ian-mstm

Agreed... that seems a reasonable approach.

Ian

lansbury

Not only have they admitted their guilt, they should have made a tape recorded statement under caution giving details of what they did, how they did it and why they did it. Answering any questions asked by the interviewing officer necessary to clarify any ambiguities and to make sure that there is sufficient evidence to prove the case as required by the law.

Before tape recording is was a written statement on the proscribe form which carries a warning that what is written on the statement carries the same weight as verbal evidence given in court and carries the possibility of being perjury if it is untrue and presented to a court.

JAJ

Perhaps they should have done ... but did they?

Could the police force provide evidence that this actually was done?

JAJ

So what? I would have thought that police obtaining a de-facto criminal conviction by deception is a serious matter, only one step away from extracting confessions under duress. Clearly you seem to take a more relaxed view, which is of course your privilege.

lansbury

I was merely saying what is supposed to happen so those giving opinions might do so with a little more knowledge than before.

Who knows if the did, probably the OP. Could they provide evidence now from that far back, not knowing with force it was or their policy for storing tapes who knows. But again knowing that a statement under caution will exist in at least 99% of cases where cautions where given might help those who have no practical knowledge of the UK system only what they read, give a more informed opinion if not to this poster but to those who will raise similar questions in the future.

lansbury

Everyone who goes into an English/Welsh police station since PACE came into being are told of their three rights.

1) To consult the Codes of Practice at that time or later

2) To have someone informed of their arrest unless an officer of Superintending rank or above gives written consent for that to be withheld.

3) To consult with a solicitor. If they don't have a solicitor they are given a list of solicitors who will attend and give free advice.

They sign to say they have been given those rights both verbally and in written form.

If someone chooses not to avail themselves of especially number 3 that is their own fault for whatever the outcome.

JAJ

Everyone?

What about those who are told "just sign this and we'll let you go ... "

robb2002

I defininately don't see it as a way 'of getting off with it', I am truly sorry for what I have done and now fully understand the true inplications of such silly actions.

However I know it will be up to the consolular officer to decide, I am going to see what is on my CRB when it comes back and see what is exactly on there. I was definately given the right caution, however I'm worried if it is different on there, I don't want it to be unless it is official as I did wrong and deserved to be punished.

What a silly mess I've got myself into here, I'll just have to see what happens. I think a good immigration lawyer is my best bet?

lansbury

Sign what, sign that they have received their rights, no skin off the custody officers nose to give those rights.

lansbury

It would be on the 24 hour CCTV and sound recording in the custody suit and would negate any evidence gathered afterwards.

bjohn

Does the caution really matter? The question asks about arrests..... and there's certainly no legal or physical (G20 reference there) protection there.

snowguy

He was arrested then cautioned.

bjohn

Exactly - so as the question says - "have you ever been arrested and/or convicted for a CIMT". Therefore a caution or conviction is irrelevant. Its the arrest that counts.

JAJ

An arrest, in itself, does not render a person inadmissible.

bjohn

Agree. But all advice suggests a visit to Grosvenor Sq for a B2 visa application is required if an arrest has occured. That's something like 30% of British males under 35.