Nige wrote:
> Several years ago, my son was given a fixed penalty notice after
> attempting to leave a store with goods on his trolley which hadn't been
> paid for. It wasn't exactly shop lifting, but it seems he did know he
> hadn't been charged for something and tried to leave the shop without
> paying for it. A security guard stopped him, called the police, and my
> son - largely out of embarrassment - admitted to what he'd done and
> accepted an =EF=BF=BD80 fine on the understanding that things would go no
> further and he wouldn't have a police record.
>
> But of course, the police took all his details and, presumably, entered
> his name on the Police National Computer. Interestingly, I seem to
> remember something on the penalty notice given to him stating that
> paying the fine did not constitute an admission of guilt, though it's
> hard to see how it can be anything else. I've read several discussions
> on the ramifications of accepting a fixed penalty notice rather than
> standing up and arguing your case in court - but really, that's water
> under the bridge now.
>
> What concerns me is that he is planning to take over the running of a
> pub sometime in the next few months and obviously has to apply for a
> license. My question is this, would receiving a fixed penalty for such
> an offence be sufficient grounds for the police to object to the
> granting of a licence - or would the matter even arise? Apart from the
> odd motoring offence has no other black marks against his name either
> before or after this incident, which took place some three years ago.
It's unlikely that it would be an issue in the situation you describe.
As you noticed, the FPN is not an admission of guilt (the reason for
this, AIUI, is that by omitting the admission of guilt, you also omit
the requirement for any kind of proof. Hence, those who did it and
admit it get punished quickly and easily with little burden on the
system, and [in theory at least] those who are innocent would insist
on a court hearing. IMO, your son should have opted for the latter,
since the case you describe doesn't constitute theft, but that's by-
the-by now).
The FPN effectively brings the shoplifting to the same level as a
motoring offence - no proof of guilt. With no criminal record, and no
convictions, there should be no reason to object in this case.
IANAL |