Skip to main content

Wiping the slate clean - taking offences into consideration

The BBC are on a mission this week to discuss criminal offences that are dealt with by being taking into consideration, there are articles on their website, it's being discussed on the Today programme and I will be discussing it on Radio 4's Law in Action at 4pm on the 1st and 3rd November 2011 - well I might be if I was interest enough during the interview.  Taking an offence into consideration is the process whereby a guilty defendant can admit to crimes for which they have not been charged on the understanding that they will not be prosecuted in future for that offence.  This helps the police as each offence TiC'd counts as a bona fide detection and thus boosts forces detection rates.

It is not a well understood process, even by lawyers, and many make the mistake of thinking that once you TiC a crime you are safe from prosecution because you can rely on the special plea of autrefois convict - literally instead of pleading guilty or not guilty you enter a preemptive plea of autrefois and must then call evidence to prove that you have previously been convicted of the offence.  However, an offence taken into consideration does not allow the autrefois plea to be raised!  Case law dating back to the 1940's in R v Nicholson (if i remember rightly) has made clear that TiCing an offence does not protect a suspect from being charged later on.  A TiC simply invokes a convention that the Crown will not seek to prosecute in future, although prosecution does remain a possibility in exceptional cases.

In some circumstances it may be possible to argue that the later prosecution is an abuse of the courts process and should thus be struck out.  However, I suspect that this will only be effective where there had been relatively few offences TiC'd and the new offence is not a serious one because then the suspect can argue that their original sentence was inflated sufficiently to punish them for the new offence.  I am not aware of any cases where this has been considered.

I should also point out that contrary to some BBC reports I have seen, suspects do not receive 'credit' for admitting more offences.  In fact, the court will increase the sentence to take account of the TiC's.


  1. they may increase the sentence but not an addition of say another 3 years. Plus I still don't understand the principle of serving concurrent sentences - the prison service isn't amazon where you get discounted postage for multiple items!!

  2. Yes it closes down crimes for the police but the police
    - use it to increase their detection stats, when obviously they haven't detected the crime. If they record it lets have a separate stat for that

    - the imposition of increased sentences is usually minor

    - clients and their lawyers often misunderstand which other crimes to put forward for tic. The client may end up serving time he would never otherwise have done so if the crimes which are tic'd the police would never be able to prove.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…