Advice please: previously interviewed under caution

[citydweller]

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping to get some advice.

In 2014 I was "arrested and interviewed under caution" by a revenue protection officer after declining to pay a penalty fare issued on board a train. This was as a result of a disagreement that arose between myself and the RPI as to whether I should have to pay a penalty fare.

The interview under caution took place on the station platform after getting off the train. I disputed whether the RPI had the authority to detain me and asked a passing police officer from the British Transport Police if he would witness the interview, which he did. Afterwards the BTP officer gave me his name and PC number and left.

The matter was referred by the RPI to Southern Rail's prosecutions office. I submitted my written argument to the office and subsequently the matter did not proceed to court. I was not asked to pay the penalty fare. I heard nothing further from the prosecutions office, which had the right address for me.

My question is: I want to apply for a job as a police officer. Will I have to declare this incident as a previous conviction or caution?

Many thanks

 

[Romilly]

It is not a conviction - the matter did not go to the magistrates' court and therefore you have not been convicted (i.e. found guilty) of a criminal offence by a court.

"Caution" has two meanings.

The first is the warning you were given of your right to remain silent.

The second is where you admit to the police that you have committed an offence but, rather than pass the papers to the CPS for a possible prosecution, they offer (and you agree to accept) a caution as a way of dealing with the matter. It is meant to be recorded against you, will be seen as relevant if you offend again, may be subject to you complying with conditions (e.g. to go on a course aimed to prevent re-offending), and is intended for low-level offending.

I would have thought that you are being asked about this second kind of caution, which from what you say is not what happened in your case.

 

[najaB]

My question is: I want to apply for a job as a police officer. Will I have to declare this incident as a previous conviction or caution?

As Romilly said, it's neither a conviction (as it didn't go to court) nor is it a police caution.

 

[sjoh]

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping to get some advice.

In 2014 I was "arrested and interviewed under caution" by a revenue protection officer after declining to pay a penalty fare issued on board a train. This was as a result of a disagreement that arose between myself and the RPI as to whether I should have to pay a penalty fare.

The interview under caution took place on the station platform after getting off the train. I disputed whether the RPI had the authority to detain me and asked a passing police officer from the British Transport Police if he would witness the interview, which he did. Afterwards the BTP officer gave me his name and PC number and left.

The matter was referred by the RPI to Southern Rail's prosecutions office. I submitted my written argument to the office and subsequently the matter did not proceed to court. I was not asked to pay the penalty fare. I heard nothing further from the prosecutions office, which had the right address for me.

My question is: I want to apply for a job as a police officer. Will I have to declare this incident as a previous conviction or caution?

Many thanks

Been said above already, but no.

Being interviewed under caution is simply a way to ensure that you aware that from that point on things you say will be admissible as evidence in court, and to ensure that you are reminded of your right not to self incriminate (amongst a few other legal technicalities). It is not the same as being cautioned (which Ronilly has already explained).

Essentially sounds like you dodged a bullet and you're absolutely fine going forward. Good luck with your application to the police.

 

[Master29]

A question. Is a bylaw caution the same as a normal police caution. If so I was under the impression a caution does go on record. Not trying to alarm the OP here as I`m probably wrong.

 

[citydweller]

Thank you everyone for your advice. It is greatly appreciated.
I guess I was wondering exactly what Master29 has said:

(A question. Is a bylaw caution the same as a normal police caution. If so I was under the impression a caution does go on record. Not trying to alarm the OP here as I`m probably wrong.)

It seems though from what everyone has said that this is not the case. Am I right in thinking this?

Once again, thank you all for your help.

 

[Deerfold]

A question. Is a bylaw caution the same as a normal police caution. If so I was under the impression a caution does go on record. Not trying to alarm the OP here as I`m probably wrong.

There's no such thing as a "bylaw caution". The OP was interviewed "under caution", meaning their rights were read to them before the interview began and the RPI will have had to follow fairly strict procedures in conducting the interview.

A police caution is a punishment which can be accepted in lieu of taking a matter to court, where an offender effectively pleads guilty to the police in return for a minor punishment and bypasses the court system. If the police have not been involved in this case (other than as a witness) this is not an option.

I'm not sure why you've picked up on this as it's already been explained by both Romilley and sjoh.

 

[Master29]

There's no such thing as a "bylaw caution". The OP was interviewed "under caution", meaning their rights were read to them before the interview began and the RPI will have had to follow fairly strict procedures in conducting the interview.

A police caution is a punishment which can be accepted in lieu of taking a matter to court, where an offender effectively pleads guilty to the police in return for a minor punishment and bypasses the court system. If the police have not been involved in this case (other than as a witness) this is not an option.

I'm not sure why you've picked up on this as it's already been explained by both Romilley and sjoh.

Romilly rightly explains that it remains on record which is precisely my point. A caution can potentially remain against you. The reason I say this is through experience. Not of myself but a close friend who refused a caution under advisement as it does show up on CRB checks.

 

[AlterEgo]

Romilly rightly explains that it remains on record which is precisely my point. A caution can potentially remain against you. The reason I say this is through experience. Not of myself but a close friend who refused a caution under advisement as it does show up on CRB checks.

Why are you going on about something which didn't happen to the OP? Being interviewed under caution does NOT get recorded.

As explained several times:

"Being interviewed under caution" = just an interview. No charge or punishment is made. It's simply a way of conducting an interview so the subject knows their rights. It is NOT recorded on the Police National Computer.

A "police caution" = a minor punishment, which is recorded on the Police National Computer, where the subject admits guilt and in return receives this very minor punishment.

 

[Haywain]

A "police caution" = a minor punishment, which is recorded on the Police National Computer, where the subject admits guilt and in return receives this very minor punishment.

And, inevitably, can only happen when the police are involved in the matter, which is fairly unusual for fares offences prosecuted by a Train Operating Company.

 

[sjoh]

Thank you everyone for your advice. It is greatly appreciated.
I guess I was wondering exactly what Master29 has said:

(A question. Is a bylaw caution the same as a normal police caution. If so I was under the impression a caution does go on record. Not trying to alarm the OP here as I`m probably wrong.)

It seems though from what everyone has said that this is not the case. Am I right in thinking this?

Once again, thank you all for your help.

To make this as plain as I possibly can: you have not been cautioned.

I understand that the language can be a bit confusing here, but being interviewed under caution is nothing to do with being cautioned.

 

[citydweller]

To make this as plain as I possibly can: you have not been cautioned.

I understand that the language can be a bit confusing here, but being interviewed under caution is nothing to do with being cautioned.

Thanks for putting it simply for me! Now I'm clear on the caution part of it.

Many thanks everyone - there is so much expertise on here!

However, I can't remember if this was on the train or on the platform when we got off but I seem to remember the RPI saying that he was "arresting" me.

Judging from the comments I've had here (and sorry to be stupid!) but can I take it that this too is not something I have to declare on my police application? form?

Many thanks

 

[Agent_c]

Thanks for putting it simply for me! Now I'm clear on the caution part of it.

Many thanks everyone - there is so much expertise on here!

However, I can't remember if this was on the train or on the platform when we got off but I seem to remember the RPI saying that he was "arresting" me.

Judging from the comments I've had here (and sorry to be stupid!) but can I take it that this too is not something I have to declare on my police application? form?

Many thanks

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think RPI's have the power of arrest... Don't they need the BTP constables for that?

 

[najaB]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think RPI's have the power of arrest... Don't they need the BTP constables for that?

If I remember correctly the RoRA gives them the power to detain a passenger who fails to give their name and address until a Constable can arrest them. Doubt it will ever be done though.

 

[Pinza-C55]

If I remember correctly the RoRA gives them the power to detain a passenger who fails to give their name and address until a Constable can arrest them. Doubt it will ever be done though.

How can they detain them ? I'm out of touch with the current railway rules but in my day (2004 and previous) we were told that even touching a passenger could be construed as a physical assault.

 

[najaB]

How can they detain them ? I'm out of touch with the current railway rules but in my day (2004 and previous) we were told that even touching a passenger could be construed as a physical assault.

That's why I said it is unlikely to happen in practice. The legislation says:

If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

 

[citydweller]

Hi,

The BTP officer who acted as a witness confirmed that RPIs did have the authority to "arrest" someone. I think that the BTP officer may have said that it was a similar scenario to a citizen's arrest - but I may have got that wrong. However, the officer definitely said that the RPI did have the authority to arrest me.

On the train I had declined to present ID showing my name and address to the RPI as I only had a hospital letter, which I did not want to show him.

However, I gave him my name and address verbally. He rang someone to verify my details (as I had a registered Oyster card) and the person on the other end of the phone told him that the address I'd given was not valid. I was asked to repeat the address, which I did, and was then asked if I was sure this was the right address. I said it was. (Which was true.) I do understand that RPIs encounter people giving the wrong details.

So is the arrest by the RIP something I must declare in my police application?

Many thanks.

 

[Master29]

Why are you going on about something which didn't happen to the OP? Being interviewed under caution does NOT get recorded.

As explained several times:

"Being interviewed under caution" = just an interview. No charge or punishment is made. It's simply a way of conducting an interview so the subject knows their rights. It is NOT recorded on the Police National Computer.

A "police caution" = a minor punishment, which is recorded on the Police National Computer, where the subject admits guilt and in return receives this very minor punishment.

OK fair point. I stand corrected. NajaB did say that in one of his replies. I didn`t want to alarm the OP just make a point which is academic now.

 

[cuccir]

So is the arrest by the RIP something I must declare in my police application?

Many thanks.

No - if it asks only for you to declare "a previous conviction or caution" then you do not have to declare it.

 

[citydweller]

No - if it asks only for you to declare "a previous conviction or caution" then you do not have to declare it.

Thanks for clarifying. Many thanks to all on this thread who've given me the benefit of their time and expertise. I'm very grateful.