Post
by canon123 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:56 pm
A caution (simple or conditional), warning or reprimand are all examples of an “out of court disposal that are recorded on a person‟s criminal record” (i.e. line 4 in Table 2.1).
Even where a person does not have a caution, warning or reprimand within the last three years, the decision maker may still refuse an application if the person has received multiple disposals of this kind that show a pattern of offending.
Decision makers may still refuse an application where a person‟s record shows a „non-custodial offence or other out of court disposal‟ older than 3 years, if the circumstances of the conviction or disposal call the person‟s character into question.
The factors the decision maker should consider include, but are not restricted to:
(a) The number of non-custodial sentences or other out of court disposals on the applicant’s record. There is no set number of non-custodial sentences or disposals that would lead to an application being refused. However, the higher the number the more likely it is the application will be refused.
(b) The period over which offences were committed or other disposals occurred. Decision makers should consider whether the offences or other disposals indicate a pattern of behaviour that could justify a refusal. For example, a series of minor offences or disposals may indicate sustained anti-social behaviour or disregard for the law which will be relevant to the assessment of the person‟s character.
(c) The nature of the offences or the behaviour that led to other disposals. Decision makers should look at the nature of the offences involved, or the behaviour that led to an out of court disposal. For example behaviour involving anti-social behaviour, drug use, or violence may well indicate that a person‟s character is such that their application should be refused (particularly if there is a pattern of such behaviour). In contrast isolated minor incidents such as traffic violations will not normally in themselves indicate that a person is of bad character. However, each application must be considered individually.
(d) Any other historical or recent convictions. Decision-makers should bear in mind that their task is to make an overall assessment of a person‟s character, so older non-custodial sentences or out of court disposals may be relevant if there are other more serious convictions. Decision makers should look to see if the older non-custodial sentences or out of court disposals are relevant to their assessment of a person‟s character when looked at alongside other more serious or recent convictions or out of court of disposals.
(e) Other factors. Decision makers should take into account any other factors that are relevant to a person‟s character, such as the particular circumstances in someone‟s life when they received the non-custodial sentence or the other out of court disposal occurred or positive evidence of their good character despite their record.
(f) Age. Decision makers should take into account a person‟s age at the time older non-custodial sentences were imposed or other out of court disposals took place. Isolated youthful indiscretions will not generally indicate a person is of bad character if that individual has clearly been of good character since that time.
At all times decision makers should remember that each case will depend on its individual circumstances and must be determined on its own merits.
