Originally Posted by S Folinsky

Strictly speaking, the actual facts of what happened do not matter.

Originally Posted by Rete

Drunk or not, why didn't you ask for one phone call and called your parents to come to the station to pay the driver?

Originally Posted by christmasoompa

So does that mean the back story has no relevance? The OP would be treated the same as somebody that (for example) stole millions in a bank raid and did years in prison because they’re both theft and CIMT’s (assuming BiP is correct above……but I’ve never known him be wrong yet!).

Seems pretty harsh if so.

Originally Posted by mum2mom23

This is what I’m trying to understand. I’ve been told it will be up to the interviewer on the day. They’ll ask me about it and they’ll make a decision. I’m trying to understand/prepare for how much of this is set in stone vs whether it’s a case of me having the opportunity to show them why it’s not a CIMT. I can’t fathom the reasoning of what constitutes this as a CIMT but not drink driving. This was completely and wholly accidental and I tried to fix it, there was no intent or maliciousness at play.

Originally Posted by christmasoompa

Just be prepared for not being able to explain, they may not ask you about it at all - if you hunt around the forum you'll find lots of examples of people who've gone ready to explain stuff and not been given the chance. From what I can gather (our interview is in a month so I've been reading up to prepare the kids), the interviews are pretty quick and just at a window usually (like at a bank), you're only taken to a private room if you might need a waiver. So you may get more of a chance to explain there if needed and if you're not taken to the side for that, then that's a good sign.

I don't think there's any grey area, either it comes under one of the CIMT offences or it doesn't, as Mr F has said the reasons for why it happened don't appear to be relevant. So it's just working out if the actual offence comes under a CIMT or not but tbh at this point all you can do is wait and see what the consular officer thinks.

Best of luck, do you have your interview date yet?

Originally Posted by mum2mom23

Because they don’t have a like for like charge in the US, I just wonder how they decide if it is CIMT is all. If it said theft it would be simple, but the caution isn’t for theft. It might come under a theft act here but it is not theft. So that’s why it appears to me to be so grey. I can only hope I get the opportunity to explain. The interview is on 26th June. I will accept there won’t be any sleep until then!

Originally Posted by mum2mom23

They told me the reason I’d have blocked my card with the incorrect pin was because I was too drunk. I believe the disorderly part came from how hysterical I was at the point they told me I was being arrested and cautioned. You have to understand, I thought that was it for me that I would lose my job and then my home etc. I was in a complete state of overwhelm and still trying to give away my belongings to cover the fee of the taxi. I absolutely categorically never intended to make away without payment. I would never dream of it; I have a family member who is also a cab driver and therefore had a lot of respect for our London cabbies. When I was told it would need to go to court if I didn’t accept a caution, and that if I was found guilty in court of making away without payment it could be so much worse, I believed accepting the caution was the right outcome. It really sounds like there should be more to the story but there truly isn’t. It was as someone else put it a complete comedy of errors although one that seems could seriously upturn my family’s life at this point

Originally Posted by mum2mom23

This is what I’m trying to understand. I’ve been told it will be up to the interviewer on the day. They’ll ask me about it and they’ll make a decision. I’m trying to understand/prepare for how much of this is set in stone vs whether it’s a case of me having the opportunity to show them why it’s not a CIMT. I can’t fathom the reasoning of what constitutes this as a CIMT but not drink driving. This was completely and wholly accidental and I tried to fix it, there was no intent or maliciousness at play.

Originally Posted by lansbury

I think you have misunderstood the intent of my first remark. There is no evidence to support a criminal offense of making off without payment. Simple fact is you made attempts to provide the cabbie with payment. Had you got out of the cab and run down the road, or gone into your flat and not come out again, then yes there would be a making off. But you did nothing to support that. All I can say is I would have dealt with it as a civil debt. Verify your name and address and provided that to the cab driver. With the cab drivers permission I would have given you his name and address and very strongly suggested you post him a cheaque the next day.

Met Police policy was for many years, I don't know if it still is, that if a caution is offered and refused no further action is taken. In court a police officer is considered an expert witness on drunkenness, so very difficult to dispute.

Originally Posted by S Folinsky

Once you have the ACRO and subject access report in hand, it may be a good idea to consult with competent immigration counsel. You deserve good information.

Originally Posted by mum2mom23

Thank you. I have read a previous post of yours that mentioned something about a petty crime act that negates the CIMT. I have researched the conditions and I do meet those. This crime would have been tried at a magistrates court with less than a 6 month sentence imposed if found guilty. I didn’t serve any time or have any sentencing as it was a caution. So I believe that would be an appropriate avenue, but is the act applicable to immigrant visas, or just non immigrant visas? If so, how do I prove the above. Do I need to take evidence/research explaining the maximum sentencing?

Originally Posted by karenkaren1

"no live trace" for purposes of immigration may as well show all details, as that is what you will have to do, we have been there...... its a process!

Originally Posted by S Folinsky

The system can be confusing. Also, Lansbury’s post indicates to me that you may not understand what happened in the UK. When I was in practice there were many times when my client’s memory and understanding did not fit with what the paper record showed. Nothing dishonest mind you, just misunderstanding. Hence, get the paperwork and then have it reviewed by competent counsel.

Originally Posted by mum2mom23

Do you mind sharing your experience and what details you had to show? I have my police certificate and my subject access report from ACRO which both say the same thing - no live trace and then a caution for making away without payment, and it shows my case was disposed of the same day it arose eg no sentence no court case etc.

There is no other paperwork for me to obtain because the local station that dealt with it no longer have any record of it. The subject access report is very basic but says clearly
the caution is for making away without payment and a separate fine (not a caution) for drunk and disorderly. Do you think that is enough?