D4109125 wrote:See:
3.7(c) wrote:the nature of any individual offence(s). The
decision maker will consider what the
offence in question was and the penalties imposed as a result. They are unlikely to
refuse a person who has been penalised for a series of minor traffic violations, unless a
person has received numerous offences over a recent and short period of time (
e.g. the
last 12 months); however, they are more likely to refuse where a person‟s offending
shows a pattern of offending which causes harm to other individuals or to the community
in general. For example cautions or warnings for offences that are sexual, violent or
involve drugs;
I think based on all that is spelled out below the case worker will decide. It's not a clear case of A or B. Unfortunately HO continues to produce confusing guidelines hence the NCS person saying the application may be refused.
3.7
Considering Cumulative, Non-Custodial Sentences
Even where a person does not have a “non-custodial offence or other out of court disposal that
is recorded on a person‟s criminal record” (i.e. line 4 in the table in section 2.1) within the last
three years,
the decision maker may still refuse the application if the person has numerous out
of court disposals that calls into question their character.
The factors a decision maker will consider include, but are not restricted to:
a. the number of disposals received. There is no set number that will lead to an
application being granted or refused. However, the higher the number, the more likely it
is that the application will be refused;
b. the period over which they were received. This is linked to the number of disposals
received. The
decision maker may decide not to refuse if there were two or three
disposals received in a short period. However, they may refuse if the person received two
or three across a longer period if that demonstrated a more sustained disregard for the
law which calls into question their character.
The decision maker is also more likely to
refuse where there the disposals are more recent, in particular things that have occurred
in the 12 months before the application;
c. the nature of any individual offence(s). The decision maker will consider what the
offence in question was and the penalties imposed as a result. They are unlikely to
refuse a person who has been penalised for a series of minor traffic violations, unless a
person has received numerous offences over a recent and short period of time (e.g. the
last 12 months); however, they are more likely to refuse where a person‟s offending
shows a pattern of offending which causes harm to other individuals or to the community
in general. For example cautions or warnings for offences that are sexual, violent or
involve drugs;
d. the nature of the collective offence(s).
A decision maker is more likely to refuse an
application where a person has received numerous penalties for identical or similar
offences. However, this does not necessarily mean that a person who receives a variety
of different disposals for different offences will have their application granted;
e. whether the person has any other convictions. This might be either historical or
recent enough to refuse an application in line with the table at section 2.1;
f. whether the person has any other factors that might question their character. The
decision maker may be on the borderline as to whether to grant or refuse an application
for other reasons. Where a person has several out-of-court disposals, this might tip the
balance towards a refusal;
g. the age of the person. The decision maker is more likely to disregard a few minor
indiscretions committed whilst the person was a minor or young adult. However, they are
less likely to do so where the disposals were issued in adulthood.
Each case will depend on its individual circumstances and will be determined on its own
merits.
