Jump to content

To declare or not declare?


topshunt
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You do not need to mention cautions. If they wanted you to then the form would ask for it. The notes refer to not withholding details of any offence but that is in the context of actual convictions and not anything else. You don't need to give details of fixed penalties either as they are not convictions.

 

Cautions are an easy way for the police to clear up minor 'crime' without the expense of employing the courts. Lots and lots of cautions are highly suspect in that many people who have accepted them would never have been convicted, or even prosecuted, had they actually been charged. There are even some people who have accepted cautions for offences which don't even exist! I know for certain that there have been people who have accepted cautions for possessing shotgun ammunition without an SGC and there is not such offence!

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from the Home Office licensing guidelines to police.

 

 

 

12.5 Consideration should also be given to

any previous convictions or cautions held by

persons who do not fall within the provisions

of section 21 and, in particular, any

conviction which involves the use of a

firearm and offences involving violence, or

offences involving dishonesty or a disregard

for public safety, or cautions held by persons

for offences such as a failure to comply with

conditions on a firearm certificate (taking

account of the seriousness of the breach of

conditions). Although convictions overseas do

not count towards prohibition, they might be

relevant to questions of “fitness”. Chief

officers of police will also want to be aware

of the following judgements. Although these

cases were decided on their particular facts,

they offer broad guidance that may have

applicability elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from the Home Office licensing guidelines to police.

 

 

 

12.5 Consideration should also be given to

any previous convictions or cautions held by

persons who do not fall within the provisions

of section 21 and, in particular, any

conviction which involves the use of a

firearm and offences involving violence, or

offences involving dishonesty or a disregard

for public safety, or cautions held by persons

for offences such as a failure to comply with

conditions on a firearm certificate (taking

account of the seriousness of the breach of

conditions). Although convictions overseas do

not count towards prohibition, they might be

relevant to questions of “fitness”. Chief

officers of police will also want to be aware

of the following judgements. Although these

cases were decided on their particular facts,

they offer broad guidance that may have

applicability elsewhere.

 

That's related to the actual procedure the police employ when considering whether to grant the certificate. It's not about how you have to fill out the form. It says the police have to consider it, not that you have to declare it.

 

The form says 'Have you ever been convicted of any offence?'. A caution is not an offence. If you ticked yes when you only had a caution then how could you possibly sign the statement at the end which reads 'The information I have provided is true to the best of my knowledgre and belief.'? Not that anything would ever come of it, I don't think.

 

To be honest, I really can't see why that question is still there as it seems totally pointless. All these records are easily checkable by the police - it's not like they would have to go checking through piles of paper records and would have little chance of finding a conviction you acquired in another part of the country 40 years ago.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's splitting hairs. A person receiving a caution has not been convicted of an offence, in a court of law. Nonetheless, they have admitted the offence. You can't get a caution without an admission.

 

Why agonise over whether to put it down? Just do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The form says 'Have you ever been convicted of any offence?'. A caution is not an offence. If you ticked yes when you only had a caution then how could you possibly sign the statement at the end which reads 'The information I have provided is true to the best of my knowledgre and belief.'? Not that anything would ever come of it, I don't think.

 

 

 

J.

 

You're right, a caution is not an offence, but then nor is a conviction. One is a punishment, the other an outcome of a court hearing.

 

However, a caution is only given after admitting an OFFENCE.

 

The notes clearly say you are not to withhold information about any OFFENCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's splitting hairs. A person receiving a caution has not been convicted of an offence, in a court of law. Nonetheless, they have admitted the offence. You can't get a caution without an admission.

 

Why agonise over whether to put it down? Just do it.

 

No it isn't. The form asks; 'Have you ever been convicted of any offence?'. As you rightly say, a caution is not a conviction and there is no reason to have to second-guess a question on an official form. If you tick 'Yes' then you are, strictly speaking, making a false statement, are you not?

 

Yes, they have admitted the offence but, as I say, that doesn't necessarily mean they would ver have been convicted. As I mentioned, I know of cases where people have been cautioned for 'offences' which don't even exist.

 

If the police want to ask you the question then they should amend the question. Not that there is much point as they know it all anyway.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, a caution is not an offence, but then nor is a conviction. One is a punishment, the other an outcome of a court hearing.

 

However, a caution is only given after admitting an OFFENCE.

 

The notes clearly say you are not to withhold information about any OFFENCE.

 

You are wrong on your interpretation of the notes. The notes relate to the question. The question asks whether you have ever been convicted of any offence and the notes are about how to answer that particular question. They mean that you are not entitled to withhold any information relating to offences you have been convicted of. They cannot mean anything else as the question is only about convictions. Try reading the actual question on the actual form and then the notes and you'll see what I'm getting at.

 

As I say. Lots of people admit to offences thet would never be convicted of as it's an easy and relatively pain free option in many cases.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People do try to get clever about this, which is a shame.

 

The form might need amending to account for the people who don't consider a caution as an admission of an offence.

 

people have been cautioned for 'offences' which don't even exist.

 

Easy statement to make - harder to prove. As you are so hot on posters proving every word that they say, I look forward to publication of the facts surrounding "people have been cautioned for 'offences' which don't even exist." I am assured that that is the way it works on forums. :rolleyes::yes:

 

It's normally just a variation on "a man in the pub told me".

Edited by Gordon R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People do try to get clever about this, which is a shame.

 

The form might need amending to account for the people who don't consider a caution as an admission of an offence.

 

I fail to see what you mean by that. You seem to put far too much effort into these cryptic replies of yours.

 

The form asks a question; Have you ever been convicted of any offence? A caution is not a conviction (as you rightly agree) so if you have a caution only then you tick 'no' as that is a true statement, surely?

 

 

Easy statement to make - harder to prove. As you are so hot on posters proving every word that they say, I look forward to publication of the facts surrounding "people have been cautioned for 'offences' which don't even exist." I am assured that that is the way it works on forums. :rolleyes::yes:

 

It's normally just a variation on "a man in the pub told me".

 

Fair enough. I don't have any information to hand so I withdraw it.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong on your interpretation of the notes. The notes relate to the question. The question asks whether you have ever been convicted of any offence and the notes are about how to answer that particular question. They mean that you are not entitled to withhold any information relating to offences you have been convicted of. They cannot mean anything else as the question is only about convictions. Try reading the actual question on the actual form and then the notes and you'll see what I'm getting at.

 

As I say. Lots of people admit to offences thet would never be convicted of as it's an easy and relatively pain free option in many cases.

 

J.

 

Good grief :no:

 

I haven't misinterpreted anything. The notes relate to withholding information about ANY offence.

The police will check their records and if they see you've put down an SP30 and omitted a caution for ABH they're going to be asking some fairly searching questions. At the end of the day the OP asked for advice about a caution, and the BEST advice is to mention it on the form.

 

What you do is up to you.

 

Let's hope the OP isn't in South Yorks area eh?

 

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/requestinginformation/firearmslicensing/faqs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JonathanL - it's put up or shut up. You place such store by posters proving every word - however insignificant. doesn't really hack it, if you want credibility.

 

I trust most people to make their own judgement as to what is credible or not. They read what I write here and can make their own minds up about it. If they think I'm wrong, fine.

 

I can't prove it as it relates to the experience of people I know so there aren't any records to prove either way. I've said I withdraw it. You can draw your own conlusions about that as can anyone else. You can think I made it all up if you like, I really don't care.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How thick are some people. Should I tell them about a caution,maybe/maybe not. THINK ABOUT IT, the police have everything you have ever been done for be it speeding ticket, caution or prison sentence so just ******* tell them. They already know everything so it just looks better if you declare everything no matter how trivial.

 

No offence to the op but Jesus christ. This should of been rapped up in one answer, TELL THEM EVERYTHING because they already know so why would you hold something back.

 

Then there's people arguing over a caution being a conviction. For ****s sake they don't hand out cautions for being a good citizen do they so just tell them. What you tell the police they check against their records so you will only look a **** for lying. Can't believe this has taken 3 pages.

 

So to the op's original question, do I tell the police about all the things that the police already know about me. Hmmmmm tough one. I think you should tell them what you feel like and let them guess the rest. That Way it will reflect best on you wont it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then there's people arguing over a caution being a conviction. For ****s sake they don't hand out cautions for being a good citizen do they so just tell them. What you tell the police they check against their records so you will only look a **** for lying. Can't believe this has taken 3 pages.

 

 

 

That's not the point though. The question asks whether you have ever been convicted of anything. A caution is not a conviction and even someone who's determined to argeue on the issue has accepted that to be the case.

 

What I'm saying is that you do not need to declare it. You can mention it in a covering letter if you want, I suppose you could also tick the 'no' box on the form followed by, '...but I once had a caution for X,Y,Z' in the 'give details box' but the police cannot 'mark you down, as it were for not decaring a caution when they specifically didn't ask for it.

 

Regardless of what people think, there is absolutely no chance of then refusing to grant a cert because you didn't tell then about a caution. The first thing a judge will say to that is, 'But he hasn't hidden anything because you didn't ask him.'. On this very thread another poster has given an example of someone who did get his cert issued despite not putting a caution down on the form. They might bluff and bluster about how lucky you were to get it granted because you had the gall to omit to tell them about your caution but that's all it is - bluff and bluster. They would never refuse to grant on that basis.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Don't get why you wouldn't tell them about a caution. If speeding tickets are relevant then surly a caution is worth mentioning for the purpose of complete transparency. Is it worth risking. The police know what a caution is so let them decide if it's relevant or not. It just shows your being completely honest with them.

 

Better to give more info than needed than less and look like your hiding something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Don't get why you wouldn't tell them about a caution. If speeding tickets are relevant then surly a caution is worth mentioning for the purpose of complete transparency. Is it worth risking. The police know what a caution is so let them decide if it's relevant or not. It just shows your being completely honest with them.

 

Better to give more info than needed than less and look like your hiding something.

 

You are perfectly entitled to not give details of a caution bcause they have not asked you to delare it.

 

Motoring offences are only relevant if they they result in a conviction. A fixed penalty is not a convition so need not be delcared. Before the resident legal geneii pipe-up on this point; I know this as a fact because I had a speeding fixed penalty which I didn't put on the form once and I'm not in chokey for not declaring it, nor did I get my certs pulled. The police didn't even mention it at all - bcause I dind't need to decalere it. I did, on the other hand, declare a conviction I got in 1994 for running a red light. As it happens, the only reason it was a conviction was because I couldn't find my licence so it couldn't b dealt with by way of a fixed pnalty. Had it have been a fixed penalty I wouldn't have put that on the form either and I would still have my tickets!

 

You ask if it's a risk worth taking? The question cannot be answered because there is no risk. Thy have not askd yuo to declare a caution and you cannot be penalised for something which you have not been asked to do and are not required by law to do. As I say, if they were ever to refuse someone on those grounds the judge would laugh them out of court.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some people who would argue the most minute detail, just to be awkward, even if they ended up losing out. I pity such people. :no: :no: :no:

 

JonathanL - it is no use withdrawing statements. You have made them and can't back them up. How does this sit with:-

If you state something as being true then you must be prepard to back it up with evidence.

 

You were quick to stuff that down our throats. Over to you. That is how it works. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a bit of a grey area with the actual question and in a way everybodys point has some credibility.

 

But like i said earlier after speaking to FEO i will be declaring everything(including caution) as advised by them, regardless of how the question reads and how different people interpret it.

 

Thanks for all the input

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of what has gone beforeon this thread is bull **** in my opinion. The facts are a matter of record, thats it . THEY will make the decision. If you come over as an evasive person it will be obvious. Be up front honest and factual. Tell it how it was. there is nothing to be gained by being otherwise.

 

I know somebody who has a SGC despite having two DD convictions. He told it straight, I was pretty wild, I was a biker and in a lot of bad company. But I'm married now, I have two kids and a job. I don't see the old crowd and I don't mix with them. They believed him and granted the certificate. He hasn't let them down. Neither has he let himself down, he loves his shooting and he is no way going to f88k up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince - can't disagree. :good: :good: :good:

 

You can either chose to be upfront and declare everything, even if you aren't sure it counts.

 

Or you can chose to be a bit of a smart Alec, who points out that the form is a bit ambiguous and possibly doesn't cover cautions properly. If you chose that route, the Police may well form an opinion which counts against you.

 

Why, why take a chance? Just be honest and upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...