Simple Caution for Ticketless Travel

[aas1imslim]

A number of years ago, I got off a train and walked to an extended platform to get a second train to my final destination, I saw I had just missed the second train so decided to walk instead, I went to a fast food place within the station to get some breakfast and then walked out of the station.

As I left the station, a BTP officer approached me and asked to see my ticket, of which I did not have one. As such, he said I could either receive a caution or be summoned to court prosecuted for trying to defraud the railway services (or something like that).

A couple of days later, I had to sign a simple caution for the offence of Railway Byelaw 18 Ticketless Travel at the BTP station for traveling without first buying a ticket, not buying one on the train (even though there was no conductor), and then avoiding the ticket check barrier (which I dispute as it wasn't intentional).

What I'd like to know is, will this ever show up on an enhanced CRB check? Bearing in mind I have actually had 3 enhanced CRB checks since then and have always had "None Recorded" under all categories and am employed to work with children now...

 

[yorkie]

Welcome to the forum.

which I dispute as it wasn't intentional..

Except there is no intent required for a Byelaw 18 offence.

What I'd like to know is, will this ever show up on an enhanced CRB check? Bearing in mind I have actually had 3 enhanced CRB checks since then and have always had "None Recorded" under all categories and am employed to work with children now...

No. It's a "strict liability" matter, roughly equivalent to a parking fine, or a speeding fine.

From our Fares Guide (which normally requires 5+ posts to gain access, but I've given you access now):-

Train Operating Companies have specific legislation they can use to prosecute passengers. Some common examples of offences include:

• Travelling (or travelling over-distance) with the intention of avoiding paying the fare due (or part of the fare due)
• Failure to produce a valid ticket
• Failure to give name and address
• Altering tickets

The first of these is an offence under the Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA). Merely failing to produce a ticket (no evidence of intent) is an offence under the Railway Byelaws. Failure to give name and address could come under either the RoRA or Byelaws, as appropriate. Altering tickets is also a Byelaw offence, though in serious cases it could be considered Fraud.

Offences under the Regulation of Railways Act result are recordable offences and a conviction will be disclosed if a CRB check (Standard or Enhanced) is performed.

Offences under the Railway Byelaws are not recordable offences and a conviction should not be disclosed if a CRB check (Standard or Enhanced) is performed.

For more information please see Section 8 - Legal

I have highlighted in red the parts that apply in your case.

 

[aas1imslim]

Many thanks for such a fast response.

Regarding the offence that is written on my copy of the simple caution, it starts with:

"Railway Byelaw 18 Ticketless Travel..."

Does that mean that I was caught with ticketless travel as opposed to traveling with the intent of avoiding pay or something like that?

The simple caution has "terms and conditions" at the bottom which read:

1) I have admitted to committing the offence(s) shown above. A simple caution is not a criminal conviction, but I understand that details of the caution will be kept on police databases.

Am I right in thinking that this simple caution has been logged on to a database that isn't disclosed through enhanced CRBs?

Ultimately, I am trying to ascertain whether I should disclose this simple caution to prospective employers in the future or not, especially having had 3 enhanced CRBs so far that all mention they are exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which means things including cautions will be disclosed. I have been told by others that the Chief Constable of the area when approached for the CRB check could disclose it but probably thinks it is not relevant and therefore doesn't...?

Edited to add:

From : http://www.merseyrail.org/about-us/prosecutions.html

Q:Will I get a criminal record?
A: If found guilty of a Byelaw offence, it may appear on an enhanced CRB CHECK but if you are found guilty of a Railway regulation act 1889 section 5 offence, then this would show up on any CRB CHECK. If you pay the administrative penalty, this will enable us to withdraw your case from court, and consequently you will have no CRB RECORD.

I wasn't offered any administrative penalty or even asked to pay for the fare price but I found that which may be useful to my case?

 

[island]

There is no requirement to be offered the option to pay the fare due or an administrative penalty, and the BTP can't do administrative penalties.

The new DBS guidelines may mean that it is less likely than before that this will be disclosed, and it wasn't very likely to start with.

 

[aas1imslim]

But it isn't impossible for them to not declare it?

I've read that it's non-recorded but read elsewhere that it can be declared on enhanced CRBs so that's just why I'm wanting to get clarification

 

[Sidious]

I have admitted to committing the offence(s) shown above. A simple caution is not a criminal conviction, but I understand that details of the caution will be kept on police databases.

Am I right in thinking that this simple caution has been logged on to a database that isn't disclosed through enhanced CRBs?

...

Q:Will I get a criminal record?
A: If found guilty of a Byelaw offence, it may appear on an enhanced CRB CHECK but if you are found guilty of a Railway regulation act 1889 section 5 offence, then this would show up on any CRB CHECK. If you pay the administrative penalty, this will enable us to withdraw your case from court, and consequently you will have no CRB RECORD.

I wasn't offered any administrative penalty or even asked to pay for the fare price but I found that which may be useful to my case?

I think you have answered your own question.

A simple caution for any offence WILL show up on an enhanced CRB check, but only a caution for a Regulation of Railway Act offence (of which you haven't got) would show up on a standard CRB check.

If your job is exempt under the terms of the rehabilitation of offenders act, then you should disclose it.

A Byelaw 18 Offence requires no intent, and is therefore not a 'dishonesty' offence (unlike the Regulation of Railways Act offence) so it's nothing to worry about anyway.

 

[michael769]

A simple caution for any offence WILL show up on an enhanced CRB check,

There is no mechanism by which a caution issued by a private company can be transmitted to either DBS or Disclosure Scotland.

However as the OP has been cautioned by BTP it is possible that the Chief Constable will see fit to reveal it in an enhanced check if he considers it relevant, but it is not a certainty as it is for the Chief Constable to decide what matters of which the police are aware should be revealed.

 

[Swirlz]

There is no mechanism by which a caution issued by a private company can be transmitted to either DBS or Disclosure Scotland.

There sort of is, a method, but it would be an unintentional consequence.

If a TOC gets as far as issuing a summons, and letter settles out of court by whatever method, (private caution etc), a record will still have been created on PNC.

This happens because the TOC communicates the details of the offence to NPIA who add it to PNC before the outcome of the court case. It falls upon HMCS then communicate the outcome of the summons to NPIA who update, (but never remove), their records accordingly. So if no evidence is offered by the prosecutor in court, and the case is dismissed, NPIA would specify this on PNC.

A "case dismissed" PNC record will not usually show on a CRB check, but, at the discretion of the Chief Constable, he can choose to include anything which may be relevant, including No Further Action outcomes.

(Note: NPIA is/has been/being disbanded. Their PNC remit being transferred to the Home Office)

 

[Stigy]

Welcome to the forum.
Except there is no intent required for a Byelaw 18 offence.

No. It's a "strict liability" matter, roughly equivalent to a parking fine, or a speeding fine.

From our Fares Guide (which normally requires 5+ posts to gain access, but I've given you access now):-



I have highlighted in red the parts that apply in your case.

A prosecution for this may not show up, I agree. However, a Caution probably will, as Cautions are usually listed, as it's not the offence itself that's recorded, but the caution specifically. Would have to verify this though, as simple cautions might be different.

 

[CatfordCat]

Part copypasta from another thread about CRB checks

I'm not 100% up to date with DBS, but used to be involved with police checks for people likely to work with children / vulnerable adults.

A 'caution' is immediately 'spent' as far as the rehabilitation of offenders act is concerned, so unless the job is exempted (and the types of jobs exempted is laid down in law - an employer can't just decide to make a job exempt), then you won't need to declare it.

If an application specifically asks you to declare unspent convictions, then it's going to put you in a more difficult position if you don't declare something that later shows up on a disclosure than if you're upfront about it.

Other than people who are formally disqualified from working with children and / or vulnerable people, it is not the role of CRB / DBS to say to an employer "yes you may employ / no you may not employ this person" - it is their role to provide information and let the employer make a decision.

I'm sure you can imagine the sort of offence that employers are looking out for when it comes to people applying for jobs working with children - I'd have thought they would not be too bothered about a one-off caution for something relatively trivial. They might just want to discuss it with you, an honest answer that it was a one-off and a mistake on your part will probably satisfy them. The longer ago it becomes, the less chance of them even commenting.

 

[aas1imslim]

What confuses me is that I have always declared it previously, yet nothing shows up on my enhanced CRBs, they have always come back clear, could it be that the Chief Constable just doesn't see it as relevant to disclose it?

 

[michael769]

Most likely. It is also possible that they never actually recorded it anywhere.

The report comes for the territorial force, so the other possibility is that it is not on the national system and so the territorial force do not have visibility of it.

But we can only speculate. If is not showing on ECRBs I doubt it is likely to turn up in future to be honest.

 

[aas1imslim]

Well, as an update, I finally received my check back and they're all "none recorded", i.e. completely clear

 

[johnnychips]

Thanks for telling us the final outcome as a lot of posters don't.

 

[dvboy]

Most likely. It is also possible that they never actually recorded it anywhere.

The report comes for the territorial force, so the other possibility is that it is not on the national system and so the territorial force do not have visibility of it.

But we can only speculate. If is not showing on ECRBs I doubt it is likely to turn up in future to be honest.

BTP can disclose additional information in addition to territorial forces (and not just those where you live/have lived). Just something to be aware of. All force's local databases are searched for names and DOBs remotely by CRB, and the application sent to all of those where there is a potential match.

Having said that, I cannot think of any circumstance where such additional information as described in this thread would be considered relevant for disclosure by the Chief Constable (in reality it's all delegated, it's a team of police support staff at each force who decide what's relevant, using a nationally applied decision-making framework, and signed off by an ACPO rank officer not necessarily the CC).

 

[aas1imslim]

Do you think it would be advantageous for me to request a Subject Access Request to my local Police Station to see whether this actually appears or not?

 

[island]

Couldn't hurt I suppose although it would need to be to the force responsible for the area where the alleged offence occurred. Worst case you're out a tenner.