109 offences on one nominee pass...PLEASE HELP!

[Tara]

I have been caught using my mothers nominee oyster card, however upon further investigation they have seen that I have used it on multiple occasions. I have now received a letter requiring me to appear in court stating ''Contrary to Bylaw 17(1) of the Transport for London Railway Bylaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.'' I am planning to plead guilty to make the process quicker and hopefully a reduced penalty.
It also states that 'This schedule give particulars of 109 offences' (totalling over £500 ) which I have been suspected of committing. I am aware that I will receive a criminal record however will it show that I have committed 109 offences? Also, I am currently undergoing a vetting process to work for the civil service which has been my dream for years. I understand that this was a stupid move on my behalf and I am very worried that this will ruin my life as I am still young but will never find a job. What are the chances that this will affect my job prospects or have my application rejected immediately?

 

[AntoniC]

I am an existing Civil Servant and would advise you that until anything concrete happens AND you are taken on by the Civil Service you do NOT have to disclose anything.
BUT if you do become a Civil Servant then you HAVE to disclose it because ANY criminal charges have to be disclosed, if you dont and they find out you wont be a Civil Servant for long.
(They appreciate people make mistakes but if you confess they are far more lenient than if you try to hide it).

 

[Randomer]

I'm not a solicitor or barrister so my advice is worth exactly what it cost...

It is pretty certain that they will not prosecute all of the potential times you have committed the same offence separately.

Courts tend to take a very dim view of it as wasting there time as each offence has to be individually considered.

More likely they will pick the offence easiest to prove i.e. when you were stopped or others that you admitted to and use the records as a pattern of behaviour towards proving this and potentially in the sentencing phase.

 

[Llanigraham]

Certainly when I was presenting cases ( for a Government Dept) we would cite one token "offence" and ask for x number of "offences" to be taken into account for sentencing. Generally it resulted in higher fines and costs.

 

[Wolfie]

I am an existing Civil Servant and would advise you that until anything concrete happens AND you are taken on by the Civil Service you do NOT have to disclose anything.
BUT if you do become a Civil Servant then you HAVE to disclose it because ANY criminal charges have to be disclosed, if you dont and they find out you wont be a Civil Servant for long.
(They appreciate people make mistakes but if you confess they are far more lenient than if you try to hide it).

As a fellow civil servant l sort of agree. I would add one major caveat though. You will need to declare the issue when security clearances are undertaken (which is normally what vetting would refer to) before you get a final job offer, which would be subject to successful clearances being obtained. The consequences will depend on where you would be working and what clearances you would need. Anything sensitive and/or involving a DV (the use of the word vetting in the OP does make me wonder) is likely to be highly problematic.
The fact that this was an extended pattern of behaviour is certainly unlikely to be helpful though - a stupid one off is markedly different.

 

[najaB]

The fact that this was an extended pattern of behaviour is certainly unlikely to be helpful though - a stupid one off is markedly different.

This, more than anything.

 

[Mojo]

The reason that they have identified a number of different times the Oyster card is used is to more accurately reflect the compensation that would be due in the event of a successful prosecution.

 

[Wolfie]

The reason that they have identified a number of different times the Oyster card is used is to more accurately reflect the compensation that would be due in the event of a successful prosecution.

Likely true, but it will also impact the punishment.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As far as the Civil Service goes, you might want to look at pages 24 and 25 (part 2, paragraphs 48 to 53) of this document:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ne_Personnel_Security_Standard_-_May_2018.pdf

Having a criminal record does not mean that you can never work for the civil service. It all depends on what the offence is, and what your job is.

 

[Tara]

As a fellow civil servant l sort of agree. I would add one major caveat though. You will need to declare the issue when security clearances are undertaken (which is normally what vetting would refer to) before you get a final job offer, which would be subject to successful clearances being obtained. The consequences will depend on where you would be working and what clearances you would need. Anything sensitive and/or involving a DV (the use of the word vetting in the OP does make me wonder) is likely to be highly problematic.
The fact that this was an extended pattern of behaviour is certainly unlikely to be helpful though - a stupid one off is markedly different.

It is a detective constable role with the met police service. However i've not declared anything as this happened after I sent the vetting off. As it is still in the process of clearance will a pending investigation show up? If so, will it be a mandatory rejection ?

 

[Tara]

As far as the Civil Service goes, you might want to look at pages 24 and 25 (part 2, paragraphs 48 to 53) of this document:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ne_Personnel_Security_Standard_-_May_2018.pdf

Having a criminal record does not mean that you can never work for the civil service. It all depends on what the offence is, and what your job is.

Detective constable with the met and fare evasion of 109 times

 

[furlong]

Are we talking about many journeys over a few consecutive days, or a regular pattern of travel over several months, or something in between?

 

[deltic]

I would urgently consult a solicitor to see if an out of court settlement can be reached

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Detective constable with the met and fare evasion of 109 times

The police aren't the civil service, so I imagine they have their own rules.

If you are already in the police, then I would have thought that the place to start would be talking (in confidence) to your Police Federation rep.

 

[furlong]

I don't think this sort of byelaw conviction automatically leads to rejection, but I suggest trying hard to persuade them to settle out of court. Your application would normally be put on hold until after the case has been heard. Technically it shouldn't count as an offence of dishonesty, but they might feel is it close enough to one and recent enough, that they consider the risk of employment is too high for them.

 

[Tara]

Are we talking about many journeys over a few consecutive days, or a regular pattern of travel over several months, or something in between?

Regular journeys over a period of couple of months which totalled of 109 journeys

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regular journeys over a period of couple of months which totalled of 109 journeys

Put bluntly, this shows a prolonged and serious period of dishonesty - not the kind of person who is likely to find employment with the Police I'd think.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Does your mother know you were using her pass?

 

[Tara]

Does your mother know you were using her pass?

Now she knows yes. I'm just worried about losing the job more than anything

 

[najaB]

Regular journeys over a period of couple of months which totalled of 109 journeys

This will present a serious obstacle to joining the police force. The general public, quite rightly, expect that members of the constabulary have a clear understanding of right vs wrong and the importance of following rules and regulations. A one-off incident (or a number of incidents in a very short time span) could be excused as a mistake, but the number of occurrences and the period over which they occurred does raise a red flag.

While you are currently charged with a Byelaws offence, the number of instances justifies (IMHO) refering to the pattern of behaviour as fare evasion. Consider a candidate police officer who had committed any other minor crime (e.g. dine and dash) over 100 times during several months and ask if they would be seen as good officer material?

I'm not saying it's impossible for you to join the force but, realistically, you need to start thinking about what other career path you might want to take.

Sorry if that isn't what you want to hear.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Now she knows yes. I'm just worried about losing the job more than anything

What I meant by asking, is if she knew you were using her pass, she could also be prosecuted for allowing you to use it. As you used it without her knowledge, would that also constitute theft?

 

[furnessvale]

What I meant by asking, is if she knew you were using her pass, she could also be prosecuted for allowing you to use it. As you used it without her knowledge, would that also constitute theft?

109 offences could wind up in the criminal deception area. Ticket offences are really meant to cater for occasional offences not sustained dishonesty.

 

[Sebastian O]

Not that’s it particularly helpful but someone who inappropriately uses a ticket like that 109 is way beyond reasonable and quite frankly shows a lack of respect for law and order, not someone fit to be holding the rank of DC.

 

[Tara]

Not that’s it particularly helpful but someone who inappropriately uses a ticket like that 109 is way beyond reasonable and quite frankly shows a lack of respect for law and order, not someone fit to be holding the rank of DC.

I understand that and completely agree. Do you think there is any way for the judge to show leniency eg to write a statement and show remorse when pleading guilty

 

[Tara]

Not that’s it particularly helpful but someone who inappropriately uses a ticket like that 109 is way beyond reasonable and quite frankly shows a lack of respect for law and order, not someone fit to be holding the rank of DC.

You're right. it was stupid and i've definitely learnt my lesson. I have a clean record and so to be rejected for this would be devastating.

 

[najaB]

You're right. it was stupid and i've definitely learnt my lesson.

With respect, I'm not convinced that you have if you think that a 'note to the judge' is enough to make things right.

 

[furlong]

Regular journeys over a period of couple of months which totalled of 109 journeys

And might they tell the court that their records don't go back any further, so they can't exclude the possibility this went on for longer, perhaps even substantially longer?

 

[Master29]

Even if you do plead with the judge I doubt you`ll ever get a career in the force. Sorry but anyone can say I`ve learned my lesson AFTER being caught out. I could be wrong but I doubt it. I`ve known people who weren`t able to get into the police for much less than this.

 

[furlong]

In recent times the police have been trying to make it well known that minor convictions do not automatically disqualify applicants, but my gut feeling would be that the nature and scale of this and how recent it is will count heavily against you. To put it another way, if you were required to prepare or give evidence against someone in court, would it be felt necessary for the court to be aware of a conviction of this nature (in effect, impersonating someone for financial gain) in order for the defendant to receive a fair trial?

 

[najaB]

In recent times the police have been trying to make it well known that minor convictions do not automatically disqualify applicants, but my gut feeling would be that the nature and scale of this and how recent it is will count heavily against you.

Indeed. If it had been once or twice then it definitely wouldn't be disqualifying, but I expect that with this on you record you will need to be an exceptionally qualified candidate in every other area.