Stratton, R (on the application of) v Thames Valley Police

A simple police caution is lawful only where the suspect admits the offence, the evidential and public-interest tests for prosecution are satisfied, and the suspect gives informed consent. The police must explain the caution’s significant consequences, including its potential disclosure to employers and use in criminal-record checks. A form referring only to use in later court proceedings may fail to secure informed consent, particularly where the suspect’s employment makes disclosure especially serious. Home Office circulars are guidance rather than binding law, but a chief constable must maintain a lawful policy and keep it under review as the consequences of cautions develop.

The claimant sought judicial review of a simple caution administered by Thames Valley Police for common assault in January 2008. She alleged that she had not admitted the offence and had not been warned of the caution’s consequences, particularly its possible effect on employment as a nanny. The Chief Constable relied on the police evidence, her signed acceptance form and the applicable force policy. The central issues were whether the claimant had admitted common assault and whether she had given informed consent to the caution.

1. The claim succeeded and the caution was quashed.
2. The court rejected the claimant’s case that she had made no admission. On the evidence, her later statement amounted in substance to an admission that she had recklessly thrown a bottle in a public house, although the formal wording had been supplied by the police officer.
3. A caution could not lawfully be administered without informed consent. The suspect had to understand the nature and consequences of accepting it. The relevant consequences had expanded substantially beyond possible use in later proceedings. They included retention on criminal-record systems and disclosure through standard or enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks.
4. The Chief Constable’s policy properly required an admission, satisfaction of the evidential and public-interest tests, and an explanation of the consequences. Home Office circulars were guidance only, but the Chief Constable had to formulate a lawful policy, provide a system for applying it and keep it under review. By 2007 the increased significance of cautions made it necessary to address those consequences in policy and administration.
5. The form signed by the claimant referred only to possible use in future court proceedings. In the circumstances, including her being unrepresented and employed as a nanny, the court found that the consequences had not been explained sufficiently and that she had not given informed consent.
6. The court observed that careful compliance with the Ministry of Justice’s 2013 guidance, a form setting out the implications and evidence of the offender’s understanding should prevent similar cases. Judicial review remains a safeguard against unlawful administration of cautions.