Successful deletion of police caution for theft: offer of compensation wrongly taken as a confession.

Our client had been issued with a police caution in 2024 for theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.

Whilst working as an occupational therapist assistant, our client was accused of stealing £50 from a service user. After being arrested and interviewed by the police, our client declined legal advice. After her interview, she was offered a police conditional caution which she accepted. It was only after this that our client realised she had been saddled with a criminal record. Our client instructed us to make an application for caution removal.  After reviewing the documentation received from both the police and ACRO, Saunders Law made an application for record deletion under the grounds of (i) incorrect disposal, and (ii) that it was no longer in the public interest.

Under the ground of incorrect disposal, we made the following arguments:

• The Code of Practice for Adult Conditional Cautions Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that there are five requirements that must be met before a conditional caution is given, one of the requirements are that “(3) the offender must admit to the authorised person that he has committed the offence;” After reviewing the police interview, it was evident that our client never actually admitted to the offence. In fact, there is evidence that our client continuously denied the allegation of theft/ dishonesty throughout the interview.
• Our client was under the impression that if she agreed to pay the £50 then the matter would be closed, and no action would be taken. Because the money was lost whilst the service user was under her care, she understood it was her responsibility and so she agreed to refund the £50 herself. It was not explained to our client that her agreement to pay £50 was taken as an admission of guilt, and the conditional caution would constitute a criminal record for theft.
• The police failed to properly explain the offence that she was being issued a caution for.
• Due to the requirements of a conditional caution being satisfied, a condition caution should not have been administered and was the incorrect disposal.

Under the ground of public interest, we made the following arguments:

• The implications of the caution were never explained to our client
• Our client was not legally represented during the police interview or issuing of caution
• Our client never admitted to the allegations
• Our client is of good character and the criminal record will undermine her career.

Saunders Law made the application in November 2024. We received the successful outcome at the end of December 2024. The case was conducted by solicitor Amber Richardson, supervised by Ali Parker.