wanderlust

Police cautions strict liability offence

92 posts in this topic

Suppose you are caught in a brothel raid and the the police offer you a caution, saying that they believe the girl was forced etc.

To accept a caution you have, as I understand it, admit guilt.

If the punter knew beforehand that the girl was forced it is rape and he is admitting a much more serious offence. If he had no accurate knowledge of the girl's circumstances before the punt how, unless she is thanking the copper for rescuing her, can he have any better knowledge at the time of arrest?

The likely situation is that he still does not know if he is guilty or not yet, to get away with a caution (if that is what he prefers) he has to say he is guilty. This seems extremely dubious process. Is it compatible e.g .with the Human Rights Act?

I assume that the police have guidelines about cautions. What do these have to say about issuing them when the accused cannot reasonably know if he is guilty or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cautions tend to be given for strict liability offences, hence the guidelines do not need to say anything.

In the example you have given the punter is admitting to paying for it with a woman that the police believe is forced NOT admitting to paying for it with a woman that he knew to be forced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People accept cautions for all manner of reasons, sometimes not related to the actual offence. (For example, a friend once accepted a caution so he could get away from the Police station with time to see his kids... if he'd known the implications of accepting a caution and the way it dogs you for the rest of your life he wouldn't have accepted it at the time, but hindsight is a marvellous thing.)

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose you are caught in a brothel raid and the the police offer you a caution, saying that they believe the girl was forced etc.

To accept a caution you have, as I understand it, admit guilt.

If the punter knew beforehand that the girl was forced it is rape and he is admitting a much more serious offence. If he had no accurate knowledge of the girl's circumstances before the punt how, unless she is thanking the copper for rescuing her, can he have any better knowledge at the time of arrest?

The likely situation is that he still does not know if he is guilty or not yet, to get away with a caution (if that is what he prefers) he has to say he is guilty. This seems extremely dubious process. Is it compatible e.g .with the Human Rights Act?

I assume that the police have guidelines about cautions. What do these have to say about issuing them when the accused cannot reasonably know if he is guilty or not?

the guidelines are that the police have to have enough to go to court, and that you have to admit your guilt. Since this is strict liability then if they feel they can prove the girl is covered by "force etc." all you have to do it admit you paid or promised to pay her and that would be admitting the offence, and they could then offer you a caution. They're not supposed to offer cautions to people who are denying the offence they've been arrested for as that could be seen as an inducement to confess. If the punter is married or has a girlfriend then he may obviously be worried about it all getting back to her and so the caution is the lesser of two evils. But someone's going to take them to court. It wouldn't be acceptable to have an offence which had never been tested in court so they'll have to do it at some point and then it'll get very interesting.

As I said I'm struggling to see what their evidence could be to say they could take it to court as no one was arrested for actually forcing or trafficking the girls.....let alone charged/cautioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People accept cautions for all manner of reasons, sometimes not related to the actual offence. (For example, a friend once accepted a caution so he could get away from the Police station with time to see his kids... if he'd known the implications of accepting a caution and the way it dogs you for the rest of your life he wouldn't have accepted it at the time, but hindsight is a marvellous thing.)

B

I fully agree the seriousness of accepting a caution. In most cases however the accused knows if he is guilty or not. He might say he is guilty when he is not in order to get away, but at least he knows and it is his prerogative to make a foolish decision.

Here the large probability is that the arrested punter does NOT know if he is guilty or not, of only has the policeman's say so, which may (ahem) have been edited for the purposes of attaining targets. It seems to me that any extensive use of cautions in relation to this offence would therefore be wholly inappropriate and I would -as a non-lawyer- question its legitimacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what happens if, for whatever reason, you accept a caution straight away whether you are guilty or not (you have no way of knowing) and the authorities later determine that they cannot prove that force, threats, etc actually took place. Clearly, they would be unable to charge other clients but would your caution still stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, what happens if, for whatever reason, you accept a caution straight away whether you are guilty or not (you have no way of knowing) and the authorities later determine that they cannot prove that force, threats, etc actually took place. Clearly, they would be unable to charge other clients but would your caution still stand?

you'd have to go back to them and appeal I guess. I'm not sure of what exactly the process would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People accept cautions for all manner of reasons, sometimes not related to the actual offence. (For example, a friend once accepted a caution so he could get away from the Police station with time to see his kids... if he'd known the implications of accepting a caution and the way it dogs you for the rest of your life he wouldn't have accepted it at the time, but hindsight is a marvellous thing.)

Absolutely true. The Police will make out that they are doing you a real favour by letting you off with a caution.

Another true story. A solicitor friend of mine was rushing home in the late 80's to see one of the Frank Bruno boxing matches. He lived in Camden and took a taxi home. Rather than get caught up in the one way-system he asked the taxi-driver to drop him off a couple of streets away. He paid the taxi-driver and then decided to run the rest of the way home so that he could see the start of the fight. Whilst running home the police arrested him for running away from the taxi without paying. He was bundled into the van and taken to Kentish Town Police Station. They offered him a caution without even speaking to the taxi-driver. He told them to "Fuck Off". They let him go. He complained the next day. They traced the taxi -driver who confirmed that he'd paid.

There is absolutely no way that I would accept a caution for this offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely true. The Police will make out that they are doing you a real favour by letting you off with a caution.

Another true story. A solicitor friend of mine was rushing home in the late 80's to see one of the Frank Bruno boxing matches. He lived in Camden and took a taxi home. Rather than get caught up in the one way-system he asked the taxi-driver to drop him off a couple of streets away. He paid the taxi-driver and then decided to run the rest of the way home so that he could see the start of the fight. Whilst running home the police arrested him for running away from the taxi without paying. He was bundled into the van and taken to Kentish Town Police Station. They offered him a caution without even speaking to the taxi-driver. He told them to "Fuck Off". They let him go. He complained the next day. They traced the taxi -driver who confirmed that he'd paid.

There is absolutely no way that I would accept a caution for this offence.

same here - in a perverse way I really hope I am caught in a raid and arrested. I'll rip them to shreds in the police interview and I'll take them all the way; through every legal avenue I can find. I'm sure there's quite a few well qualified QCs waiting for someone who's prepared to be a test case; this law has been roundly criticised by every independant legal minded person who's commented on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely no way that I would accept a caution for this offence.

Especially as cautions appear on CRB checks. Apart from possibly keeping the offence (whatever it may be) from one's friends and family there is absolutely no other point in accepting a caution, except perhaps under some very hypothetical conditions.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Especially as cautions appear on CRB checks. Apart from possibly keeping the offence (whatever it may be) from one's friends and family there is absolutely no other point in accepting a caution, except perhaps under some very hypothetical conditions.B

One question on this - on a slightly different tack.

Is this a "sex offense"?

Assume that a punter, who would totally recoil from the idea of underage sex & child pornography, accepts a caution, or is found guilty under the Act, after paying a 25+ woman, will he be placed on the register? Would the agency manageress?

Does a "full" CRB check differentiate risk? or would someone who is absolutely no risk whatsoever to cheildre end up being banned from volunteering is situations around children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One question on this - on a slightly different tack.

Is this a "sex offense"?

Assume that a punter, who would totally recoil from the idea of underage sex & child pornography, accepts a caution, or is found guilty under the Act, after paying a 25+ woman, will he be placed on the register? Would the agency manageress?

Does a "full" CRB check differentiate risk? or would someone who is absolutely no risk whatsoever to cheildre end up being banned from volunteering is situations around children?

well no you're not a registered sex offender as as result of this offence, however quite what effect it would have on an application to be a teacher or care worker is not clear. It wouldn't be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does a "full" CRB check differentiate risk? or would someone who is absolutely no risk whatsoever to cheildre end up being banned from volunteering is situations around children?

Full CRB checks disclose all convictions, including cautions. No context is provided, however.

well no you're not a registered sex offender as as result of this offence, however quite what effect it would have on an application to be a teacher or care worker is not clear. It wouldn't be a good thing.

With the introduction of safeguarding (which applies to both children and vulnerable adults) you'd certainly have some difficulty with certain jobs. It's quite possible that you wouldn't be able to be employed in a 'controlled' job but may be employable in a 'regulated' job:

http://www.isa-gov.org/Default.aspx?page=314

The last time I looked (which was a few years ago now) I couldn't find a list of the offences which counted, but could for Scotland. In Scotland the offences at the time were largely related with sex and drugs related convictions involving children.

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone receiving a caution for a sexual offence DOES have to sign the sex offender's register for two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not concerned about employment, more with volunteers in situations involving <18s.

In amateur sports clubs this could be not just coaches, but regular drivers to events, event officials, and organisers would have <18 yrs olds as helpers.

It is hard enough as it is to persuade people to help out, having to do a CRB check(even tho is costs nothing for volunteers) seems to be a barrier, and more laws that criminalise in a most uncertain way, behaviour that most folks just do not regard as criminal (tacky, immoral etc yes) just seems self defeating.

It's not just punters; I know several WGs, who are amateur coaches in children's sports clubs, that under this law operate "brothels"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no appeals process for cautions. A caution is an admission of guilt. Trust me I tried everything after accepting a caution for ABH, the solicitor told me if I pleaded self defence which is what it was I would be held while the other party was arrested and questioned and I needed to get out to care for my child.

They had arrested me at 3am in the morning from my home, my partner the "Victim" in thier eyes was so drunk I had to call a friend to take my six month old baby otherwise I was told he would be taken by social services because my partner was not fit for interview let alone to care for a baby. I was held overnight and finally interviewed at 11am. I was not allowed to make a call to check on the welfare of my child and had only left provisions to last him until lunchtime. I will point out I was stone cold sober but I was distraut about the welfare of my baby and the prospect of another 4 or 5 hours in a cell was too much, I took the caution and ran assuming I could fight the injustice in court at a later time. I was very simply told I had admitted my guilt and there was nothing that could be done.

There is no justice in the UK criminal justice system, its a business of statistics and figure aimed at making them look good for those that simply dont know any better. The police are just lemmings blindly following government agenda using the excuse they are "just doing thier jobs"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone receiving a caution for a sexual offence DOES have to sign the sex offender's register for two years.

This is incorrect.

Yes- a caution can mean that an offender is subject to the notification requirements and needs to sign the register but they only apply to specified sexual offences - usually the more serious ones especially those involving children.

The signing on period is determined by the nature of the offence and is not necessarily 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/18/childrensservices.politics1

according to this anyone cautioned for a sexual offence against either adults or children goes on for 2 years.

I agree it would seem to make zero sense to put people convicted of hh's strict liability offence on the register but then, other than the rape charge for those who knowingly go with forced women, what part of this does make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.kidshield.eu/sex_offenders_register.htm

or perhaps it would be more accurate to say you will be put on the register for two years. Maybe you don't have to go in to sign it but if you are convicted or receive a caution for any offence under the 2003 act, you will go on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
same here - in a perverse way I really hope I am caught in a raid and arrested. I'll rip them to shreds in the police interview and I'll take them all the way; through every legal avenue I can find. I'm sure there's quite a few well qualified QCs waiting for someone who's prepared to be a test case; this law has been roundly criticised by every independant legal minded person who's commented on it.

How about carrying a legal disclaimer .and getting the girl to sign it before i punt with her ???//

the place gets raided ,and i show the police the disclaimer .Will this be the end of the matter ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about carrying a legal disclaimer .and getting the girl to sign it before i punt with her ???//

the place gets raided ,and i show the police the disclaimer .Will this be the end of the matter ?????

Do you think that a signed disclaimer, or any sort of disclaimer from anybody else for that matter, will deter the police from investigating whether or not she is "forced etc."? If evidence is found of "force etc." of what use will that signed disclaimer, or any sort of disclaimer from anybody else for that matter, be to the punter? If no evidence is found of "force etc." of what use will that signed disclaimer, or any sort of disclaimer from anybody else for that matter, be to the punter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that a signed disclaimer, or any sort of disclaimer from anybody else for that matter, will deter the police from investigating whether or not she is "forced etc."? If evidence is found of "force etc." of what use will that signed disclaimer, or any sort of disclaimer from anybody else for that matter, be to the punter? If no evidence is found of "force etc." of what use will that signed disclaimer, or any sort of disclaimer from anybody else for that matter, be to the punter?

Sorry ,i am stiil confused about this one ??

The girl in question is stating in writing with her own signature ,that she is not ,forced ,coerced,or controlled by anyone to punt with me .

How would i be liable in a court of law ,when i have taken all precautions ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry ,i am stiil confused about this one ??

The girl in question is stating in writing with her own signature ,that she is not ,forced ,coerced,or controlled by anyone to punt with me .

How would i be liable in a court of law ,when i have taken all precautions ???

The prostitute in question can state in writing with her own signature anything she, or anybody else for that matter, likes, why do you think that the police will be deterred from investigating that statement for the purposes of evidence to the contrary?

Do you think that if a prostitute, or anybody else for that matter, was asked by the police "Did you murder Mr/Mrs X?" that a statement in writing with her own signature saying "I did not murder Mr/Mrs X" would be taken as a good reason for not investigating her statement? Do you think that the police would say "That'll do nicely thank you, sorry to have troubled you"?

The new legislation is "strict liability" and as such it is irrelevant what precautions you have taken, that is the whole point of "strict liability".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that if a prostitute, or anybody else for that matter, was asked by the police "Did you murder Mr/Mrs X?" that a statement in writing with her own signature saying "I did not murder Mr/Mrs X" would be taken as a good reason for not investigating her statement? Do you think that the police would say "That'll do nicely thank you, sorry to have troubled you"?

The new legislation is "strict liability" and as such it is irrelevant what precautions you have taken, that is the whole point of "strict liability".

Playing devils advocate here but I saw mentioned that HOD had had thier girls all sign a contract. In actuality arent they treading dangerous ground here but insisting the girls sign a contract in the first place as worthless as it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now