Good news!

[felix]

In terms of going to Canada, you will need to check with the Canadian embassy but my understanding is you will need to apply to ACPO for a letter listing your arrest, the sections of the relevant act under which you were arrested, the outcome, signed by the chief constable. This letter is valid for six months and costs £50. Then you take the letter personally with your passport and are interviewed at the Canadian embassy and then you pay the full price for a visa. You do this for each trip..... it is an expensive pain.


Does anyone know of a way around this??

[Raptorace]

In terms of going to Canada, you will need to check with the Canadian embassy but my understanding is you will need to apply to ACPO for a letter listing your arrest, the sections of the relevant act under which you were arrested, the outcome, signed by the chief constable. This letter is valid for six months and costs £50. Then you take the letter personally with your passport and are interviewed at the Canadian embassy and then you pay the full price for a visa. You do this for each trip..... it is an expensive pain.


Does anyone know of a way around this??

How about simply not declaring it. Surly they can't access uk arrest records at border control??? I'm sure there must be a human rights violation if my arrest and NFA are so easily known to so many departments world wide??

[felix]

As a Christian (and please do think I am being judgemental of others with different views here) I just can't lie on a form.

If you do, and please I emphasise I am not making any value judgement about doing so, AND they find out about it, you WILL be arrested in certainly the USA and probably Canada, held in custody for a period and chucked out of the country for ever. And being in custody in the detention centre near JFK is apparently very nasty.

Will they find out about it? Not perhaps at the airport, but they may send a block of immigations records to ACPO in the UK and run a computer check. That could be an automatic process.

Police state????

[felix]

As to human rights - I have no idea. What are they???

[cant believe it]

Ok so I went to the police station today, without my solicitor, and got a letter that says release without charge rather than No Further Action.

I'm really uneasy with the way the letter is worded, I will reproduce the letter (minus specific and personal details) below, please tell me if this is a normal letter or how it sounds you.

"Dear XXX,

CANCELLATION OF PRE-CHARGE BAIL ATTENDANCE

This letter concerns the investigation into the following offence:
Rape a woman 16 years of age or over - SOA 2003 at XXXXX on the date XXXX
At this stage, after considering the evidence currently available, the CPS have decided to release you without charge because there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction currently. However the case will be kept under review as further evidence may become available in the future and as a result of which a decision to prosecute you may be made.

A decision not to prosecute you may be reconsidered if a review of the decision indicates that it was clearly wrong and should not be allowed to stand.

This means that you do not need to attend the police station at XX on XXX,
because any duty on you to answer bail in connection with the matter has been removed.

please note- The fact that you have been released without charge at this time does not prevent an aggrieved party pursuing criminal proceedings or civil remedy. In addition, in certain circumstances, the Police may disclose details about the fact that you have been spoken to about the offence above if it is considered to be in the wider public interest to do so."

So, thats the letter in full, is that a normal letter?

[Casehardened]

The wording sounds like 'back-covering': i.e. should you ever be inclined to really rape someone, then this matter would be dusted off & also presented to the court; also the police are probably worried that you might claim compensation for false imprisonment so they've come across a bit strong ("you're lucky you got away with it sonny", sort of thing)

However what is interesting is the direct reference to the CRB

the Police may disclose details about the fact that you have been spoken to about the offence above if it is considered to be in the wider public interest to do so."

The bit about civil proceedings is nothing to worry about unless the 'aggrieved party' has unlimited funds, the no-win no-fee lawyers will run a mile from these sort of cases.

Edit to add: PS the wording all sounds fairly standard but the heading re. cancellation of pre-charge bail is different, but what the difference to NFA, or decision not to proceed actually is, I don't know; perhaps different forces have different standard letter templates.

[felix]

Please can I have clarity on the difference between NFA and "decision not to proceed". My MP wonders if anyone knows.

Sorry, I have no idea of the meaning of the letter quoted above. Mine said simply the one liner "decision not to proceed"

Thx

Felix

[Rights Fighter]

the Police may disclose details about the fact that you have been spoken to about the offence above if it is considered to be in the wider public interest to do so."

This worries me. Do you work or live with or among vulnerable people?

[cant believe it]

That worries me too RF, In fact, the wording of the whole thing worries me.
I don't live or work with vulnerable people though.

I am a politician currently in office so obviously alarm bells are ringing for me with the line you quoted.

My solicitor thinks I may have a case against the police though so I'm going down that route now, on a no win no fee basis too so he must be confident about it?

[Rights Fighter]

Whether he is confident or not depends on what he finds in the paperwork and "in law".

I use a no-win no-fee sol when some of my guys' appeals succeed but he can only "be confident" once he has the paperwork in front of him and can see if it relates to current case law.

You would need to ask him.