Had a court fine - do I have a criminal record…?

[PeteW]

When I was a teenager I lost my wallet and ticket but jumped on the train home anyway. Sod's law, the ticket inspectors were at my home station who took my details and said they would be in touch.
Some time later I received notice in the post that the train company was taking me to court, and I believe I had to send a response or plea by post but didn't have to attend the hearing.
The court gave me a fine, which was paid.

Fast forward 20 years and I'm applying for Government security clearance and need to disclose 'any criminal convictions which you may have, including those which are spent.' and I'm not sure how to answer this…!

Was I found guilty of a criminal offence, or was it just a civil matter?

Unfortunately I don't have any of the paperwork to give details, but I'm wondering if anyone here might know how this works?

Thanks

Pete

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the best we can do is maybe unfortunately! Whilst it is a criminal matter there are two things you can be prosecuted for. Breaching the Railway Byelaws or commiting an offence contrary to Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (yes really, 1889). The Byelaws do not attract a criminal record but the Regulation of Railways Act does.

If you knew which you'd been charged with we could tell you but without knowing all I think we can say is maybe I'm sorry to say!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think the best we can do is maybe unfortunately! Whilst it is a criminal matter there are two things you can be prosecuted for. Breaching the Railway Byelaws or commiting an offence contrary to Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (yes really, 1889). The Byelaws do not attract a criminal record but the Regulation of Railways Act does.

If you knew which you'd been charged with we could tell you but without knowing all I think we can say is maybe I'm sorry to say!

If it was 20 years ago then it couldn't have been the Railway Byelaws 2005, because those only came into effect in 2005 as the name suggests. The previous Byelaws did not make the equivalent of today's Byelaw 18 an offence that could be prosecuted.

 

[30907]

If you had a fine you had a conviction, even though it may not have been for a recordable offence. Far better to mention it now even if strictly unnecessary.

 

[pedr]

The concept “criminal record” isn’t straight-forward and in one sense doesn’t really exist in England the way it might seem.

Only certain employers/organisations can ask the question you’ve been asked because for most employers you can answer a question about criminal convictions disregarding ones which have been spent due to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Since they can ask, they will expect a full and objectively truthful answer: you were accused of a criminal offence, pleaded guilty and were therefore convicted, so you “have” a conviction.

I’m not sure how you go about finding out what that is, though, so that you can disclose the precise offence

 

[ainsworth74]

If it was 20 years ago then it couldn't have been the Railway Byelaws 2005, because those only came into effect in 2005 as the name suggests. The previous Byelaws did not make the equivalent of today's Byelaw 18 an offence that could be prosecuted.

Yes fair point!

 

[furlong]

Declare it as best you can (location, approx date) - if it's material, their search is likely to find it whether you mention it or not, so it's far better to be up-front about it - honesty and openness (of the required type) can be a significant factor in these types of checks.

 

[Puffing Devil]

They most likely already know.... Honesty is really best in these situations.

 

[WesternLancer]

When I was a teenager I lost my wallet and ticket but jumped on the train home anyway. Sod's law, the ticket inspectors were at my home station who took my details and said they would be in touch.
Some time later I received notice in the post that the train company was taking me to court, and I believe I had to send a response or plea by post but didn't have to attend the hearing.
The court gave me a fine, which was paid.

Fast forward 20 years and I'm applying for Government security clearance and need to disclose 'any criminal convictions which you may have, including those which are spent.' and I'm not sure how to answer this…!

Was I found guilty of a criminal offence, or was it just a civil matter?

Unfortunately I don't have any of the paperwork to give details, but I'm wondering if anyone here might know how this works?

Thanks

Pete

As others say best to mention it and if poss include a bit of context - eg "c1999 taken to court for travel without a train ticket after I lost my wallet and was unable to purchase a ticket. Relevant fine paid." (or some such - but I bet you are filling in some form with no ability to do anything other than tick or not ticket a box...)

 

[mmh]

I'm a former civil servant who had SC level security clearance. Mine was processed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (not my Department) and the criminal record section was free text boxes. There are other organisations which handle them, but I can't picture any of them being different in how they ask the questions.

I also had a spent criminal record (for a more serious crime than fare evasion) from when I was a teenager. It was also twenty years later for me. I knew what I was convicted of but didn't know the dates. Just put the year or give a period of when you think it was and explain, with any information you do know e.g. the court that dealt with it, if known.

And importantly, don't worry about it. As others have said for minor offences it's about determining your honesty and trustworthiness, that there's nothing obvious in your background that you're hiding or are embarrassed and could be used to bribe you etc. I know people with SC with more serious convictions than either of us.

You must put it down, it will be an almost certain rejection if a record is found you don't mention.

Best of luck in your new job!

 

[Llanigraham]

As an ex-Civil Servant, put simply, if you don't admit to having one, and they find you did, it is probable that your application will not continue .
Be honest, explain and it will probably be ignored.

 

[PeteW]

Thanks all, I've submitted it with a 'Yes' and then in the 'give details' box I've just explained as best I can.

 

[Ediswan]

(or some such - but I bet you are filling in some form with no ability to do anything other than tick or not ticket a box...)

Have you seen the forms? I looked one up some time back out interest. There are pages and pages of free text boxes labelled along the lines of 'supply full details'. Followed by extra blank pages for anything that would not fit in the standard boxes.

 

[WesternLancer]

Have you seen the forms? I looked one up some time back out interest. There are pages and pages of free text boxes labelled along the lines of 'supply full details'. Followed by extra blank pages for anything that would not fit in the standard boxes.

No - that's good to know!
Mind you - I'm sure someone can come along and streamline that - I mean youu dont want a form that an actual person might have to read and take a decision on do you. Just want one of those catch 22 computer vortex situations (and a premium rate phone number obv)

 

[P Binnersley]

You can apply to ACRO (Criminal Records Office) for a copy of your police record. This will include spent convictions.

Get a copy of your police records

Ask your local police to give you a copy of the information they hold about you - CRB check, DBS check, proof of identity

www.gov.uk

 

[Puffing Devil]

You can apply to ACRO (Criminal Records Office) for a copy of your police record. This will include spent convictions.

Get a copy of your police records

Ask your local police to give you a copy of the information they hold about you - CRB check, DBS check, proof of identity

www.gov.uk

The secret squirrels may have a lot more than official record.

 

[island]

As others suggest, they do not really mind if you have been a little naughty a long time ago, but if they find out and you did not tell them or attempted to hide it, they will be considerably less impressed.

 

[35B]

No - that's good to know!
Mind you - I'm sure someone can come along and streamline that - I mean youu dont want a form that an actual person might have to read and take a decision on do you. Just want one of those catch 22 computer vortex situations (and a premium rate phone number obv)

Having had to fill such a form in, they are absolutely not box ticking exercises. Acquaintances who have had to go to higher levels of security have found them and the associated process deeply intrusive, even with clean backgrounds and nothing embarrassing to disclose.

 

[SteveM70]

As others suggest, they do not really mind if you have been a little naughty a long time ago, but if they find out and you did not tell them or attempted to hide it, they will be considerably less impressed.

Absolutely. Naughtiness in the past vs naughtiness in the present

 

[Llanigraham]

Having had to fill such a form in, they are absolutely not box ticking exercises. Acquaintances who have had to go to higher levels of security have found them and the associated process deeply intrusive, even with clean backgrounds and nothing embarrassing to disclose.

I have friends that work at "The Doughnut" and their security clearance checks even include parking tickets!

 

[NSB2017]

Depending on how high a security level you are being checked for, it may be that if any of your relatives have ever had a parking ticket, you might need to worry about it!

 

[87 027]

Sounds unlikely

[Withdrawn] Myths and misconceptions about the Security Vetting process

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about the security vetting process and we recognise that this may create some anxiety for people.

www.gov.uk

 

[Mojo]

If it was 20 years ago then it couldn't have been the Railway Byelaws 2005, because those only came into effect in 2005 as the name suggests. The previous Byelaws did not make the equivalent of today's Byelaw 18 an offence that could be prosecuted.

Is this correct? I have a copy of the byelaws that are dated December 2000, coming into operation in February 2000, and the first part of byelaw 18 is almost identical to the same byelaw in force today. Of course doesnt help the OP as this is still a few months out!

“In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.”

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Is this correct? I have a copy of the byelaws that are dated December 2000, coming into operation in February 2000, and the first part of byelaw 18 is almost identical to the same byelaw in force today. Of course doesnt help the OP as this is still a few months out!

“In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.”

Yes, it was a criminal offence then as now. However the then equivalent of Byelaw 24(1), which now reads:

Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

previously also excepted Byelaw 18 from being an offence that could be prosecuted. This was a minor 2-word change ("Byelaws 17 or 18") whose implications it's not clear the SRA considered at the time (that's a story for another thread).

It's quite unusual to define a criminal offence that, in law, carries no penalty. But effectively the intention here used to be that a breach of Byelaw 18 simply entitled the railway to remove you from their property, or to demand your name and address. The SRA then either surreptitiously or unintentionally made a minor change to the Byelaws that made it a prosecuteable matter of great importance to the Revenue Protection department of the TOCs, and in particular the likes of TIL!

 

[Mojo]

Yes, it was a criminal offence then as now. However the then equivalent of Byelaw 24(1), which now reads:

previously also excepted Byelaw 18 from being an offence that could be prosecuted. This was a minor 2-word change ("Byelaws 17 or 18") whose implications it's not clear the SRA considered at the time (that's a story for another thread).

It's quite unusual to define a criminal offence that, in law, carries no penalty. But effectively the intention here used to be that a breach of Byelaw 18 simply entitled the railway to remove you from their property, or to demand your name and address. The SRA then either surreptitiously or unintentionally made a minor change to the Byelaws that made it a prosecuteable matter of great importance to the Revenue Protection department of the TOCs, and in particular the likes of TIL!

I uploaded a picture above of the section you refer to and it does not say this, at least in the byelaws that existed from December 2000-2005 when the present byelaws came into force. The only exception was for byelaw 17, as at present.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I uploaded a picture above of the section you refer to and it does not say this, at least in the byelaws that existed from December 2000-2005 when the present byelaws came into force. The only exception was for byelaw 17, as at present.

Ah, well I must be thinking of a change made before 2005 then. Certainly in the 1960s (1968?) BRB Byelaws which I have previously had sight of (but which I can't find right now) that was the case. I'm not sure when those were superseded; it may have been as late as 2000.

 

[Wolfie]

When I was a teenager I lost my wallet and ticket but jumped on the train home anyway. Sod's law, the ticket inspectors were at my home station who took my details and said they would be in touch.
Some time later I received notice in the post that the train company was taking me to court, and I believe I had to send a response or plea by post but didn't have to attend the hearing.
The court gave me a fine, which was paid.

Fast forward 20 years and I'm applying for Government security clearance and need to disclose 'any criminal convictions which you may have, including those which are spent.' and I'm not sure how to answer this…!

Was I found guilty of a criminal offence, or was it just a civil matter?

Unfortunately I don't have any of the paperwork to give details, but I'm wondering if anyone here might know how this works?

Thanks

Pete

WRT Govt security clearances, something which l have had for far too long, the advice is always if in doubt declare.

 

[Chumba]

When I was a teenager I lost my wallet and ticket but jumped on the train home anyway. Sod's law, the ticket inspectors were at my home station who took my details and said they would be in touch.
Some time later I received notice in the post that the train company was taking me to court, and I believe I had to send a response or plea by post but didn't have to attend the hearing.
The court gave me a fine, which was paid.

Fast forward 20 years and I'm applying for Government security clearance and need to disclose 'any criminal convictions which you may have, including those which are spent.' and I'm not sure how to answer this…!

Was I found guilty of a criminal offence, or was it just a civil matter?

Unfortunately I don't have any of the paperwork to give details, but I'm wondering if anyone here might know how this works?

Thanks

Pete

As someone who used to undertake the vetting enquiries and interviews you speak of. Declare it !

if you are unsure (although a court fine indicates a conviction) declare the incident and say you are unsure if it is a conviction spent or otherwise. The whole point of HMG security vetting is to see if you can be trustworthy in the role you are applying for. The incident your speak of is not what is being tested here, your honesty is! The incident won’t make a blind bit of difference to the granting of the clearance, but the dishonesty most definantly will. If it is listed as a conviction then it will show to the vetting officer even if spent

 

[Rich McLean]

For Baseline Security checks they will not check for non-recordable prosecutions. However, for SC and especially DV, they do check all convictions, recordable or not, so you have to declare it. For DV, out of court settlements require to be declared, as if you don't, they will find out and you won't get the clearance. The important thing is to be 100% honest. If you tell them, you will very likely still get your clearance.

SC and DV is all about honesty, integrity and with it, trust.

 

[Wolfie]

For Baseline Security checks they will not check for non-recordable prosecutions. However, for SC and especially DV, they do check all convictions, recordable or not, so you have to declare it. For DV, out of court settlements require to be declared, as if you don't, they will find out and you won't get the clearance. The important thing is to be 100% honest. If you tell them, you will very likely still get your clearance.

SC and DV is all about honesty, integrity and with it, trust.

Let's not even go near EDV...