paddy234

What professional said to Declare yes to a conviction when you don't have one? That's not what the immigration agent said. Read his post again. I'm sorry but people need to start using their own head as then we wouldn't need a professional to help us answer simple questions anyone could answer themselves. This is basic stuff Bevs, lol. A caution is not a conviction and if you declared it as such you will be lying. Don't advise anyone on this forum to lie.

Also as i said read the immigration agent's post again. He never told him to tick yes to a conviction but to declare his caution and explain what it was for. Thats a BIG difference. My post was simply explaining that a caution is not a conviction. It didn't contradict any professional advice. It seems a few posters on here including yourself have completely misinterpreted what has been written.

I took the immigration agent's advice as to declare the caution and explain what it was for just so you are upfront in case of future visa's. It's seems you and a few other posters interpreted that he Said to tick yes to a conviction and explain it as a caution

paddy234

Was the question asked about a conviction only or did it include any offences and you forgot you had a caution so you ticked no?

I ticked no when it asked for a conviction but yes when it asks for any offence such as a caution. Any visa's requiring a police clearance won't just solely ask for a conviction anyway. In the character declaration they will ask questions about ANY offences you committed so you must have said no to that aswell which is why you got hit up?

christmasoompa

Nobody is advising that. Whether a caution is a conviction under UK law has no bearing on Australian immigration, just as convictions being 'stepped down' don't make any difference in other countries. Now I have no idea about Oz rules, and perhaps they do have cautions there. But certainly for other countries such as Canada, one would have to tick 'yes' to a conviction question and then give details. They don't have cautions there, so they just find the equivalent offence under the criminal code and people with cautions are still found inadmissible, depending on the offence admitted to and how long ago it was.

paddy234

Australia has cautions. The law varies according to the state however. It will also clearly ask for this with visa's that require police checks. I remember it well. Immigration will want know of ANY criminal history not just convictions and will clearly state cautions/warnings. As the immigration agent advised to the OP, declare it and explain. This is the safest and most thorough route to prevent any misunderstandings in future visa's and by being honest and forthcoming about one's character In the beginning it's sets a precedent for the future. It's no surprise then an immigration agent would give such advice

My own case was the same as the OP. I have a spent caution. With a working holiday visa i put down no to a conviction. With my PR visa i did the same but in the character declaration sections it does go into more depth into ANY criminal offences you may have commited spent or not. I ticked yes to the relevant questions. I supplied a police check. They seen that it said "no live trace" and wanted to know what offence exactly had been spent. I explained it was a spent caution and had to provide a statutory declaration about the caution and the events leading to it. They later requested a subject access form which I supplied, this form details ALL criminal history including spent cautions and convictions. Once provided i soon recieved my PR. Not once did they ever tell me my caution should have been declared as a conviction especially since under Both British and Australian law a caution is not a conviction and shouldn't be stated as such. They do state however ANY offences commited no matter how minor, spent or not should be reported on a visa application as the immigration agent advises. It's actually very simple. This is a quote from Australian immigration

NO LIVE TRACE

This means the applicant does have a police record, but information is held about them
on the Police National Computer. However, this information does not appear on the police
certificate as it has been ‘stepped down’ in accordance with the Retention Guidelines for
Nominal Records held on the computer. These guidelines can be found on the ACPO and
Home Office websites. Although the conviction/s may have been ‘stepped down’ they still
form part of the applicant’s criminal history and must be declared in any visa application.

christmasoompa

British law isn't relevant, but I didn't realise that Australia have gone so far as to actually write that in to their law. Most countries don't have a clue what a caution is, hence it's considered a conviction elsewhere as they just don't have the 'half way house' of a caution, so if Oz have clarified it and actually include a definition under their own immigrant law, that's very impressive.

paddy234

https://www.australiannationalcharac...ce-Checks.html

Australia's interpretation of cautions is similar to that in British law it appears. Looking at form 80 the exact words described is shown below. As the immigration agent advised, declare and detail any offence even if it's a spent caution. One can't go wrong then as immigration advises, it NEEDS to be declared

form 80
36 Have you, or any other person included in this
application, ever:
• been charged with any offence that is
currently awaiting legal action? No Yes

• been convicted of an offence in any country
(including any conviction which is now
removed from official records)? No Yes

• been charged or convicted of family or
domestic violence offences or similar related
offences? No Yes

• been the subject of a domestic or family
violence order, or any other order, of a tribunal
or court or other similar authority, for the
personal protection of another person? No Yes

• been the subject of an arrest warrant or
Interpol notice? No Yes

• been found guilty of a sexually based offence
involving a child (including where no
conviction was recorded)? No Yes

• been named on a sex offender register? No Yes

• been acquitted of any offence on the grounds
of unsoundness of mind or insanity? No Yes

• been found by a court not fit to plead? No Yes

• been directly or indirectly involved in, or
associated with, activities which would
represent a risk to national security in
Australia or any other country? No Yes

• been charged with, or indicted for: genocide,
war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture,
slavery, or any other crime that is otherwise of
a serious international concern? No Yes

• been associated with a person, group or
organisation that has been/is involved in
criminal conduct? No Yes

• been associated with an organisation engaged
in violence or engaged in acts of violence
(including war, insurgency, freedom fighting,
terrorism, protest) either overseas or in
Australia? No Yes

• served in a military force, police force, state
sponsored/private militia or intelligence
agency (including secret police)? No Yes

• undergone any military/paramilitary training,
been trained in weapons/explosives or in the
manufacture of chemical/biological products? No Yes

• been involved in people smuggling or people
trafficking offences? No Yes

• been removed, deported or excluded from any
country (including Australia)? No Yes

• overstayed a visa in any country (including
Australia)? No Yes

• had any outstanding debts to the Australian
Government or any public authority in
Australia? No

Pollyana

One thing I have learnt after many years of dealing with the Australian Immigration Dept is that there are many many rules and policies behind the initial questions asked on the forms, Registered Migration Agents spent a lot of time going through these and absorbing the bits of information that can make visa applications smoother, both current applications and any that might be submitted in the future.
I have had conversations in the past with a very respected agent on the subject of convictions, spent convictions, minor convictions, cautions etc, and the one piece of information which stands out is to admit/declare everything. Don't risk the Dept asking later why you didn't tell them about something, don't assume the case officer that you get will be up with all the ins and outs of UK cautions vs convictions. Just be straight about the lot, it can save a lot of angst and trouble in the long run.

And if I was the OP on this thread (who has not been back to post since April), then however logically and clearly a layperson argues the case for with-holding information on cautions, I would be taking the advice of a well respected registered agent.

paddy234

No-one has disputed this, no-one has said they should withhold information on a caution, quite the opposite. Your merely critiquing a strawman as you clearly misunderstand what i said. The best advice given to the OP was given by the immigration agent. The discussions after this have been between posters believing that a caution should or should not be categorized as a conviction, this is a seperate discussion and one the OP has likely ignored. The reality is whether they tick yes or no to conviction as long as they declare and explain their caution in detail they can't go wrong.

Please stop making this into something it isn't as we all agree with the most important advice given.

christmasoompa

The OP hasn't 'likely ignored' anything, they haven't been back to the forum to even see it, since this thread was resurrected months after they posted.

And please post respectfully, there's no need to get personal just because somebody has a different POV to you. Ta.

paddy234

I'm not getting personal. If someone claims I said something I didn't I will call them out on this, wouldn't you? I've explained my position from the beginning that I never disputed the immigration agent's advice. One poster at the beginning of this thread assumed I was contradicting the immigration agent when I simply stated a caution isn't a conviction. They misunderstood what my post was about and then after that the discussion merely took on the form of whether we should tick yes or no to the conviction question if we merely have a caution

To simplify this and finish it off, to the OP, listen to the immigration agent's advice. We ALL agree

Now is a caution a conviction. NO. Could you tick yes or no in the box asking if you have a conviction when you only have a caution. YES as long as you declare it and describe what it is for. By ticking yes you are stating something technically incorrect but covering all your bases which immigration will appreciate because you are detailing ALL offences no matter how minor. By ticking no to a conviction but still declaring and detailing the caution you are saying you haven't been convicted of an offence but have a caution spent or not and what it was for. In both cases you are doing essentially what they are asking. Declaring ANY offence no matter how small or if it's spent.

mikelincs

You actually resurrected an old thread where the OP had been given free advice by MARA agent to put in your personal opinion, quite honestly I don't see why anyone, apart from the OP, would resurrect a thread this late, he/she has obviously been happy with the free professional advice they have been given, all this toing and froing isn't helping anyone really, certainly not the OP who may have read the reply, then left BE.

christmasoompa

You absolutely are getting personal when you call somebody 'passive aggressive'. And that's not on.

This really isn't getting anybody anywhere, I think you're misunderstanding what people are saying and yet agreeing with them all at the same time! You say it needs to be declared but then say the OP should tick 'no' to the question about convictions, I think people are just saying that s/he should tick 'yes' and then provide a letter of explanation which declares it. Thereby making sure that s/he is completely covered, particularly as so many other countries would mean a 'yes' should be ticked to that question due to their own laws not recognising cautions.

The OP hasn't been back to the forum to see the responses anyway (for future ref, you can see the date of a thread on the top left of it). You say that under "Australian law a caution is not a conviction", so if you have the text of that law, then it would be super helpful if you could provide that, to answer the question once and for all.

If not, then I think this thread has run it's course, and hopefully if the OP does return to the forum, they'll take professional advice to be sure.

Thx.

paddy234

Christmasoompa I'll explain this to you again. If ANYONE tries to claim I said something I didn't I will call them out on it, I didn't call anyone passive aggresive, i said there is only two reasons why one would do this because claiming I said something I didn't is getting personal wouldn't you agree.

As for the rest of your post. There was no misunderstanding. We did all agree on the advice. It was discussing with others on convictions and cautions. That Is all. If you have come here for an argument you aren't going to get one.

As for under Australian law that a caution isnt a conviction. There is plenth of sources online that explain this

https://websterslawyers.com.au/polic...ns-description

christmasoompa

Thread closed. If anybody does manage to find the law referenced above to confirm that UK caution aren't seen as convictions under Oz law, then message me and I'll reopen it.

Thx.