shelley748

My BIL had some issues a few years ago, he was accused of assaulting his wife when he was drunk, needless to say he was going to be released but because it was a domestic, he had to spend the night somewhere else, and because his mother would not allow him to stay with her and he had no where else to go, he was taken to jail for 80 days. The police said it was ridiculous for him to spend time in jail but that was the decision.

Would he be considered in admissible.the case was dismissed? He still has a conviction because he went to jail.

Former Lancastrian

If the case was dismissed then its not considered a conviction. Without seeing a police record to see what the actual charge was and if a conviction was rendered its hard to say. The 80 days in jail was not part of a sentence but rather a consequence of the offence.
IMHO he is not inadmissible based on your post.

shelley748

Thanks for the reply!

quiltman

Am I missing something? he had nowhere to go so the authorities slung him in jail for 80 days? Unless he was on remand awaiting trial then certainly the UK police would have just sent him on his way the next morning and told him to contact social Services or similar.If the case was dismissed, there is no conviction but his arrest will be on record.
He needs to get an ACPO certificate to check exactly what is on his record, and/or a Subject Access which will spell out exactly what the offence was.
(I'm assuming BIL is UK citizen - if not , then please accept my apologies!)

Pollyana

I'm thinking the same, assuming this was in the Uk, no way would he get 80 days in jail just because he couldn't go home, the system doesn't work like that! With all due respect to the OP, if thats what he told you i feel he is being economical with the truth....

ExKiwilass

Agreed, this doesn't add up.

shelley748

This is what he says:-


Following a domestic incident at home in February 2008, the police were called and I was taken by them back to a local police station. The outcome of this was that a prosecution for common assault was made by my now ex-wife. At this point I was then free to leave the police station providing a) I undertook to attend court when the trial date was fixed and b) I had an address to which I could go in the meantime, as I could no longer return to my own home. Point a) was fine but point b) was not.

Although the police said at the time that this was the wrong outcome, they had no alternative but to put me in prison until I could provide a permanent place of residence. Some 80 days later, I was finally signed up to a rehab centre in Weston Super Mare and from there went to a rehab centre in XXXXX. I returned in July 2009 to attend Court on the above charge. The outcome of this is that I was given a conditional discharge, a £60 fine and no costs.

quiltman

Thanks for this.
Seems your BIL was offered police bail but as he could not meet the terms re address , he was remanded in custody. anyway, the upshot is the case was NOT dismissed. A conditional discharge is a form of punishment and means he is allowed his liberty but if he broke the conditions ( whatever was imposed- i.e not going within one mile of his wifes home etc) then he could be recalled to court and given a custodial sentence.
This will show on his police certificate but whether it will affect his chances for a visitor visa I don't know. I thought British Citizens did not need a Visa to visit Canada. I never applied for one in my over 30 visits , just got stamp at POE. Potential Immigration is another kettle of fish! Does your BIL actually hold a British Passport?

quiltman

Here's the definition from the UK Court website;


Discharge – this is when the court decides that given the character of the offender and the nature of the crime, punishment would not be appropriate. There are two types of discharge:
Absolute discharge - no further action is taken, since either the offence was very minor, or the court considers that the experience has been enough of a deterrent. The offender will receive a criminal record.
Conditional discharge - the offender is released and the offence registered on their criminal record. No further action is taken unless they commit a further offence within a time decided by the court (no more than three years).

looks like the court decided that the time he'd spent in jail awaiting the court hearing was punishment enough. If he had NOT been in jail , then it's likely he would have received a custodial sentence.

rivingtonpike

Thankfully this isn't something I have any experience of, but I've not heard of anyone ever being sent to prison simply because they couldn't provide a permanent address. The already crowded UK jails would simply burst at the seams if every homeless person was incarcerated.

quiltman

There is obviously more to this than we - or the OP - have been told. He could well have been remanded in custody for the 80 days, but normally that's only for serious offences or where there is suspicion that the person may not turn up for the court hearing or commit more offences whilst on bail. Just having no permanent address is not a hindrance - he would then have been required to report to the police station every few days.

Former Lancastrian

A conditional discharge is NOT a conviction for inadmissibility

shelley748

Thanks for this, so seems as though he will be ok to visit us? He does hold a British passport, and will be bringing all paperwork with him at POE in case it's required.

Pollyana

Makes more sense now.

Sounds like it was a bail condition, which is actually quite common. So its not that they remanded him in custody because he had nowhere to live, but the magistrate must have wanted to be sure that he could provide an address and was not just going to disappear. Any address is usually ok, just staying with a friend is often acceptable, although sometimes the magistrate will state that the person cannot live at their home address (if its domestic violence for instance) so they need to be reassured that the person will be staying somewhere else.
If the person cannot guarantee that they will be at a different address then they can be remanded in custody - as much for the protection of the alleged victim as anything else. And as it seems here, any timeinside is taken into account when sentencing.

christmasoompa

The conditional discharge is the sentence he was given, not the name of the conviction. Presumably it was a conviction for assault from what the OP's said, it went to court and he was given a conditional discharge as he'd already spent time on remand (as above, that would normally indicate the charge wasn't minor, otherwise they'd have just let him go). Do he was definitely convicted of a fairly serious offence.

I don't see how he can be admissible based on all of that personally?