I agree with others that the police caution for a one off offence should not be retained but should be scrapped or be similar to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. 

Why is this idea important?

I received a police caution after an argument with a neighbour, whom I later found out was already on a police caution to keep the peace.  After confronting him for damaging my garden fence, regretably the arguement got physical and I got the better of him but he didn't get taken to the police station because had they taken him, he would have been jailed, so I ended up being the bad boy and was given a police caution, having my fingerprints and DNA taken.  At the then age of 56 and never having been in trouble with the police, I am now classed as a criminal for assault and this will stay on my record for life.  This is unfair and unjust.  A Police caution should mean a ticking off, not a criminal record to fiddle clean up crime rates for statistical purposes. 


  1. Then why not refuse the caution and go to court? If you admit the crime, a caution seems fair enough?

    I’m more worried about the “crime non-crime” records now being handed out. They create the same problems as a caution and appear on DBS checks – except in these cases no crime has been committed, no wrongdoing admitted, no charges pressed and no court hearing held.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *