Police Caution sending letters

superscaper

I understand that the police may contact your employer if you receive a caution, but what about organisation memberships and institutions.

I don't have any cautions myself, but suppose I had one for lets say shoplifting. Would the police be overstepping their bounds by proactively sending a letter warning of my caution to the engineering institution I'm a member of?

Weirdlittleman

Possibly but most organisations would see non disclosure or refusal to allow disclosure of such a caution as discliplinary in its own right and probably kick you out.

superscaper

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Possibly but most organisations would see non disclosure or refusal to allow disclosure of such a caution as discliplinary in its own right and probably kick you out.

Well yes obviously, whatever an organisation's own rules I can understand and if you signed up to the rules then you should abide by them. Haven't looked at rules of the example I gave, I don't think there's actually any requirement to disclose cautions or even convictions to the IET for example. But just wondering about the police actively finding out your memberships and then sending letters to them.

Weirdlittleman

The police can disclose to professional bodies where they feel it is relevent and in the interests of the public interest such as national security, protect the vulnerable or administration of justice.

Overall its hard to say a general answer but I wouldnt fancy fighting such a decision in court, I also would suggest the decision is often down to the police for cautions hence mouthing off at arrest or such is never a good idea.

The IET ? - Is this the engineering and technology one? If so you should be reasonably safe although if they cautioned you for something like selling dodgy equipment or putting people at risk with dodgy technology then they may.

superscaper

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

The police can disclose to professional bodies where they feel it is relevent and in the interests of the public interest such as national security, protect the vulnerable or administration of justice.

Overall its hard to say a general answer but I wouldnt fancy fighting such a decision in court, I also would suggest the decision is often down to the police for cautions hence mouthing off at arrest or such is never a good idea.

The IET ? - Is this the engineering and technology one? If so you should be reasonably safe although if they cautioned you for something like selling dodgy equipment or putting people at risk with dodgy technology then they may.

Well it's not me personally and it's not the IET specifically. I was just using the nearest equivalent if it was me personally. The actual caution was for getting refund on items at a shop after the time allowed (i.e. using newer receipts for items bought older than the return period, e.g. 14 days). Seems rather trivial to me and I can't see how it'd apply to anything never mind the specific body. Although maybe under a generic trust policy since it's actually classed as fraud. Just surprised the police would go out of their way to inform societies etc.

Weirdlittleman

superscaper wrote: »

Well it's not me personally and it's not the IET specifically. I was just using the nearest equivalent if it was me personally. The actual caution was for getting refund on items at a shop after the time allowed (i.e. using newer receipts for items bought older than the return period, e.g. 14 days). Seems rather trivial to me and I can't see how it'd apply to anything never mind the specific body. Although maybe under a generic trust policy since it's actually classed as fraud.

As that is a caution for fraud I would suggest it could apply to any professional body as no one likes people guilty of dishonesty dealing with their affairs.

Accounting, Lawyers etc would be particularly likely to be notified of this sort of thing.

superscaper

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

As that is a caution for fraud I would suggest it could apply to any professional body as no one likes people guilty of dishonesty dealing with their affairs.

Accounting, Lawyers etc would be particularly likely to be notified of this sort of thing.

It's nothing like that, like I said if it was me it'd be the equivalent of the IET. I'm just surprised they must actively have people trying to find out what you're a member of. In this particular case the letter they sent was actually false (i.e. described a more serious crime) which is another issue in itself I suppose, but is why it got me wondering exactly what are the police allowed to do in terms of disclosing info on you (whether true or false).

Weirdlittleman

Is your friend actually you?

You seem awfully defensive of what is legally fraud/theft and their right not to suffer for it.

If you tell us the body it may help but I cant think of many who if advised of a fraud/theft wouldnt consider a discliplinary case and given it is fraud/theft the police can argue that the person is untrustworthy and hence in public interest to notify public/institutional bodies.

superscaper

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Is your friend actually you?

Didn't say it was a friend. But it's not me. You probably think I'm being overly defensive because you've assumed I'm talking about myself (if it was me why would I be stupid enough to post it in public using an identity that can easily identify me?). I'll reiterate and expand seeing as you missed it, I have no criminal record and have never been questioned, arrested or stopped by the police even, nor have I ever gone to court, criminal or civil.

It's not something I'd ever do but I just would have presumed it was a civil matter in first place. And genuinely surprised they'd contact memberships and not employer (although apparently employee told them straight away). I genuinely wanted to know police powers just in case anything did happen. I don't intend on breaking the law but you never know when you'll fall foul of the law anyway so wanted to know what they can do. It seems from your replies it's pretty much down to the individual officers' own judgements.

I'm just using something called empathy. And it genuinely wouldn't occur to me to actually inform someone like the IET over a caution like that.

DVardysShadow

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Possibly but most organisations would see non disclosure or refusal to allow disclosure of such a caution as discliplinary in its own right and probably kick you out.

Cautions, so I learnt here the other day, are spent under the ROHA as soon as they are given. So no grounds for a disciplinary.

Weirdlittleman

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Cautions, so I learnt here the other day, are spent under the ROHA as soon as they are given. So no grounds for a disciplinary.

Irrelevent for a discliplinary for a professional body. They are perfectly allowed to disclipline members they think are unsuitable for membership or bringing the institute into disrepute whether the conviction is spent or not.

You will find countless institutes which would dismiss for far less.