I used my brothers 16-18 oyster card and then got rejected from medical school. HELP!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lionkai10

New Member
Joined
8 Feb 2020
Messages
2
Location
Peckham
So I've recently been rejected from a medical school because of my recent criminal conviction.

Back on 23rd August I was caught using my brothers 16-18 oyster card. I was honest to the ticket inspector when he ask whose it was. I sent an apology letter to TFL and also tried to settle the case out of court especially as this was a one time event and had no other convictions. This was unsuccessful. I was charged with using my brothers 16-18 oyster card on 12th November and pleaded guilty. I was subsequently charged with using a travel mandate issued for another person. This was contrary to regulation 7(1)b of the public service vehicles and the section 25(3) of the public passenger vehicles act 1981. I assumed I had a criminal record and therefore had to disclose this to the medical schools I applied for. Moreover, when I applied through UCAS I sent of my application declaring I had no spent or unspent convictions that would show up on a criminal records check. This initial application via ucas was sent off on 13th October prior to any charges. I then contacted each medical school to notify them about the change regarding the conviction questions. One if the four universities replied stating that I needed to include a statement of events alongside;
• Level of offence (warning, caution, conviction)
• An explanation as to why you believe you were given the sentence including costs
• What changes have you made to your life to move on from this situation?
• What did you learn from the experience?

I was given 7 days to reply alongside gaining a character reference. After I sent off the relevant information two days later I got a message from TFL case officer after I enquired what my conviction meant. TFL officer stated that "The offence that was committed is not recordable on the national criminal data base and is spent after a year.

The medical school said that my application will be withdrawn stating that it was recent and an deliberate act and I should write a reflective piece of how the incident has impacted me and the importance of honesty within the medical profession. However, they stated they will accept an application next year.

I've appealed on the grounds of irregularity of the procedure (the website states you can't appeal against academic judgement) as the website stated my statement of events would be considered alongside an enhanced DBS check additional with regards to new information (it was a none recordable offence). Furthermore, I stated that I was open and honest with the ticket officer and this procedure. My questions;

1. If it's not recorded on the criminal national database does that mean I don't have a criminal record.

2. If the university do the Enhanced DBS and there is nothing on it, then would that mean it has been filtered and wouldn't need to be disclosed, therefore the situation regarding the university would be redundant?

3. Does anyone know of any cases with this conviction or a byelaw (similar in the fact that it's non recordable) where an Enhanced DBS has been conducted and if there was anything found on it?
*I am aware that it maybe or may not be on it and is at the discretion of the police. I'm also aware that it probably won't show up basic as I found cases where nothing has been recorded.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

davp

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2015
Messages
7
You're thinking of joining a profession where trust, transparency and honesty are vitally important. The response from the university seems fair to me. The fact that you were honest to the ticket inspector is good, but the act itself was dishonest as you know. Your suggestion that if it doesn't show up you shouldn't have to declare the conviction, even if asked, speaks to your probity which is unhelpful. Some thoughtful reflection would be really helpful, and the direction suggested by the university seems reasonable. A piece that shows you have learned from this will read very differently in its approach to the way you have asked these questions here, and if done well will be helpful for your future application. Good luck.
 

MJN11

Member
Joined
12 Jan 2019
Messages
28
It’s very unlikely university’s will conduct an enhanced DBS check, they are mainly used to inform employers if you have any convictions/offences that would be of relevance for you getting a job for example if you wanted to be a financial manager they may do an enhanced check against you for any fraud offences which you’d then (in your circumstance) be ineligible for. It may be likely they terminated your application as they may have assumed you have a ongoing criminal record so make sure you’re 100% sure it’s spent already in futue
 

ANDREW_D_WEBB

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2013
Messages
327
Assuming you applied for medicine at all 5 of your UCAS choices, has each medical school rejected you or just one? If this wrong use of an Oyster card has stopped you getting a place to study medicine (and I hope it hasn’t)then you might consider applying for biomedical sciences, proving yourself both academically and personally, and swapping at a later date to a Medicine course
 

Fawkes Cat

Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
902
Welcome to the forum. We’ll do our best to help you, but please be aware that
- we mainly know about railways and how the law impacts on railway users, rather than how a railway conviction may impact on the rest of your life
- we’re generally not lawyers, and even those of us who are aren’t giving formal advice.

Having said all of which, to answer your questions as well as I can:
1. If it's not recorded on the criminal national database does that mean I don't have a criminal record.
In one sense, given that there’s not a record of it, no, you won’t have a criminal record.

2. If the university do the Enhanced DBS and there is nothing on it, then would that mean it has been filtered and wouldn't need to be disclosed, therefore the situation regarding the university would be redundant?
You’re rather missing the point here. In terms of the practicalities of applying to medical school, you are unlikely to be asked ‘do you have a criminal record?’: the question is more likely to be something like ‘have you ever been convicted of an offence?’ And if you answer ‘no’ when the truthful answer is ‘yes’, then you’re lying. It’s not a matter of whether the institution can easily detect the lie. One of your institutions has already asked you to consider the importance of honesty in the medical profession (hint - this is not them giving you lines to do as a punishment. It’s an attempt to see if you understand that what you did was wrong. They’ll be more interested in how much insight into your own ethics you show rather than how long your piece is). You shouldn’t be trying to wriggle out of this issue on a technicality.

3. Does anyone know of any cases with this conviction or a byelaw (similar in the fact that it's non recordable) where an Enhanced DBS has been conducted and if there was anything found on it?
Don’t know, sorry.

There’s one thing I’d add: that’s that medical school is a very popular route for people to take after school (and after a first degree in another discipline). That means that you, as a candidate, are not in a strong position. The medical schools will be looking for reasons to reject candidates - and having a criminal conviction is an easy basis to turn an application down. It’s important that you do everything you can to prove that despite your conviction you are someone that they will want to have on their course.
 

ANDREW_D_WEBB

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2013
Messages
327
All university applications made via applications UCAS have a question asking if the applicant has criminal convictions with the option to tick 'yes' or 'no'. Not sure what happens if you click 'yes', as none of my students have ever confessed any when sending their applications off to university. Medical school is fiercely competitive to get into and it could be something as seemingly minor as misuse of an Oyster card which tips the balance.
 

Lionkai10

New Member
Joined
8 Feb 2020
Messages
2
Location
Peckham
It’s very unlikely university’s will conduct an enhanced DBS check, they are mainly used to inform employers if you have any convictions/offences that would be of relevance for you getting a job for example if you wanted to be a financial manager they may do an enhanced check against you for any fraud offences which you’d then (in your circumstance) be ineligible for. It may be likely they terminated your application as they may have assumed you have a ongoing criminal record so make sure you’re 100% sure it’s spent already in futue
The websites does state that an Enhanced DBS check is required as you will be working with vulnerable people.

You're thinking of joining a profession where trust, transparency and honesty are vitally important. The response from the university seems fair to me. The fact that you were honest to the ticket inspector is good, but the act itself was dishonest as you know. Your suggestion that if it doesn't show up you shouldn't have to declare the conviction, even if asked, speaks to your probity which is unhelpful. Some thoughtful reflection would be really helpful, and the direction suggested by the university seems reasonable. A piece that shows you have learned from this will read very differently in its approach to the way you have asked these questions here, and if done well will be helpful for your future application. Good luck.
Thank you are your response.

1. I already included a reflective piece in the original statement of events and also sent an apology letter to TFL.

2. I only asked if I needed to declare it if it's not on an Enhanced DBS is becuase the question asks if you have any convictions that are not subject to filtering and are minor. On 29 May 2013 legislation came into force that allows certain old and minor cautions and convictions to no longer be subject to disclosure under the Exceptions Order. One would assume if it's not on there then it counts as being filtered.

Assuming you applied for medicine at all 5 of your UCAS choices, has each medical school rejected you or just one? If this wrong use of an Oyster card has stopped you getting a place to study medicine (and I hope it hasn’t)then you might consider applying for biomedical sciences, proving yourself both academically and personally, and swapping at a later date to a Medicine course
Thank you for your response.

Only one has rejected me as normally the process occurs after you've received an offer. However, I haven't recieved am offer yet. Which is bewildering as to why they haven't followed what's written on their website which states it's considered alongside a DBS check.

I've already graduated with a biomedical science degree.

Welcome to the forum. We’ll do our best to help you, but please be aware that
- we mainly know about railways and how the law impacts on railway users, rather than how a railway conviction may impact on the rest of your life
- we’re generally not lawyers, and even those of us who are aren’t giving formal advice.

Having said all of which, to answer your questions as well as I can:


In one sense, given that there’s not a record of it, no, you won’t have a criminal record.



You’re rather missing the point here. In terms of the practicalities of applying to medical school, you are unlikely to be asked ‘do you have a criminal record?’: the question is more likely to be something like ‘have you ever been convicted of an offence?’ And if you answer ‘no’ when the truthful answer is ‘yes’, then you’re lying. It’s not a matter of whether the institution can easily detect the lie. One of your institutions has already asked you to consider the importance of honesty in the medical profession (hint - this is not them giving you lines to do as a punishment. It’s an attempt to see if you understand that what you did was wrong. They’ll be more interested in how much insight into your own ethics you show rather than how long your piece is). You shouldn’t be trying to wriggle out of this issue on a technicality.



Don’t know, sorry.

There’s one thing I’d add: that’s that medical school is a very popular route for people to take after school (and after a first degree in another discipline). That means that you, as a candidate, are not in a strong position. The medical schools will be looking for reasons to reject candidates - and having a criminal conviction is an easy basis to turn an application down. It’s important that you do everything you can to prove that despite your conviction you are someone that they will want to have on their course.
Thank you for your response.

In response to your second point, the question is usually phrased have you ever had a conviction that is not subject to filtering. As on 29 May 2013 legislation came into force that allows certain old and minor cautions and convictions to no longer be subject to disclosure under the Exceptions Order.
Therefore, if the Enhanced DBS is clear then wouldn't that mean it is filtered?

That's a good point. However, if the website states it's considered alongside a DBS check and in my case it wasn't. Then isn't that dishonesty on their part as nobody stated that too me when I contacted them. Especially as I have been given an offer yet as they only just started sending them out. The other 3 medical schools are waiting till I have an offer and then conduct a DBS check alongside this information which is what each website stated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

30907

Established Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
9,438
Location
Airedale
Thank you for your response.

Only one has rejected me as normally the process occurs after you've received an offer. However, I haven't recieved am offer yet. Which is bewildering as to why they haven't followed what's written on their website which states it's considered alongside a DBS check.

I've already graduated with a biomedical science degree.
I am sorry, but I don't think this forum is competent to advise on university admissions policies.
 

superjohn

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2011
Messages
361
As above, we aren’t going to know the exact details of the University’s admission policies. However, I do concur with others that you are not in a strong position here and you are not going to get far by trying to pick holes in their process. You need to work with them, not be difficult. They will have plenty of other applications to chose from.
 

Typhoon

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
971
As above, we aren’t going to know the exact details of the University’s admission policies. However, I do concur with others that you are not in a strong position here and you are not going to get far by trying to pick holes in their process. You need to work with them, not be difficult. They will have plenty of other applications to chose from.
The University Medical School will have particular (normally academic) criteria that a candidate needs to meet, additionally the University itself may well have policies regarding particular situations such as offenders. After that it is down to people - Admissions Officer, Registrar, course leaders, Faculty heads, whatever - so the response from one institution might be different from another. Having said that, it can be quite brutal so I wouldn't discard the offer you have been given, which seemed like a quite fair deal to me.
If I had been interviewing you, I would have asked how you thought you would get away with travelling using a 16-18 card at your age (which must be at least 21 if you have a degree). No need to respond to this!
I would seriously think about taking up the offer you have been given and getting a relevant job or doing something useful for a year so that you have some plus points with which to encourage the institution.
Regarding how Medical Schools consider offending - no idea, not my field!
 

Typhoon

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
971
I've given some further thought to this.

Medical Schools will be aware of recent incidents where health professionals' actions have been called into question (for instance, cosmetic surgeons claiming to be insured when it was invalid or inadequate, a doctor performing unnecessary operations) so might be even more cautious than usual.

I'm not certain an appeal will be productive. For them to come up with this innovative offer, they will have considered your application at greater length. The danger is that they will reconsider the situation and withdraw the offer they made. As stated in #12, there is never a shortage of applications. My suggestion of earning brownie points was seriously made, 'actions speak louder than words'. Sadly, statements made by (potential) students are not renowned for their accuracy, I would have lost count of the number of UCAS applications with dubious comments I have read in my time.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,611
Location
North Wales
It’s very unlikely university’s will conduct an enhanced DBS check, they are mainly used to inform employers if you have any convictions/offences that would be of relevance for you getting a job
The websites does state that an Enhanced DBS check is required as you will be working with vulnerable people.
Another example is university qualifications for teaching, such as PGCEs: as you'll be working on placement in schools/hospitals with children or vulnerable individuals, acceptance on the course is conditional on passing an enhanced DBS check.
 

SussexMan

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2010
Messages
429
As far as I'm aware, a conviction is never spent with respect to medicine
This is incorrect. All convictions with the exception of ones which involve a custodial sentence of more than 4 years become spent after a period of time. However, if your job (including placements etc) means that your employer can ask about spent convictions, you must disclose them.

Protected offences are filtered and you do not have to disclose them and they will not show up on a DBS.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
3,379
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
This is incorrect. All convictions with the exception of ones which involve a custodial sentence of more than 4 years become spent after a period of time. However, if your job (including placements etc) means that your employer can ask about spent convictions, you must disclose them.

Protected offences are filtered and you do not have to disclose them and they will not show up on a DBS.

I thought they showed up on an enhanced DBS check (which is required for entry into the medical field) I'm gonna have to go and check now for my own curiosity.

What I do know is that the universities would have taken into account whether the specified offence is relevant to the role you are applying for. Also, the fact that you originally said you had no spent or unspent convictions and then said you did after checking may also have not worked in your favour

I have just checked the DBS protected offences and oddly, fraud isn't listed. For me, this is an important one for the medical field (e.g. forging signatures on prescriptions)
 
Last edited:

kevconnor

Member
Joined
22 Apr 2013
Messages
552
Location
People's Republic of Mancunia
This is incorrect. All convictions with the exception of ones which involve a custodial sentence of more than 4 years become spent after a period of time. However, if your job (including placements etc) means that your employer can ask about spent convictions, you must disclose them.

Protected offences are filtered and you do not have to disclose them and they will not show up on a DBS.
It's a but more nuanced than saying all will and all wont. The attached should give some indication of rehabilitation periods but I have in my profession life seen an enhanced DBS within a H&SC role with a conviction on there. From what I recall the reason was the person was travelling on a discounted ticket without a railcard.
 

Attachments

cuccir

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
3,360
After that it is down to people - Admissions Officer, Registrar, course leaders, Faculty heads, whatever - so the response from one institution might be different from another.
This is key to know. I'm not an admissions officer, but I am the director of an undergraduate degree: I don't admit the students, but I manage their progress while they're here and I do deal with both internal and external transfers, which often means liasing with the admissions officer.

If the course you've applied to is a 'selective' one (ie, they have more applicants than places), then the individuals invovled are often given a lot of freedom of choice, within some rules. My experience is that most university regulations are written with caveats that allow invidiuals invovled quite a bit of freedom to apply reasonable discretion. I'm pretty sure all universities will give admissions officers the option of rejecting students with criminal records, but I'm also fairly confident that most will give officers the option of chosing to accept them too. The point I think is that this decision doesn't mean that other unviersities won't accept you.

However, they stated they will accept an application next year.
My experience also leads to me think that if this offer has been made in writing, it is likely to be a genuine and sincere one. If you want to get onto this course, I think it's them telling you they'd accept your offer once the conviction is considered spent.
 

30907

Established Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
9,438
Location
Airedale
Can you tell us what you were specifically convicted of - e.g. theft, fraud?
Neither. The OP has stated upthread:
using a travel mandate issued for another person. This was contrary to regulation 7(1)b of the public service vehicles and the section 25(3) of the public passenger vehicles act 1981.
The second is about fines; the first seems to be the bus equivalent of a Railway Byelaw or RoRA offence with which we are (naturally) more familiar. From the wording it is perhaps slightly more serious than Byelaw 18 (not having a valid ticket). Certainly the medical school seems to regard it as a serious enough offence to request a reflection by the OP.

7.—(1) No passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall use any ticket which has–
(b)been issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable;
 

some bloke

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,096
You could seek specialist advice perhaps starting with these organisations, both of which have helplines. They have an interest in policy, so may be interested in your case from that point of view as well as to give advice.

https://www.nacro.org.uk/resettlement-advice-service/support-for-individuals/disclosing-criminal-records/disclosing-criminal-records-applying-college

https://www.unlock.org.uk/policy-is...nal-record-stopped-student-studying-medicine/
https://www.unlock.org.uk/category/news-for-other-groups/universities/

I'm not certain an appeal will be productive. ...they will have considered your application at greater length. The danger is that they will reconsider the situation and withdraw the offer
My uninformed guess would agree with that. You need to be careful to avoid wasting their time with technicalities or accusations.

Depending on various factors including what you've already written to the university, perhaps you might increase your chances next year by withdrawing the appeal. Again, seek specialist advice. A serious ground for challenge might call for legal advice/action, but it isn't clear what if anything the university have done "wrong". Perhaps there might be some help from your old university - you might approach the careers service for pointers on who could help.

if the website states it's considered alongside a DBS check and in my case it wasn't. Then isn't that dishonesty on their part as nobody stated that too me when I contacted them.
I'm not sure what valid complaint you could have there, regardless of whether they've technically followed the procedure. Is your complaint that they didn't do a DBS check for more convictions? Why would that be unfair on you? Also, they didn't need to check if they had already decided to reject.

on 29 May 2013 legislation came into force that allows certain old and minor cautions and convictions to no longer be subject to disclosure under the Exceptions Order.
Yes - but it only applies where they are old *and* minor - see the link given earlier:
https://www.gmc-uk.org/education/st...tice/protected-spent-cautions-and-convictions
and
https://3bx16p38bchl32s0e12di03h-wp...14/07/practical-guidance-on-dbs-filtering.pdf

The attached should give some indication of rehabilitation periods
In case it's useful to anyone reading this thread, the rehab period after a fine for people over the age of 18 convicted in England and Wales is one year rather than five.
 
Last edited:

SussexMan

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2010
Messages
429
I thought they showed up on an enhanced DBS check (which is required for entry into the medical field) I'm gonna have to go and check now for my own curiosity
Yes, they will show up on an enhanced DBS. The post which I quoted said "As far as I'm aware, a conviction is never spent with respect to medicine". The conviction still becomes spent (unless it was a custodial sentence of more than 4 years) - but that is very different to whether it will show on an enhanced DBS or not.
 

Undiscovered

Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
130
So I've recently been rejected from a medical school because of my recent criminal conviction.

The medical school said that my application will be withdrawn stating that it was recent and an deliberate act and I should write a reflective piece of how the incident has impacted me and the importance of honesty within the medical profession. However, they stated they will accept an application next year
I'm really sorry if I don't grasp the situation properly but, as I read it:

You've been caught, bang to rights, on a travel irregularity on the railway;
You've been responsible and informed the various medical schools you've applied to that you've been a naughty person;
One has said- we appreciate your honesty. You have made a mistake, tell us, to our satisfaction, how you will learn from this and move forward and you have a place next year.
The others have not replied.

I really don't think you can be complaining or asking for help in mitigating this. You're going to be in a job where a split second decision that you have to make has significant consequences.

If you can't make the right decision when it comes to travelling on a train...
 

djw

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2019
Messages
13
So I've recently been rejected from a medical school because of my recent criminal conviction.

Back on 23rd August I was caught using my brothers 16-18 oyster card. I was honest to the ticket inspector when he ask whose it was. I sent an apology letter to TFL and also tried to settle the case out of court especially as this was a one time event and had no other convictions. This was unsuccessful. I was charged with using my brothers 16-18 oyster card on 12th November and pleaded guilty. I was subsequently charged with using a travel mandate issued for another person. This was contrary to regulation 7(1)b of the public service vehicles and the section 25(3) of the public passenger vehicles act 1981. I assumed I had a criminal record and therefore had to disclose this to the medical schools I applied for.
Only protected convictions are filtered out. Whilst you were not convicted of a listed offence (mostly serious offences involving sexual misconduct, violence or terrorism - there is a comprehensive list online), you did not receive a custodial sentence and this is your only conviction, the conviction will not be protected until 11 years since the date of conviction (as you were over 18 when convicted).


There is a caveat to that - you said that you pleaded guilty to one thing you were charged with (one conviction), then you were subsequently charged with another offence. Is there another charge remaining to be dealt with?

You are also not entirely clear what you were convicted of - you mention a regulation without giving the full citation of that regulation and then a section of an Act of Parliament. Section 25(3) Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 is an enabling provision for conviction of regulations made under the said section 25, so this sounds like a single conviction. It is important to quote the name of the regulation in full.

I think there is no outstanding charge, and you were convicted of the sole offence of "using a travel mandate issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable contrary to regulation 7(1)(b) of The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1020) and section 25(3) Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981". Is that correct?


As you are now aware, applicants for medicine are subject to an enhanced DBS check because medical students have access to children and vulnerable adults. You should expect your conviction to show on such a DBS check and it will not be filtered out for over a decade.


Dishonesty about a conviction, no matter what the conviction is for, will be fatal to any trust placed in you. You know this conviction is not protected - it will not be for over ten years. I would not pin your hopes on it somehow not having been recorded so it fails to be disclosed, as if it is disclosed or subsequently comes to light then you can be shown to have lied about your conviction, which is a further dishonest act. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a TfL employee that this offence will not be recorded! I don't know enough about criminal records to know whether or not it will be disclosed - but I would assume it will be and go out of your way to disclose it when asked about non-protected convictions.


Right now you have a recent conviction for an offence involving deliberate dishonesty: you knowingly used a 16-18 Oyster card issued to another person.

A conviction relating to fare avoidance is amongst the examples listed as impairing fitness to practice in a medical student on page 45 of the GMC's "Professional behaviour and fitness to practice: guidance for medical schools and their students". You haven't got as far as becoming a medical student before throwing up a fitness to practice concern.

A medical school cannot allow a student to graduate with a primary medical qualification registrable under the Medical Act 1983 until all fitness to practice concerns have been dealt with to the medical school's satisfaction - see paragraph 16 on page 14 of the document I just mentioned. Fitness to Practice does not come under the jurisdiction of GMC until a medical graduate seeks registration. There is also the following warning in paragraph 20:

Medical schools must make clear to students that the GMC will consider any issue that calls their fitness to practise into question when they come to apply for provisional registration. In exceptional circumstances, this may include incidents that happened before they entered medical school as well as incidents that occur during their undergraduate years.


It is important to keep this in proportion. I very much doubt that a sole conviction for a fare evasion offence before entering medical school would impair fitness to practice on graduation if there were no other fitness to practice concerns arising whilst at medical school. Nevertheless, your conviction will not be protected by the time you graduate if you gain entry to medical school in the next four years, so will be disclosable to the GMC at that point.


Each medical school has, to my understanding, their own student fitness to practice procedures - so there will not be a common approach across all medical schools about how your disclosure of a conviction is treated. One medical school you applied to said, in essence, "this is too recent a conviction for deliberate dishonesty to consider you further this year, but the situation might have changed by next year if you follow our suggested rehabilitative steps". I really don't think you are in any position to appeal that decision, bearing in mind it is up to each university to determine student fitness to practice up to the point of graduation. What the university are saying, in effect is, based on what we know right now we are not sure we could vouch for this person's fitness to practice at the end of their studies, so we decline to consider them further this year.

I am struggling to see what grounds of appeal you might have. Procedural irregularity would only apply if the information listed was not considered - how do you know your statement was not carefully considered when reaching the decision that your conviction involved deliberate dishonesty and was too recent for that medical school to consider you further this year? Generally speaking, procedural irregularity is only relevant in law if it causes actual unfairness or a strict legal requirement was not complied with. If there was actionable procedural irregularity, your remedy is likely limited to the decision being made again with the procedural irregularity remedied.


As others have said, you are not in a strong position. Medical schools are massively oversubscribed and do not need much of an excuse to eliminate an applicant from further consideration. Considering that "acting with honesty and integrity" is one of the elements of the fourth domain of Good Medical Practice, "maintaining trust", it is reasonable to expect some questioning on this if you get as far as interview. All this particular medical school has done following disclosure of your conviction is notify you that they cannot consider you further this year and that they might be able to consider you next year after you have reflected on your conviction and how it sits with the obligations of a registered doctor.


You might find my comments about dishonesty within medicine in a previous unrelated thread helpful.


Disclaimer: Whilst I studied law at university, I am not and never have been a lawyer. Nothing here should be construed as formal medical advice. Whilst I have had involvement with the NHS on a governance level and my brother is a doctor, I can only write about medicine and medical schools as an outsider.
 

djw

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2019
Messages
13
I think there is no outstanding charge, and you were convicted of the sole offence of "using a travel mandate issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable contrary to regulation 7(1)(b) of The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1020) and section 25(3) Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981". Is that correct?


As you are now aware, applicants for medicine are subject to an enhanced DBS check because medical students have access to children and vulnerable adults. You should expect your conviction to show on such a DBS check and it will not be filtered out for over a decade.
What I wrote in my earlier reply is potentially misleading. I cannot find this offence either in schedule 1 of The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1139) (which is not updated on the linked source - there are no non-subscription sources of updated Statutory Instruments online) or the more recent list provided by Unlock, so it is likely not recorded on the Police National Computer as TfL suggested to you. As such, there is a reasonable chance it will not show on an enhanced DBS check.

However, you need to be careful. If somehow the matter has come to the attention of your local police then it might still be recorded on their records and disclosed on a DBS check. Also, whilst the conviction is unspent, you cannot truthfully answer any question about convictions as "No". Dishonesty when asked is far can be far more serious than the original conviction - there are cases of people being dismissed from jobs because they lied about a conviction that would not have been a problem if they had disclosed it. It was the dishonesty that was gross misconduct.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
3,160
I thought they showed up on an enhanced DBS check (which is required for entry into the medical field) I'm gonna have to go and check now for my own curiosity.

What I do know is that the universities would have taken into account whether the specified offence is relevant to the role you are applying for. Also, the fact that you originally said you had no spent or unspent convictions and then said you did after checking may also have not worked in your favour

I have just checked the DBS protected offences and oddly, fraud isn't listed. For me, this is an important one for the medical field (e.g. forging signatures on prescriptions)
I do contract work for the NHS which requires an enhanced DBS, and records from 40 years ago show up on it.
As far as the medical profession is concerned "spent conviction" isn't a valid concept. You're in a position where you're in contact with vulnerable people and the authorities aren't going to let anyone with a suspicious background anywhere near a patient - or their records.
Don't try to hide the conviction - you WILL be caught out. Admit to it, apologise, and hope one of the med schools sees a redeeming factor somewhere. But don't be surprised if they don't.
 

ScotsRail

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2019
Messages
25
Location
Aberfeldy
It’s very unlikely university’s will conduct an enhanced DBS check
Up here Disclosure checks are routinely run, at the point of starting the course, by Universities if that course is in relation to undertaking a role that will see you work with vulnerable people - in care, with children, medical etc.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
3,379
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
they are mainly used to inform employers if you have any convictions/offences that would be of relevance for you getting a job for example if you wanted to be a financial manager they may do an enhanced check against you for any fraud offences which you’d then (in your circumstance) be ineligible for.
There are fraud, malpractice and safeguarding issues to consider when working in the medical field, not to mention working with children, the elderly and vulnerable groups; therefore enhanced DBS checks are most likely and they are usually carried out every 3 years or with each new teaching establishment/employer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top