Bank Account Cheques For Pip Claimants
How it Works1 min ago
Not sure where to post this but it's a question about criminal records.
If a person has been given an official caution by the Police (UK), but have never been charged with an offence, does this mean they have a criminal record? Only answer please if you are certain of what you're saying - either way. Thanks in advance.
No best answer has yet been selected by Mr.Tamzarian. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.In response to your last, no. a caution really isn't that serious, hence its a caution.
Remember though there are two "criminal records"
One is a CRO number (Criminal Records Office). A caution will not give you a CRO number. However......
Two is a PNC number (Police National Computer) You may have heard this on The Bill "Can I have a PNC check over" A caution will give you a PNC number.
Further a caution may also appear on local police data bases (i.e the Met uses Crimint) However this is never disclosed outside Police communities unless the person concerned requests info under freedom of information act.
Thanks everyone. Very helpful but I'm not convinced that the information would still be confidential for someone applying for a position in the civilian section of a police force.
If anyone would have access to it, the police themselves would and they might use it in selecting any applicants for employment without the applicants knowing, even for minor cautions.
I just get the feeling that applicants have to be whiter than white. The application form does ask for names and addresses of father, mother, brothers and sisters so that a check can be made on them.
Just how much a caution will affect the application remains to be seen.
Thanks again.
was just going to say about the form asking for family and partner details, my girlfriend got one recently, i doubt that a family member's caution will affect you at all so i would put it down rather than try to omit it altogether which would look a lot worse if noticed.
As for 'previous' in judgej's post - yes i agree, and it is not only on conviction that this comes to the judge/mag's attention (although it is supposed to be) they see it all before/during the trial, i dont care what the law says - they are just as corrupt as the people they're judging - ive watched them flick through all the papers they arent supposed to have or see !. So in court they have pretty much made up their minds before the trial.