Use of formal cautions

[AM]

Val


What I find amazing is how will the FRS in question demonstrate they are enforcing. The corperate risk to that FRS places their RP in a very difficult position if a fire was to happen and a death to occur. How would the RP demonstrate to the family of the deceased through the Coroner that they carried out the correct level of enforcement using the correct tools available to them.
Imagine a police officer letting off a drunk driver who had tested positive and the police officer had witnessed and recorded the dents in a number of cars he hda driven into, the tread worn tyres and blowing exhaust and had a positive breath test. How would the public react if the drunk driver went round the corner and drives into a cue of kids at the school bus stop?

I say HUMBUG
Seasons greetings to all the sane people if your not sane be safe!

You could use our old SM's 'litter inspector' analogy as a defense: when he took over our office, he had a meeting with us to set out how he would run the dept. He said that if an government inspector wanted to see how a council was dealing with litter picking, he wouldn't care if there was litter piled up on the streets as drove to the offices, he would just want to make sure that the paperwork was in order!!

In other words, along as you have evidence to show that there is some kind of inspection/audit process, the end result doesn't matter. If this is the message that is being handed down from senior management, then what will the end result be.

[val]

davio

This is getting very confusing...there are two threads running here. Phil hijacked my original thread, (which I really don't mind because Phil's issue was much more interesting/worrying), but my original question was about the legality of issuing 'formal cautions' as an alternative to going to court. This, of course does require the RP to admit guilt. My concern is that the guidance to Police Officers, who use these all the time, doesn't appear following revocation of HO Circ 18/94, to carry over to other regulators.

[PhilB]

Yes quite so Val I did change the direction of your thread many apologies, not intentional, I was trying to explain that the use of the formal caution that you were referring to may be useful but may not be as effective as successful prosecutions, in my opinion only of course.

Perhaps we /you should post again as many brigades have and continue to issue formal cautions and this topic needs debating.

[Tom Sutton]

Val also the HOC 18/1994 appears only references the Police. However because the HSE are enforcing a criminal act they recommend the use of simple cautions so does Trading Standards. The RR(FS)O is a criminal act so surely the FRS can use simple cautions in accordance with HOC 30/2005?

Check out the HSE guidance http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/approving/cautions.htm