Advice Pls

Hello Every One

I have 3 points for Speeding, given by court by post , as i didnt paid my FPN on time and then i have a police caution both in 2009.

Now am i eligible to apply for Naturalisation?
Do i need to mention about my police caution, as i didnt mention about this in my ILR.

Please advise guys..Please

Thank you

See also 9. Good Character and Annex D: The good character requirement (page 29 onwards, in particular).

gkskumar12 wrote:Hello Every One

I have 3 points for Speeding, given by court by post , as i didnt paid my FPN on time and then i have a police caution both in 2009.

Now am i eligible to apply for Naturalisation?
Do i need to mention about my police caution, as i didnt mention about this in my ILR.

Please advise guys..Please

Thank you

Cautions do not need to be disclosed as they have a rehabilitation period of zero days. So your caution was spent as soon as it was issued.
You must declare your speeding conviction though.

I have called UKBA few times to clarify if caution needs to be disclosed or not. This is a bit of grey area as it's not a conviction however 3 advisors I spoke to strongly recommended declaring it on application as it will appear on police report. It will not however affect the application.
Safest route it's to declare it

I had the same experience, and i think i agree with you.

djazaira wrote:I have called UKBA few times to clarify if caution needs to be disclosed or not. This is a bit of grey area as it's not a conviction however 3 advisors I spoke to strongly recommended declaring it on application as it will appear on police report. It will not however affect the application.
Safest route it's to declare it

With due repect, there is no grey area here, its crystal clear and black and white. You only need to declare convictions which are not yet spent under rehabilitation of offenders act 1974. The ones that are spent do not need to be disclosed, simple. There is no rocket science here. Now when you are unsure what needs to be disclosed or what doesn't need to be disclosed, you must look at rehabilitation of offenders act 1974, not anyone's " strong advice".

Now you are thinking that you have a caution, what should you do?
You go and check that magic rehabilitation of offenders act 1974, and when you check it, you find that cautions have a rehabilitation period of zero days. Zero means nothing. Zero doesn't mean even one day. Hurray, you do not need to declare it. Even attorney general's "strong advice" is nothing, when you know that an act of parliament in force says that you do not need to disclose it.

Where is the grey area here? Can anyone let me know?

You must decide whether you take the professional advice of 3 legal advisors or the opinion of a member currently on 'thin ice' status on the forum.

You won't be refused BC due to the police caution but you could be for withholding the information. To make it clear from the UKBA guidelines:

3.5 Cautions
3.5.1 When determining whether an applicant meets the "good
character" requirement, caseworkers should not normally
take into account cautions unless they fall into one of the
following categories:
a. If the caution or cautions are of a sexual nature that
require the individual to be included on the Sex Offenders
Register. Any application received whilst the individual is
subject to reporting requirements on the Sex Offenders
Register should be refused (see section 4 for further
guidance).
b. If the individual has received multiple cautions that
show a pattern of offending, which causes harm to other
individuals or to the community in general, and which, on
the balance of probabilities, indicates the applicant is not of
good character.

Nowhere does it state that police cautions do not need to be disclosed.

Nowhere does it say? Are you sure Mr moderator? Does it or does it not say "somehwere" that unspent convictions do not need to be declared?
Well it does say somewhere that spent convictions do not need to be declared, bar sexual offence cautions which are exclusively mentioned. I aint going to quote the text yet. Lets see how able the moderators are.

I reciieved my CRB check today and it doesnt say i have any Convictions .
yes i does says about my Caution.

Please guys advise, is my Points issued by court is a Criminal offence or not?

shall i say i have a criminal offence or not in my application?

I dont mind mentioning it in Pg 13 , but shall say yes to criminal offence or not?

Advise please.

Please do not rely on CRB check to find out if you have any criminal convictions. Recently I made a detailed post about this confusing matter. I will try to search it and post it here again.

Here is a post that I made in past, not everything is relevant in your case, but it does clarify about traffic convictions, crb checks etc. Hope it helps.

I do have some knowledge about these court and police procedures. Many a times, police issues FPN's and they are not regarded as conviction and doesn't need to be disclosed at all.
If someone fails to pay the fine imposed by a FPN or to surrender their license for endorsement then they will end up getting summoned to court. If they are then convicted in court (which happens 99 percent of the time) then now this is regarded as a "conviction that must be spent under rehabilitation of offender's act 1974".
But please keep in mind, that police is not obliged to issue FPN. Depending on circumstances, they may charge someone with an offence without offering an option of FPN.

In your particular circumstances, there are two things. Driving without insurance and using mobile phone whilst driving.

You went to court (or it could be said you were summoned to court) and proved that you had insurance. This is the end of matter. You can totally forget about it. If you want to sue your insurance company for failing to put your details on Motor Insurance Database, which caused the police to impound you car, which in turn led you to incur payments to police and caused you inconvenience, then it is entirely your decision. This has nothing to do with Rehabilitation or conviction or declaring it anywhere at all ever in your lifetime.

Second issue is Using Mobile Phone Whilst Driving. You were summoned to court for these charges too, on the same day as the other offence of Driving Without Insurance. You pleaded guilty to the offence. Needless to say that court passed a guilty verdit and imposed a fine. Now this conviction must be spent under rehabilitation of offenders act and must be declared on form AN. SUSHDMEHTA is wrong and confused to suggest that you should obtain CRB check to see if the conviction appears on it. Not all convictions are recorded on CRB. Only "RECORDABLE" offences appear on CRB. The particular offence you have been convicted of will never appear on CRB database. But let me clarify something which is very important and many people do not understand this. "If a conviction doesn't appear on CRB then it doesn't mean that its a conviction that is disregarded by UKBA"
Now comes the question, when a conviction does't appear on CRB then how does UKBA know if an applicant has a convcition?
Simple, in case of a traffic offence conviction, it will be on DVLA database, which is checked by UKBA. If its a non-driving offence, then the offence will still appear on HMCS computer. So in a nutshell, if a conviction has occurred, then there is no escaping from it.

UKBA can exercise discretion in some cases where there is an unspent conviction. But as per current UKBA quidance, using a mobile phone is regarded as a serious offence and will not be disregarded. If you still want to apply for naturalisation and still ask for discretion and if the risk of loosing application application fee is not an issue for you, then its your decison to have a shot and see what happens.

mrlookforward wrote:Here is a post that I made in past, not everything is relevant in your case, but it does clarify about traffic convictions, crb checks etc. Hope it helps.

I do have some knowledge about these court and police procedures. Many a times, police issues FPN's and they are not regarded as conviction and doesn't need to be disclosed at all.
If someone fails to pay the fine imposed by a FPN or to surrender their license for endorsement then they will end up getting summoned to court. If they are then convicted in court (which happens 99 percent of the time) then now this is regarded as a "conviction that must be spent under rehabilitation of offender's act 1974".
But please keep in mind, that police is not obliged to issue FPN. Depending on circumstances, they may charge someone with an offence without offering an option of FPN.

In your particular circumstances, there are two things. Driving without insurance and using mobile phone whilst driving.

You went to court (or it could be said you were summoned to court) and proved that you had insurance. This is the end of matter. You can totally forget about it. If you want to sue your insurance company for failing to put your details on Motor Insurance Database, which caused the police to impound you car, which in turn led you to incur payments to police and caused you inconvenience, then it is entirely your decision. This has nothing to do with Rehabilitation or conviction or declaring it anywhere at all ever in your lifetime.

Second issue is Using Mobile Phone Whilst Driving. You were summoned to court for these charges too, on the same day as the other offence of Driving Without Insurance. You pleaded guilty to the offence. Needless to say that court passed a guilty verdit and imposed a fine. Now this conviction must be spent under rehabilitation of offenders act and must be declared on form AN. SUSHDMEHTA is wrong and confused to suggest that you should obtain CRB check to see if the conviction appears on it. Not all convictions are recorded on CRB. Only "RECORDABLE" offences appear on CRB. The particular offence you have been convicted of will never appear on CRB database. But let me clarify something which is very important and many people do not understand this. "If a conviction doesn't appear on CRB then it doesn't mean that its a conviction that is disregarded by UKBA"
Now comes the question, when a conviction does't appear on CRB then how does UKBA know if an applicant has a convcition?
Simple, in case of a traffic offence conviction, it will be on DVLA database, which is checked by UKBA. If its a non-driving offence, then the offence will still appear on HMCS computer. So in a nutshell, if a conviction has occurred, then there is no escaping from it.

UKBA can exercise discretion in some cases where there is an unspent conviction. But as per current UKBA quidance, using a mobile phone is regarded as a serious offence and will not be disregarded. If you still want to apply for naturalisation and still ask for discretion and if the risk of loosing application application fee is not an issue for you, then its your decison to have a shot and see what happens.

Thanks mrlookforward. This is very helpful. I have question on related topic. What is a criminal conviction? until convicted by court its not a criminal conviction and hence not required to be disclosed? I owe HRMC some money due to not closing my limited company officially the way it should have been. For this reason I have been receiving letters from HRMC but have not been to court. It is a claim from HRMC that is not convicted in the courts. Do you think this should be disclosed in the application? Could it be a ground for refusal? I have been paying my taxes through PAYE for last 3 years. Have all P60s. Do you think my naturalization application can be rejected for this reason? Thanks.

Rather than going deep into details, I will give you a basic idea as to what criminal conviction is. Any court summons/hearings that ask you to either plead guilty or not guilty, are summons/hearings of a criminal proceeding, and needles to say a conviction from a criminal proceeding is going to be a criminal conviction. Also note and read from form An that not only conviction, but charges too are to be disclosed.

Now your HMRC problem. Well, I cannot answer you fully on this. UKBA does check HMRC records, but no one knows the extent of these checks. If HMRC is chasing you for unpaid debts, then only this in itself is not regarded as being "charged" with an offence. But, it is possible that UKBA might find out that your tax matters are not in order. Again, no one really knows the full extent of UKBA checks with HMRC or othewise.

But I would say, why ponder, you have an unspent conviction, which in itself is enough to act as a dead end to your naturalisation prospects.

^^ thanks for answering my question. Much appreciated. Didn't get your laast sentence. Did you say I already have unspent conviction? It is a debt I need to pay but not summoned or convicted in the court.

Please can I just clear up the incorrect information Mrlookforward is giving. The Rehabilitation of Offenders act he is referring to deals with criminal convictions, cautions have nothing to do with this act as it is completely different. He is really saying the same thing as "if they asked you whether you are married, you don't have to declare it, because marriage has a rehabilitation period of 0". For the purpose of the Rehab of Offenders act, the difference between a criminal conviction and a caution is the same as a criminal conviction and marriage. Two very different concepts.

Be truthful and open - it goes a lot further in proving good character than trying to be deceptive and bending the truth.

Another piece of outdated information being handed out by another par-boiled expert. Initially cautions were not part of rehabilitation of offenders act, but now cautions are part of rehabilitation of offenders act, and they have given a rehabilitation of zero days. I do not know the rationale behind it myself, but that is the position. And yes, do not come back banging on arguing, please go and read the legislation properly and the amendments and orders made under the legislation (roa 1974).

And yes, I will post the relevant link proving what I said about cautions is correct, and what the above par-boiled expert said is wrong, after I have given the par-boiled expert a chance to do some research and amend his/her wrong, outdated and misleading advice.

web2005 wrote:^^ thanks for answering my question. Much appreciated. Didn't get your laast sentence. Did you say I already have unspent conviction? It is a debt I need to pay but not summoned or convicted in the court.

I didn't say you have a conviction. You said in your first post that you have a conviction for speeding in 2009.

mrlookforward wrote:

web2005 wrote:^^ thanks for answering my question. Much appreciated. Didn't get your laast sentence. Did you say I already have unspent conviction? It is a debt I need to pay but not summoned or convicted in the court.

I didn't say you have a conviction. You said in your first post that you have a conviction for speeding in 2009.

I never posted saying I have conviction for speeding. You must be mixing me with someone else.

haha, yes I did. This thread was started by gkskumar, and I was answering him, and then you came and asked something in the middle.

I have no doubt that Mrlookforward will back on the forum under a different log-in name, but for now I believe that members have a right to be treated with respect. Mulderpf, as Mrlookforward is not longer active on the forum, I'll apologise on his behalf.

Casa wrote:I have no doubt that Mrlookforward will back on the forum under a different log-in name, but for now I believe that members have a right to be treated with respect. Mulderpf, as Mrlookforward is not longer active on the forum, I'll apologise on his behalf.

Mrlookforward, if you go through his posting history, seems to make a distinct effort to be as disrespectful, rude, arrogant, belittling and downright nasty as possible to anybody he can at ANY opportunity.

Not only that, he lacks a stunning knowledge of immigration law and hands out "advice" that if taken, can seriously ruin lives of visa applicants.

For one hand he flat out has told people to lie by omission on visa forms by not declaring crimes and CCJs.

I think that's all I'll say on this matter about this "person" on the record. If he comes back under a new name, I'll be the first to report.

Just wanted to say to be careful of Mr Lookforward. I agree with Snarkaholic as he has been giving ridiculous advice to genuine queries. He seems to be trawling all over forum boards that have got to do with UK immigration. I have spent days arguing his bizarre points one by one ie UKBA is not the ultimate authority in british immigration matters?

I think it is a shame that alot of genuine queries are belittled and worse, given the wrong advice by him.

He is now on this forum board http://www.lifeintheuk.org/mod/forum/view.php?id=16

Locking the topic to prevent any further post(s) that may be indicative of a "campaign" against the now banned member.