Does anyone know whether there is a need to sign an official letter to indicate whether a person would like to accept or reject a stern warning? Or would an oral answer suffice?
My concern is that after an oral answer was given to indicate the refusal to accept the stern warning, a letter was served and in that letter it mentioned something along the lines of "In lieu of prosecution, ......... give you a stern warning".
Does this mean a stern warning is issued or not?
Originally posted by ex-gangster:Does anyone know whether there is a need to sign an official letter to indicate whether a person would like to accept or reject a stern warning? Or would an oral answer suffice?
My concern is that after an oral answer was given to indicate the refusal to accept the stern warning, a letter was served and in that letter it mentioned something along the lines of "In lieu of prosecution, ......... give you a stern warning".
Does this mean a stern warning is issued or not?
When the warning is administered to you, you will be made to sign an official document. One copy of the slip will be given to you. Basically, it means that you will be let off with a warning, and that no charges will be filed against you. Since there are no charges, let alone convictions, you will not end up with a criminal record as well.
If you do not agree with the outcome of the case, you can file an appeal. But how to go about doing this, it would be best to liaise directly with the Investigator In-Charge of your case.
I do not think you are in a position to reject the warning in lieu of prosecution. The fact that a mere warning has been administered to you is enough reason to be grateful.
Basically, the fact that a decision to administer a warning has been made means that:
i) investigation into the case has already been concluded
ii) there is more than enough evidence to find the defendant guilty
iii) however, for certain reasons [e.g. first time offender, prosecution's discretion, other mitigating factors etc], the state has decided to not pursue the matter by charging you in court.
Hence the decision to administer the warning.
Hi Tiggerific,
Thanks for your response.
I'm not sure about the 'I do not think you are in a position to reject the warning in lieu of prosecution.' portion because the IO posed the qn '... do you want to accept the warning? ... '. That would mean there was an option to either say 'yes' or 'no'.
Originally posted by ex-gangster:Hi Tiggerific,
Thanks for your response.
I'm not sure about the 'I do not think you are in a position to reject the warning in lieu of prosecution.' portion because the IO posed the qn '... do you want to accept the warning? ... '. That would mean there was an option to either say 'yes' or 'no'.
ask the IO.
that is considered a stern warning, doesn't it?
Originally posted by ex-gangster:Hi Tiggerific,
Thanks for your response.
I'm not sure about the 'I do not think you are in a position to reject the warning in lieu of prosecution.' portion because the IO posed the qn '... do you want to accept the warning? ... '. That would mean there was an option to either say 'yes' or 'no'.
In that case, then I think the IO is looking at the possible ways of concluding this case. Because he will need to present his findings and put forth his recommendations. Best to check with him then. I think he is trying to see what it is that he can do for you, hence he posed you this question. If the decision to conclude the investigation / case has already been finalized, and if it is to be concluded by administering the defendant with a warning, then the defendant will not be in a position to reject the warning.
Most probably, the IO is trying to see how he can best resolve this case, with a favourable outcome for all involved. Check with him then.