UK - Advice? Caught with coke

[The Stooge]

SWIM's friend and a friend were out on Saturday and got very drunk.

They ended up getting some coke, and in their drunken state thought it was a good idea to have a line in quite a busy area. Low and behold the police walked past at the time.

As far as I'm aware neither of them have ever been in trouble with the law, and they sobered up very quickly and were very co-operative with the police officers.

They were cuffed at the road side and questioned, and had circa 1g of coke found between the two of them, and quickly let go after giving all the required details.

Realistically, what can they expect as a punishment? A fine? Court?

It's funny as they are both older guys, and are feeling rather silly about their actions.

One of them is actually looking to move to Australia in the future, and is concerned this may affect things.

Being the internet guru, SWIM said he'd do a bit of digging for them.

Cheers!

[Evil GIR]

Sounds like a street caution.
Though it all depends on what the police actualy said to them.
Are they to return to the police station on bail ?

[The Stooge]

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Sounds like a street caution.
Though it all depends on what the police actualy said to them.
Are they to return to the police station on bail ?

SWIM believes that the details of the police report and the two guys statements would be passed onto the procurator fiscal for them to look at and make a decision...?

[Thanks for the reply, btw.]

[Evil GIR]

Well to put things into perspective, I had a flat mate who stupidly enough was doing coke on a train.
People seen him and phoned the police, at his stop they arrested him took the small amount he had and drag him of to the police station.

They then took his house keys and went back to our student flat to search his room and any communal place
for more drugs. He was then released on bail and had to go to court. He was then fined I believe.

As for Australia I think they are one of the countries that deny convicted drug users to enter.
But I am unsure if they are able to find anything out about your friend as i

don't know if they share criminal databases or if you need a criminal history check to become a resident.

[jaffacake]

Australia is very strict when it comes to drug offences. Even if you've only been arrested for a drug offence (you don't even need to have been convicted) you will have to mention that when you apply for a visa. I think the chances of getting into australia with any kind of drug blemish is pretty low.

You could try lying on the visa form but if they find out you'll be thrown out of the country at customs and never be allowed back in.

[anonuser30500]

Scottish law is different from English, so experiences here do not tally up with Scottish.

That said, in Swims pond, other swims are fined on street (or car) for small amounts of weed/hash. Coke is usually taken a bit further due to it being class a.

If one of the swims is planning to go to Australia then other swim could carry the can. Maybe swim incriminated him/her swimself or both had 'wraps' on them.

Either way, two swims, some coke, could = one swims coke.

Worth maybe refusing a caution as it looks like a caution for coke would not make Aussie immigration endeared towards swim.

Well worth seeing a good legal expert if paperwork comes through.

It is possible the coke went missing, or turned into icing powder.

Paperwork might go missing.

[ex-junkie]

did the officers give swiys a receipt for what was seized?

if not, then expect nothing to happen pretty much. coppers might have stuck it in their pockets. this happens more than you think.

[AmphetuhMINE]

That the individuals were not arrested at the scene is relevant here. For some crimes, police are given discretion on whether to arrest or cite. Crimes involving small quantities of narcotics are a good example of discretionary arrest offenses (where arrest is authorized but not mandatory). For other crimes, police are obligated to arrest the suspects. Examples of mandatory arrest offenses are certain types of domestic violence offenses and possession of a large quantity of an illicit controlled substance. Then there are other offenses for which arrest is just not authorized. But these offenses are never criminal in nature (they're usually violations or infractions).

Due to their clean criminal record, their compliance with the police's investigation and the relatively small amount of drugs they possessed, they police exercised their discretion in choosing to issue them a citation rather than placing them under arrest. However, the offense is still a crime (probably a misdemeanor) and will be prosecuted by the local government attorney's office. For these types of cases, the prosecutor has a lot of discretion in deciding what to charge the defendant(s) with. It sounds like they've got a lot working in their favor, so I would be surprised if the prosecutor pleads them down to an infraction or violation with community service or a fine, so they'll have no criminal history and it won't effect their immigration status.

Best of luck to them!

[babymakesbeats]

SWIM would be cautious of advice from a US member in dealing with scottish law, though from my knowledge of the US justice system AmphetuhMINE's advice is absolutely correct in that context.

In Scots law, that SWIM studies (not fully qualifying but criminal & criminology as part of soc anth), it depends upon whether or not the two have been formally charged yet as to the outcome. That they were never taken to a police station (not formally arrested but briefly detained) would indicate that they were not charged, but cautioned.

The details are confusing however, because if they were cautioned (which seems likely, considering the taking of statements, details & street release) then the case would not be referred to the procurator fiscal, as that body deals only with full prosecutions (i.e. for possession). Similarly, without being formally charged on suspicion of possession (they have to confirm the substance is cocaine), the case would not be handed to the procurator fiscal.

In either case, it is unlikely that a case handed to the procurator fiscal for possession of circa 1g of cocaine would ever see prosecution, unless they had committed multiple offences and/or were in possession of a larger amount (among other circumstances, such as being known to the police or suspected of other charges etc).

There are 2 likely scenarios in this situation SWIM would argue.

The most likely is that the chaps were formally cautioned and then let off, this would be consistent with their treatment. Perhaps they made a mistake or misheard the comment about the procurator fiscal. Indeed, it is not uncommon for police to warn that 'next time, this will be handed to the procurator fiscal' when issuing cautions.

The 2nd, is that the police were busy, or were called to a more important job during the arrest procedures. In this instance, it's likely that they put the details in a notebook to return to later. If they then decided that this case was worth prosecution, they could formally arrest and charge the chaps in question and refer it the procurator fiscal. If the police decided it wasn't worth their effort (depending if it had a crime number by being called in) they could simply rip the page from their notebook and pretend it didn't happen.

It is important to remember that the police have no practical obligation of mandatory arrest (See Reiner 1992). Though the law may say the police must arrest someone in a particular instance, police can, and often do, simply pretend they were not there or that they didn't see it.

If the people in question were formally cautioned, this would certainly affect them being able to gain entry into Australia. Though it probably wouldn't bar them, it would be slightly more tricky to get a visa, and SWIM would advise that they declared this on entry.

If they were charged, they can expect a letter in the near future informing them of the outcome. In all likelihood (if no previous history, not known to the police etc) the letter would say that the procurator fiscal has decided to give them a caution, and that they will face prosecution next time. If they were unlucky, they might receive a court summons for prosecution.

If they weren't charged or cautioned, and simply had their details taken, then it is unlikely the police will follow this up. Redundancies in the police mean that currently, for every 1 officer on the beat at least 7 have to be on shift. This is because of paper work, investigation of serious crime and policing public order. It is unlikely, unless you had annoyed them in some way, that the police would take the time and effort to visit you and formally charge you (particularly considering the amount of paperwork).

It is important to remember that one must admit guilt and accept a caution, they cannot be statutorily applied (the same with fines etc, you can always deny and challenge in court) and without the full details of the situation SWIM can't really give a more precise answer than outlining the outcomes above.

SWIM hopes this has helped, remember though, that SWIM is an active student who is also involved in a number of libertarian & human rights organisations and draws his experience from these. SWIM is not a practicing criminal lawyer and any advice SWIM gives should be taken bearing this in mind.

Reputation Comments on this post:

clear, precise, excellent

[The Stooge]

Many thanks for all the replies. Much appreciated.

SWIM will let you know how it works out for them....

[babymakesbeats]

no worries!

could you please post the result asap so SWIYS can give better advice in the future?

good luck....

[The Stooge]

Well....after a few months, they got through a charge for being caught with 0.5g. They both pleaded guilty by mail. However I just found out today that the trial has been continued to a later date, as they are both required to appear in person!

I'm personally quite shocked by this whole story...

[babymakesbeats]

Originally Posted by The Stooge

Well....after a few months, they got through a charge for being caught with 0.5g. They both pleaded guilty by mail. However I just found out today that the trial has been continued to a later date, as they are both required to appear in person!

I'm personally quite shocked by this whole story...

I'm surprised they have been asked to attend court in person. This would indicate that there is a chance of criminal charges and not a fine or similar.

Again, more information would be useful (as in charged for what, for example)

you can change a plea at any time so they could still plead not guilty.

[The Stooge]

Originally Posted by babymakesbeats

I'm surprised they have been asked to attend court in person. This would indicate that there is a chance of criminal charges and not a fine or similar.

Again, more information would be useful (as in charged for what, for example)

you can change a plea at any time so they could still plead not guilty.

Thanks for the reply again.

SWIM just found out that they both have a charge of obstructing a police officer [this wasn't anything physical just blocking them] and one has the charge for the possesion of the small amount.

[dadrone]

Maybe the Scottish lawyer can chime in but in USA, it's never a good idea to plead guilty by mail.

Plead not guilty first, always. Then with a clean criminal record there most always be a plea bargain. The last time SWIM was in trouble (drunken disorderly), they got a plea bargain before receiving the police report. Then SWIM's lawyer tore apart the police report on inconsistencies and cited all the evidence that SWIM was a fine upstanding citizen that the situation was not criminal, in nature. Needless to say, the charge was dropped.

Moral of the story - cops are characteristically not intellectuals. In USA, it's fairly common for cops to be lazy and not dutiful in filling out the police reports for minor offenses and this leads to a lot of non-convictions. They have templates for common offenses and if they don't edit the templates enough to cater towards the situation, it makes their report incorrect/false/most importantly, not credible.

[babymakesbeats]

tough one to prove, they will probably get a fine if convicted. do you know what they did to obstruct ?

[The Stooge]

Well SWIW found out the 2 guys were in court today.

They went without legal representation, and the judge suggested the case went to a later date and they brought a solicitor. They declined and represented themselves.

Person A was fined £200 for the obstruction charge.
Person B was fined £300 for the obstruction charger, and possession charge.

Cheers to all for your help.