That’s possible, although wasn’t what I was thinking. I was referring to Paley’s point about the lack of records and suggesting there may be some evidence other than a 3rd party’s say-so.
I think it depends on the level of check, but when I applied for vetting, it was made clear that anything that had ever been recorded would show up, nothing was spent. I think spent convictions are ones you don't have to declare on a job application, I don't think they are deleted from the record.OK, I understand.
I may be wrong on this, but, I believe that "Police Cautions" are never spent, and can and do appear on "suitability" checks (whatever they are called now) many years after the event. But, I would guess that the most likely source is someone's long memory, possibly then re-enforced with paperwork.
If he's sure of his evidence, why did he hide behind parliamentary privilege?
It is an admission of guilt.A caution is not an admission or finding of guilt
The police are required to follow a series of steps before a caution is issued. These include (but are not limited to) explaining the implications of accepting a caution, such as:
- that accepting a caution is an admission of guilt and that it will form part of the recipient’s criminal record;
- that the record of a caution will be retained by the police for future use and might be referred to in future legal proceedings and might be revealed as part of a criminal record check
It is an admission of guilt.