Queries around the cautions subject of earlier request.

Summary

The Isle of Man Constabulary responded to a request for specific details regarding four caution cases involving drink driving, possession of indecent images, and speeding, along with a copy of their cautioning policy. The authority disclosed alcohol readings, image classifications, and incident details for the speeding offences, noting that the speeding cautions were issued due to officer training limitations with speed detection equipment.

Key Facts

• Two drink driving cautions in 2014 were Court Ordered with breath alcohol levels of 145ugs/100ml and 61ugs/100ml against a legal limit of 35ugs/100ml.
• The possession of indecent images of children in 2016 involved four images classified as Level 1 on the COPINE Scale.
• Two speeding offences in 2016 (64mph and 70mph in a 30mph zone) were committed by UK nationals in UK registered vehicles.
• Cautions for the speeding offences were issued because officers were untrained in using the Pro-Laser speed device to ratify estimated speeds.
• The Constabulary advised that future FOI requests should focus on one core issue rather than multiple topics.

Data Disclosed

• 145ugs/100ml
• 61ugs/100ml
• 35ugs/100ml
• Level 1
• 70mph
• 64mph
• 30mph
• 2014
• 2016
• 05/06/2016
• 05:45am
• 06:35am
• Main Road, Crosby
• IM111599I
• IM10860I

Data Tables (2)

Full Response Text

MEOIRYN SHEE-ELLAN VANNIN

ISLE OF MAN CONSTABULARY Freedom of Information

5th December 2017

Our Ref: IM111599I

Dear

We write further to your request dated 27th November 2017, which was received on 27th November 2017 and which states: “Further to the both Constabulary’s response (dated 14 November 2017) to FOI Request Reference IM10860I and broadcast comments made by the Force Media Relations Officer (where he refers to cautions being appropriate for “lapses of judgment”

http://www.manxradio.com/news/isleofmannews/cautionfiguresproportionatesaypolice

I write seeking additional information in relation to some of the offences that were dealt with by means of a caution listed in that response

For each of the two offences “driving while exceeding the prescribed limit” both recorded in 2014 what was the amount by which the prescribed limit was exceeded (i.e. the alcohol reading)?

For the offence of “possession of indecent images of children” recorded in 2016 what was the classification of the four images possessed (by reference to the COPINE (“Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe") Scale or other methodology used to classify such material)?

For each the two offences of exceeding the statutory speed limit namely 70mph in a 30mph zone and 64mph in a 30mph zone (both recorded in 2016) please advise the date, time and location of each offence.

Additionally, could you please provide a copy of the Constabulary’s cautioning policy.”

By way of advice and assistance to help make Freedom of Information requests in the future, the form which you have submitted contains a request for information on four separate topics. The Constabulary would like to remind you that a Freedom of Information request form should not contain multiple requests and should focus on one core issue per request. The Information Commissioner has provided guidance in decision notice 2016/0002 that individuals making requests for information from public authorities are encouraged to “Keep it simple, specific and focused” and “the more specific you can be, the easier it will be for the authority to find the information, and send it to you quickly.”

However, notwithstanding the breadth of the request the Constabulary has in this instance answered each item. The answer to your question is:  For each of the two offences “driving while exceeding the prescribed limit” both recorded in 2014 what was the amount by which the prescribed limit was exceeded (i.e. the alcohol reading)?

 Both of these cases were Court Ordered cautions.  The registered level was 145ugs/100ml in one and 61ugs/100ml the legal limit is 35ugs/100ml of breath.

 For the offence of “possession of indecent images of children” recorded in 2016 what was the classification of the four images possessed (by reference to the COPINE (“Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe") Scale or other methodology used to classify such material)?

The images were on level 1 of the COPINE Scale.

1 Indicative Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness

 For each the two offences of exceeding the statutory speed limit namely 70mph in a 30mph zone and 64mph in a 30mph zone (both recorded in 2016) please advise the date, time and location of each offence.

 In both of these cases the offenders were from the UK and were in UK registered vehicles.  The cautions were issued as the officers were untrained in the use of the Pro-Laser speed device being used to ratify the estimated speed the officers would testify to.

Incident Date Location recorded on Mentor Full Summary Text 05:45am 05/06/2016 Main Road, Crosby EXCEED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT WHILST TRAVELLING AT 64MPH 05-06-16 06:35 am 05/06/2016 Main Road, Crosby EXCEED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT
WHILST TRAVELLING AT 70MPH 05-06-16

Additionally, could you please provide a copy of the Constabulary’s cautioning policy.

Please see appendix 1

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information Officer

Your right to request a review If you are unhappy with this response to your Freedom of Information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post to The Freedom of Information Officer, Isle of Man Constabulary, Dukes Avenue, Douglas, IM2 4RG. An electronic version and paper version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1 Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2 Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your rights to review is on the Information Commissioner’s website at: https://www.inforights.im/ Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Appendix 1

Main Aim

This policy relates to the effective use of a Police Caution for adult offenders. For the purposes of this policy only, an adult is defined as a person having reached the age of 18 (existing Youth Justice Team cautioning protocols will continue for juveniles and persons aged 17).

The main aim of this policy is to:

1. Provide guidance on the use of Police Cautions for adult offenders to ensure their effective use in the prevention and detection of crime.
2. Ensure greater consistency (decision to charge/caution) across Neighbourhood Policing Teams and specialist departments of IOMC in the use of Cautions for adult offenders;
3. Clarify how the Police and AGCPD responsibilities for Cautions are affected by the
   Charging Guidance Scheme;
4. Give a clear guidance on the practical process of administering a Caution or dealing with offers of Reparation, restitution and simple rehabilitation;
5. Emphasise the importance of accurate recording of Cautions with regard to the possible impact on the individual offender, to help maintain public confidence, for data collection purposes and provide a standard Caution pro forma for operational use.

Background

A Police Caution is a long established non-statutory disposal for offenders who have committed and admitted low level offences. The legitimate aims of the Cautioning process are:-

 To deal with less serious offences quickly and simply.
 To divert offenders, where appropriate, from the courts (enabling offenders to offer reparation, restitution and simple rehabilitation where appropriate).
 To reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending.

UK legislation/guidance allows for Police Cautions without conditions (Simple Cautions) and Police Cautions with conditions e.g. restitution/rehabilitation (Conditional Cautions).
Proposed ‘Conditional Caution’ legislation in the IOM has not yet (Mar 2012) been enacted.

A Police Caution in the IOM is the equivalent of the UK Simple Caution1

It is recognised that the decision whether to charge an offender with an offence or to use alternative disposals, including cautions, will usually have an element of subjectivity. As such, no prescriptive decision making model exists.

Historically IOMC has followed good practice from neighbouring jurisdictions. This document formally acknowledges that IOMC and AGCPD will take cognisance of the

1 Many of the UK resources draw a distinction between Conditional Cautions and Simple Cautions. The relevant UK material for comparative purposes will always be those relating to “Simple Cautions”. following UK guidance documents (amended/localised where necessary) in relation to decision making around the use of Adult Cautions:

 Home Office Circular 16/2008 – Simple Cautioning of Adult Offenders - APPENDIX A  Document incorporating The ACPO Gravity Matrix Factor for Adults - APPENDIX B  The Guidance on Charging of the Director of Public Prosecutions (January 2011) – APPENDIX C  The Code For Crown Prosecutors – APPENDIX D  (IOMC policy on Offences Taken into Consideration and DARS should also be considered).

This document provides IOMC/AGCPD personnel with direction in the interpretation of these guidance documents, taking into account the rights of the individual and balancing the use of the cautioning procedure against the right of other individuals and the interests of the community as a whole.

1. Introduction 1.1
   The Caution may be used for all adults involving low level offences where the public interest can be met by a Caution. Only in exceptional circumstances should it be used to deal with more serious offences.

1.2
In such cases the administration of a Caution for a recorded offence will be treated as a sanction detection and an offence brought to justice (OBTJ).

1.3
The accurate use and ethical recording of Cautions can contribute to improved public confidence in the Criminal Justice System and contribute towards reducing the likelihood of re-offending.

1.4
Cautions must be issued in accordance with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ Guidance on Charging which is intended to encourage consistency between Criminal Justice Areas in the use of the Caution. Police officers retain the authority to issue a Caution in all cases other than indictable only offences. These must be referred to the AGCPD for a decision. There are categories of either way offences identified in the ACPO Gravity Matrix which should be referred to the AGCPD.

1.4.1 Police officers can also take advice from the AGCPD at any stage in an investigation on whether a Caution is appropriate, as set out in the Director’s Guidance on Charging.

1.4.2 An offender has a right to free legal advice under the Police Powers and Procedures Act 1998 after arrest and being held in custody at a police station, or if they attend a police station voluntarily and are cautioned prior to interview but not arrested. An offender who has not been arrested cannot be prevented from speaking to an advocate but, unless at a police station, is not entitled as a matter of course to free advice. PPPA requirements in relation to the provision of an Appropriate Adult for mentally vulnerable offenders also apply where a Caution is being considered.

1.5
As Cautions are a non – statutory disposal, the Home Office has not set out definitive rules on the circumstances in which Cautions are appropriate, however the guidance indicates that Cautions should mainly be used where:

 It is appropriate to the offence and the offender and  It is likely to be effective in the circumstances.

1. The Aims of the Caution are: 2.1
   To deal with less serious offences quickly and simply where the offender has admitted the offence.

2.2
To divert offenders from appearing in the criminal courts where appropriate.

2.3 To enable offenders to offer reparation, restitution and simple rehabilitation where appropriate;

2.4
To reduce the likelihood of re-offending.

2.5
To record an individual’s criminal conduct for possible reference in future criminal proceedings or relevant security checks.

1. Criteria for a Caution 3.1
   In deciding whether a Caution is appropriate a police officer must consider:

3.1.1 Is the suspect 18 years or older? (If not consider reprimand and final warning disposals via existing YJT procedures).

3.1.2 Has the suspect made a clear and reliable admission either verbally or in writing? A Caution will not be appropriate where a person has not made a clear and reliable admission of the offence (for example if intent is denied or there are doubts about their mental health or intellectual capacity, or where a statutory defence is offered).

3.1.3 Is there a realistic prospect of conviction if the offender were to be prosecuted in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the Full Code Test? (A clear reliable admission of the offence corroborated by some other material and significant evidential fact, such as an eye witness statement, will be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. There is no requirement to build a case file with continuity or corroboration statements).

3.1.4 Is it in the public interest to use a Caution as a means of disposal? (Officers should take into account the public interest factors set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, The Full Code Test., in particular the seriousness of the offence.)

3.1.5 Is a Caution appropriate to the offence and the offender? (With reference to ACPO Gravity Factors Matrix and the offender’s criminal history)

3.1.6 Has the offender offered to make reparation, restitution and simple rehabilitation where appropriate?

3.1.7 If the offence is triable on Information only the case must be referred to a Prosecuting Advocate for a decision).

3.1.8 If all the requirements are met, the offence may be suitable for disposal by way of Caution. There are a range of out-of-court disposals available and a decision to administer a Caution needs to be taken in the context of all possible disposals, particularly the opportunity for the suspect to offer reparation, restitution or simple rehabilitation.

Aggravating / Mitigating Factors There may be aggravating or mitigating factors in the course of an offence which will either increase or decrease its seriousness. The ACPO Gravity Factors Matrix assists officers in deciding whether or not a Caution remains the most appropriate disposal.

3.2
Circumstances where a Caution cannot be considered A Caution will not be appropriate where:-

 A person has not made a clear and reliable admission of the offence or has raised a legitimate defence. This includes denial of intent, doubts about mental or intellectual capacity. However an admission that is qualified – where for exam

[Response truncated — full text is 43,819 characters]