in normal employment applications up until 1 year after the date of conviction.
For 'exempted' employment applications (such as when applying to work with children or vulnerable adults) cautions and convictions never become spent.
Any conviction before a court creates a criminal record (as indeed do cautions). Cautions are now removed from criminal record checks after 6 years. Other offences (not resulting in a custodial sentence) are removed after 11 years, as long as the the person has only committed a single offence. (There are exceptions to those rules but they're not relevant here)
For most types of employment applications you don't need to mention cautions at all. (They can't actually become 'spent' because they're not convictions). If you receive an absolute discharge you wouldn't need to mention that on a normal employment application either (because it's 'spent' straight away). If you receive a conditional discharge (which simply means that you have to stay out of trouble with the law for a specified period) you'd be obliged to mention it until such time as that period has ended (when it then becomes 'spent'). If you receive a fine you'd need to mention it in normal employment applications up until 1 year after the date of conviction.
For 'exempted' employment applications (such as when applying to work with children or vulnerable adults) cautions and convictions never become spent.
Clarification for Eddie & Nailit:
When caution were first introduced, one of their big 'selling points' (in Parliamentary debates) was that they would NOT create a criminal record.
However when the Criminal Records Bureau was set up, cautions became included within their system and thus appeared on CRB checks. So they weren't meant to be part of a criminal record but, de facto, they became so.
As I've written above, the Disclosure & Baring Service (which has replaced the CRB) now filters out cautions from DBS checks after 6 years (except for certain specified offences, such as sexual ones).
When caution were first introduced, one of their big 'selling points' (in Parliamentary debates) was that they would NOT create a criminal record.
However when the Criminal Records Bureau was set up, cautions became included within their system and thus appeared on CRB checks. So they weren't meant to be part of a criminal record but, de facto, they became so.
As I've written above, the Disclosure & Baring Service (which has replaced the CRB) now filters out cautions from DBS checks after 6 years (except for certain specified offences, such as sexual ones).
That is my point for not accepting the caution for I know It will be there forever as it is a considered violence act. But my point is how the public interest is met? Would the public be more interested in high employment and better economic than reduce people's possibility in getting certain jobs due to this robotic behaviour of the police/justice system on such minor and insignificant matter?
'Public interest' does not come into it.
A minor offence was committed and the police tried to deal with it in the simplest quickest way . But as you refused the caution the only alternative was to prosecute. This is not 'in the public interest' but allowing a crime however minor to just be ignored is even further from the 'public interest'
A minor offence was committed and the police tried to deal with it in the simplest quickest way . But as you refused the caution the only alternative was to prosecute. This is not 'in the public interest' but allowing a crime however minor to just be ignored is even further from the 'public interest'
I read the info from ministry of justice for simple cautions for adult offenders before I have the confident to file a complaint. In it detailed everything that need to be met. So why are they not following it? The right for legal advice during administer the caution was there too which I copy and paste the extract to the inspector. I guess this is not denial and hence they admitted it.
ah seeker unfortunately unfair as it might seem
there is never a balancing act carried out in the way you have said
IF the custody sergeant was so incompetent that the prosecution could not be mounted well then perhaps
It is very difficult ( unlike the Land of theFree ) to get a case thrown out because of procedural irregularity but it can be done
http://
all this shows is that Kevin Molloy had a good lawyer. Olliers claimed costs as a result of CPS incompetence and submitted a bill of £1m.
there is never a balancing act carried out in the way you have said
IF the custody sergeant was so incompetent that the prosecution could not be mounted well then perhaps
It is very difficult ( unlike the Land of theFree ) to get a case thrown out because of procedural irregularity but it can be done
http://
all this shows is that Kevin Molloy had a good lawyer. Olliers claimed costs as a result of CPS incompetence and submitted a bill of £1m.
To be fare to the OP (Seeker), getting a record (or caution which will show up on a crb) for causing a small cut to your spouses face does seem like a bit of overkill in the great scheme of things.
Ive had my fair share of dealings with the law in my life (as EDDIE and others on here know) but honestly! why are more and more people getting demonised for insignificant things?
Ive had my fair share of dealings with the law in my life (as EDDIE and others on here know) but honestly! why are more and more people getting demonised for insignificant things?
Latest Posts
Crosswords63 mins ago
Crosswords66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
Strands #247 “More Than Just...
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles95 mins ago
