Online Police Certificate Application

[yuna628 9,676]

I think he would have signed a form if he was given a "caution". It is a guilty plea that is settled without going to court. It sounds like he was given a reprimand about his behavior, but not a caution.

Right, but it's the wording of the question that's on the new form. You have to list ''reprimands'' now. When he asked them, if he should state yes, they couldn't give him an answer.

[Devonian 20]

I think he would have signed a form if he was given a "caution". It is a guilty plea that is settled without going to court. It sounds like he was given a reprimand about his behavior, but not a caution.

Agreed. I think 'reprimand' is a much better term to use for a 'talking to' given outside the station, when I was growing up we were 'cautioned' in the sense that 'this is a warning to be more careful, etc, next time you'll be down the station but t was in no way a formal 'Police Caution'!!

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

Right, but it's the wording of the question that's on the new form. You have to list ''reprimands'' now. When he asked them, if he should state yes, they couldn't give him an answer.

Read the definition of the terms and see if his situation fits. http://www.thesite.org/crime-and-safety/in-trouble/cautions-and-reprimands-9317.html

[yuna628 9,676]

Read the definition of the terms and see if his situation fits. http://www.thesite.org/crime-and-safety/in-trouble/cautions-and-reprimands-9317.html

Hmm interesting! Well, he does remember the guy taking his name and address. But the officer never came to his home or spoke to his parents, nor was he ever given notice to come to the station. Does that mean he should answer no? Or should he still say yes and be honest?

Or.. like always, are we overthinking it?

[Devonian 20]

Hmm interesting! Well, he does remember the guy taking his name and address. But the officer never came to his home or spoke to his parents, nor was he ever given notice to come to the station. Does that mean he should answer no? Or should he still say yes and be honest?

Or.. like always, are we overthinking it?

Flippin' eck, they apply terms to everything!!! (talking about that link).

Only he can decide what the right course of action is. Personally I found myself in a similar situation to your husband and decided that a 'talking to' did not fall into any of the categories of 'Convictions, arrests or cautions', so I answered 'No'.

My thinking being that they are checking my record, or lack thereof, and if there is anything of note they'll be sure to pick it up!!! (I assume they ask the question to help distinguish between John Smith, the murderer; John Smith, the football hooligan and John Smith, the saint )

[ChasUno 101]

Surely the idea of a Police Certificate is that if anything serious is in your past Police history it will show up on the certificate. If nothing shows ("no trace"), for the purpose of the Visa application you have a clean record. No need to bring up anything that is not listed on the formal certificate.

[Devonian 20]

Surely the idea of a Police Certificate is that if anything serious is in your past Police history it will show up on the certificate. If nothing shows ("no trace"), for the purpose of the Visa application you have a clean record. No need to bring up anything that is not listed on the formal certificate.

But you don't get a formal certificate until you've filled in the application form for one, hence the discussion in this thread!

[ChasUno 101]

But you don't get a formal certificate until you've filled in the application form for one, hence the discussion in this thread!

DOH! Apologies, brain fail on my behalf. I was thinking people were asking about declaring minor misdemeanours AFTER the certificate was issued.

Thing is, I don't get why the Police Certificate is asking the applicant for the details? Surely THEY should have this all stored away, and the whole point is for THEM to state if any records exist or not?

I'm wondering it's a sneaky way of updating details that weren't computerised back in the day?

Mind you, note this on the application form:

"7.11 *Have you ever been arrested, cautioned, warned or reprimanded or been convicted of a criminal offence in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland? You must declare ALL convictions, including those you believe to be spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974."

It's a bit of an unclear question until you read the second sentence, because as I have highlighted in black, only there it states that you must declare all convictions. You can be arrested, cautioned, warned or reprimanded but that doesn't mean you will/ have been convicted. If innocent, you will not be convicted with anything. As sections 7.12 - 7.15 also ask for details of courts, dates and sentence details, I suspect you only need to answer these questions IF you were formally charged and convicted, not that you have to declare any time you were arrested, cautioned, warned or reprimanded without charge.

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

A caution is a conviction in the UK. You are pleading guilty when you accept a caution. If you thought you were not guilty you would go have your day in court and not accept the caution.

[Devonian 20]

Mind you, note this on the application form:

"7.11 *Have you ever been arrested, cautioned, warned or reprimanded or been convicted of a criminal offence in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland? You must declare ALL convictions, including those you believe to be spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974."

It's a bit of an unclear question until you read the second sentence, because as I have highlighted in black, only there it states that you must declare all convictions. You can be arrested, cautioned, warned or reprimanded but that doesn't mean you will/ have been convicted. If innocent, you will not be convicted with anything. As sections 7.12 - 7.15 also ask for details of courts, dates and sentence details, I suspect you only need to answer these questions IF you were formally charged and convicted, not that you have to declare any time you were arrested, cautioned, warned or reprimanded without charge.

Are the first four words of the first sentence not posing a yes/no question?

Edited March 28, 2015 by Devonian

[ChasUno 101]

Are the first four words of the first sentence not posing a yes/no question?

That was the ambiguity of the question I was pointing out. Yes, the first sentence suggest a yes/ no answer, but it's the second sentence that states You must declare ALL convictions, and sections 7.12 - 7.15 can only be completely IF you were convicted in a court, on a particular date and you received a sentence.

I find it very bizarre that they are asking the applicant for the details when surely the whole point is that THEY should have these on a database linked to the person's name who committed the 'crime'? As I work as a healthcare professional, I had to have an Enhanced Disclosure (CRB - Criminal Records Bureau check, now known as Disclosure and Barring Service - DBS) done before I could be employed. From what I can remember, I wasn't asked to give any specific information on my past, only proof of identity and address. Nothing has ever come back on my Enhanced Disclosure (I've had three done since 2007).

Furthermore, if I were to declare the misdemeanour from my youth, there is no way I can remember the date it occurred or when I had to attend the Police Station other than that it was some time in August 1985. Plus I can't remember if it was a formal caution (I wasn't read my "rights" at any point) or if it was simply a reprimand.

If I don't declare it and it does still exist, then surely it will come back as a "no live trace", and then I just order the other document that will go into details? If it comes back as "no trace" then by all intents and purposes it no longer exist on any formal records and the Police Certificate is effectively clean?

Of all the forms and applications I've done in my life, I have to say this whole Visa process has been the most awkward and unclear!

[ChasUno 101]

Just to add, all I can think is that I should answer 'Yes' to 7.11 and to then leave 7.12 - 7.15 blank (I wasn't charged or convicted, so these don't apply).

Also Nich-Nick, I found some interesting information with regards to cautions (with links):

"A caution is a formal warning that is given to a person who has admitted the offence. If the person refuses the caution then they will normally be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence. Although it is not technically classed as a conviction (as only the Courts can convict someone) it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence.

Cautions are covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). Unless applying for particular types of work (see below), a person who has spent cautions does not have to disclose them to prospective employers, and employers cannot refuse to employ someone on the basis of spent convictions."

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/q562.htm

"A spent conviction is a conviction which, under the terms of Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, can be effectively ignored after a specified amount of time. The amount of time for rehabilitation depends on the sentence imposed, not on the offence. The more serious the conviction, the longer the period of rehabilitation. For example, if you have received a prison sentence of more than four years, the conviction will never become spent, but cautions become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after three months)."

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q89.htm

As my youthful misdemeanour occurred almost 30 years ago my alleged 'caution' is long since 'spent'. I'd be curious to know if a record of it still exists anywhere. I guess I will find out once I submit the form!

[yuna628 9,676]

Flippin' eck, they apply terms to everything!!! (talking about that link).

Only he can decide what the right course of action is. Personally I found myself in a similar situation to your husband and decided that a 'talking to' did not fall into any of the categories of 'Convictions, arrests or cautions', so I answered 'No'.

My thinking being that they are checking my record, or lack thereof, and if there is anything of note they'll be sure to pick it up!!! (I assume they ask the question to help distinguish between John Smith, the murderer; John Smith, the football hooligan and John Smith, the saint )

His larger issue, was that if he answers no to this question, and for some ridiculous reason it did show up (which I don't think it will -- what sort of policeman would do that to a little kid?!) would he somehow then be in trouble for lying on the form? He merely wants to be honest, since they could not give him any sort of answer. But I do agree it's probably of no harm to select no to the question.

Well thanks Devonian, I'm not sure you've put his mind at ease entirely lol, but hopefully he can move on from the crisps.

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

The "No Trace" means there is nothing.

The "No Live Trace" means it is spent or stepped down and no longer "live" and an employer would not have access to it.

But the US government wants to know the whole record...have you ever....and they mean EVER, whether stepped-down, expunged, spent, etc. That's why the Subject Access Report to get to the whole story.

I have known people who knew they had something or thought they did, but got "no trace" so something 30 years ago could be lost or never computerized.

The British worry a lot and over-analyze. Long thread over a potato chip. I don't remember what I did when I was 12. The potato chip is long forgotten. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Devonian 20]

That was the ambiguity of the question I was pointing out. Yes, the first sentence suggest a yes/ no answer, but it's the second sentence that states You must declare ALL convictions, and sections 7.12 - 7.15 can only be completely IF you were convicted in a court, on a particular date and you received a sentence.

Of all the forms and applications I've done in my life, I have to say this whole Visa process has been the most awkward and unclear!

There is no ambiguity, read the first question, then answer yes or no, not forgetting to include all stepped down misdemeanours.

As my youthful misdemeanour occurred almost 30 years ago my alleged 'caution' is long since 'spent'. I'd be curious to know if a record of it still exists anywhere. I guess I will find out once I submit the form!

This is exactly the reason for the second part of the question. If you have an arrest, conviction or formal caution that was stepped down then it helps to mention it. If it has fallen off their records then it's not going to show up anyway.

I do agree that a lot of the paperwork for a visa seems to be nothing more than an exercise to keep a penpusher in a job.

His larger issue, was that if he answers no to this question, and for some ridiculous reason it did show up (which I don't think it will -- what sort of policeman would do that to a little kid?!) would he somehow then be in trouble for lying on the form? He merely wants to be honest, since they could not give him any sort of answer. But I do agree it's probably of no harm to select no to the question.

Well thanks Devonian, I'm not sure you've put his mind at ease entirely lol, but hopefully he can move on from the crisps.

We aren't talking about being interrogated by the Gestapo here, nobody could possibly read a telling off by a copper as a kid as something which would fall under the requirements of this question. As I said earlier I think it no more than method of confirming they are researching the right 'John Smith'.

The British worry a lot and over-analyze. Long thread over a potato chip. I don't remember what I did when I was 12. The potato chip is long forgotten. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Agreed!!!