Convictions that could impact on a future career

[AlterEgo]

I’m not sure all of RoRA requires intent. 5(3) does certainly. 5(1) doesn’t seem to.

 

[simonw]

I missed the origins of this split thread, but seems to me a byelaw conviction, which is the vast majority of convictions we see, cannot accurately be described as either fare evasion nor an offence of dishonesty.

Of course if and when disclosed the applicant should be prepared to admit the full facts of the case, as we know, many such convictions do arise from dishonest intentions.

The original thread was about misuse of a tfl card I believe

Edit

From the original

Hi, my daughter (20 years old ) was stopped at a London TFL station as she was using my son's 16+ oyster Photo card

 

[AdamWW]

The reality is none of those circumstances would ordinarily result in a conviction though. The only way it would is if the person was non-cooperative or deceitful in their response.

That's good news - because from this forum I had the impression that with some TOCs even for a minor first time offence it was by no means a given that an out of court settlement would be offered even by playing ball, showing suitable contrition, and paying whatever sum was demanded.

I think you can add another circumstance in which someone would be unlikely to get an out of court settlement and that's where the person is just unable to pay the sum being requested in one go.

 

[soil]

In all cases it's going to depend on context though. The SRA may strike off a solicitor when they intentionally evade 83% of their fares for 3 months (article linked further up thread), but I imagine they wouldn't go that far for someone who used their Railcard for 3 days not realising it had expired (though they may doubt the solicitor's ability if they don't manage to get an out of court settlement from the TOC for that!)

It wouldn't be a question of strike-off for a 20 year old.

There are no 20-year-old solicitors - you need a degree and further exams/education beyond that, then 2 years of experience.

After meeting these requirements you'd apply and would have to disclose the conviction, be it Byelaws, Regulations, or RoRA.

This is a question of "character & suitability", and it's likely that the level of misbehaviour to result in an "unsuitable" decision would be lower than that necessary for strike off.

Here's a case of Babatunde Adegboyega Taiwo, working for TFL:

used a PRIV card for commuting - dishonest as he knew he was not allowed to do so
he altered a dependant card mistakenly issued in his name - again dishonest

Here the SDT's findings were https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/11836.2018.Taiwo_.pdf:

1) he was dishonest, within the legal meaning of the word - "By the standards of ordinary decent people"
2) he had departed from the complete integrity expected of a solicitor to a considerable extent
3) "the most serious misconduct involves dishonesty, whether or not leading to criminal penalties. A finding that an allegation of dishonesty has been proved will almost invariably lead to striking off, save in exceptional circumstances".


The question of dishonesty is an objective one - is it dishonest to use your railcard for a month after it's expired. No, it's careless.

Is it dishonest to ONCE go through the gates at a station because they are open, evading a £2.50 fare - clearly yes.

Obviously in the latter case a hypothetical evader might seek to say that they did in fact tap in, and it might be difficult to PROVE dishonesty.

If dishonesty is proven, the "exceptional circumstances" comes into play

See https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/in...-case-law-review-of-exceptional-circumstances

"…at the heart of any assessment of whether there are exceptional circumstances, and the factor which is bound to carry the most significant weight in that assessment is an understanding of the degree of culpability and the extent of the dishonesty which occurred."


Some cases are given which do not relate to rail fares.

Instead three cases where exceptional circumstances saved the day:

1) "the two incidents of dishonesty [work-related] took place within 40 minutes of each other, a much shorter duration than had occurred in James. Further, it said, “whilst inevitably a serious matter, the dishonest account was not sustained and could not be described as calculated”". The solicitor also pleaded mental health issues.
2) a solicitor dishonestly amended client emails, however " this had been a fleeting or momentary lapse of judgement which had lasted a very brief period of time before discovery and also noted that the Respondent had promptly self-reported the incident. On that basis, this case was distinct from other cases of dishonesty in which hours, days and weeks had gone by before the dishonesty had come to light."
3) a solicitor was sacked for gross misconduct and then lied on his CV and to employers about this. "The Tribunal found that while the dishonesty was deliberate, it was not planned or calculated. As to scope, the dishonest conduct spanned two occasions, being the two interviews, though the Tribunal noted it related to one and the same misleading answer in each interview. Further, it noted the dishonesty related to two linked incidents, which though separated by one week, each lasted “a matter of seconds”. "


Again, this relates to strike off, which should carry a higher bar than refusal of entry (I am not sure if this strike off under 'property' for ECHR purposes - in general permits are considered property, and therefore they are protected under human rights law, whereas if you have no permit yet, there is no such protection).


There is an ancillary point here, which is:

1) a Byelaw conviction is a criminal conviction, and must be disclosed. It is not inherently a finding of dishonesty, though the SRA would certainly address whether there is any dishonesty.
2) the SRA requires disclosure of all relevant matters relating to dishonesty &c. It's not completely clear what is considered relevant - they have a list https://www.sra.org.uk/become-solic...ility/disclosing-character-suitability-issue/ including financial, educational, disciplinary issues at work
3) if they found out about a settlement for fare evasion, they would address any dishonesty - above TFL told them about the non-criminal proceedings. Obviously some non-judicial processes are more formal than others, but e.g., employers are supposed to go through formal, legally regulated, procedures, so findings from employment misconduct/dismissal need to be disclosed
4) many of the letters sent out following advice from here make full, frank, and on the record admissions of dishonesty.
5) if a TOC has investigated, and the passenger has made such admissions, then this does seem like something that SHOULD BE disclosed when applying.

Obviously a byelaw conviction is DEFINITELY disclosable, whereas an out-of-court settlement is only probably disclosable, and if you did not disclose your settlement, then
a) you're less likely to be found out than for a court conviction (although I think there are cases where settlements have leaked?)
b) you would have some plausible deniability that you didn't think you needed to.

 

[styles]

It wouldn't be a question of strike-off for a 20 year old.

There are no 20-year-old solicitors - you need a degree and further exams/education beyond that, then 2 years of experience.

After meeting these requirements you'd apply and would have to disclose the conviction, be it Byelaws, Regulations, or RoRA.

This is a question of "character & suitability", and it's likely that the level of misbehaviour to result in an "unsuitable" decision would be lower than that necessary for strike off.

Here's a case of Babatunde Adegboyega Taiwo, working for TFL:

used a PRIV card for commuting - dishonest as he knew he was not allowed to do so
he altered a dependant card mistakenly issued in his name - again dishonest

Here the SDT's findings were https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/11836.2018.Taiwo_.pdf:

1) he was dishonest, within the legal meaning of the word - "By the standards of ordinary decent people"
2) he had departed from the complete integrity expected of a solicitor to a considerable extent
3) "the most serious misconduct involves dishonesty, whether or not leading to criminal penalties. A finding that an allegation of dishonesty has been proved will almost invariably lead to striking off, save in exceptional circumstances".


The question of dishonesty is an objective one - is it dishonest to use your railcard for a month after it's expired. No, it's careless.

Is it dishonest to ONCE go through the gates at a station because they are open, evading a £2.50 fare - clearly yes.

Obviously in the latter case a hypothetical evader might seek to say that they did in fact tap in, and it might be difficult to PROVE dishonesty.

If dishonesty is proven, the "exceptional circumstances" comes into play

See https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/in...-case-law-review-of-exceptional-circumstances

"…at the heart of any assessment of whether there are exceptional circumstances, and the factor which is bound to carry the most significant weight in that assessment is an understanding of the degree of culpability and the extent of the dishonesty which occurred."


Some cases are given which do not relate to rail fares.

Instead three cases where exceptional circumstances saved the day:

1) "the two incidents of dishonesty [work-related] took place within 40 minutes of each other, a much shorter duration than had occurred in James. Further, it said, “whilst inevitably a serious matter, the dishonest account was not sustained and could not be described as calculated”". The solicitor also pleaded mental health issues.
2) a solicitor dishonestly amended client emails, however " this had been a fleeting or momentary lapse of judgement which had lasted a very brief period of time before discovery and also noted that the Respondent had promptly self-reported the incident. On that basis, this case was distinct from other cases of dishonesty in which hours, days and weeks had gone by before the dishonesty had come to light."
3) a solicitor was sacked for gross misconduct and then lied on his CV and to employers about this. "The Tribunal found that while the dishonesty was deliberate, it was not planned or calculated. As to scope, the dishonest conduct spanned two occasions, being the two interviews, though the Tribunal noted it related to one and the same misleading answer in each interview. Further, it noted the dishonesty related to two linked incidents, which though separated by one week, each lasted “a matter of seconds”. "


Again, this relates to strike off, which should carry a higher bar than refusal of entry (I am not sure if this strike off under 'property' for ECHR purposes - in general permits are considered property, and therefore they are protected under human rights law, whereas if you have no permit yet, there is no such protection).


There is an ancillary point here, which is:

1) a Byelaw conviction is a criminal conviction, and must be disclosed. It is not inherently a finding of dishonesty, though the SRA would certainly address whether there is any dishonesty.
2) the SRA requires disclosure of all relevant matters relating to dishonesty &c. It's not completely clear what is considered relevant - they have a list https://www.sra.org.uk/become-solic...ility/disclosing-character-suitability-issue/ including financial, educational, disciplinary issues at work
3) if they found out about a settlement for fare evasion, they would address any dishonesty - above TFL told them about the non-criminal proceedings. Obviously some non-judicial processes are more formal than others, but e.g., employers are supposed to go through formal, legally regulated, procedures, so findings from employment misconduct/dismissal need to be disclosed
4) many of the letters sent out following advice from here make full, frank, and on the record admissions of dishonesty.
5) if a TOC has investigated, and the passenger has made such admissions, then this does seem like something that SHOULD BE disclosed when applying.

Obviously a byelaw conviction is DEFINITELY disclosable, whereas an out-of-court settlement is only probably disclosable, and if you did not disclose your settlement, then
a) you're less likely to be found out than for a court conviction (although I think there are cases where settlements have leaked?)
b) you would have some plausible deniability that you didn't think you needed to.

Putting aside the SHOUTING, is there a more concise way of describing what you're disagreeing with in the comment you quoted?

None of this seems to contradict earlier statements.

 

[soil]

I’m not sure all of RoRA requires intent. 5(3) does certainly. 5(1) doesn’t seem to.

Mens rea is implied

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd010725/k-1.htm

"the established common law assumption that a mental element, traditionally labelled mens rea, is an essential ingredient unless Parliament has indicated a contrary intention either expressly or by necessary implication. The common law presumes that, unless Parliament has indicated otherwise, the appropriate mental element is an unexpressed ingredient of every statutory offence"

mens rea can be recklessness or intent.

So 5(1) requires

1) failure to produce ticket AND
2) failure to pay fare AND
3) failure to give name and address

The third failure would require either specific or basic intent (intent or recklessness) - e.g., if you have drunk 15 pints of beer and cannot remember your address then this is considered a defence to specific intent not to basic intent.

My understanding is that absent specific wording, recklessness would be sufficient, so said drunken passenger would be guilty under 5(1) and does have basic intent in law.

OTOH, a passenger who is unable to give their name and address because they are taken ill, etc., would not have the mens rea, and would be not guilty.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2025 ==

Putting aside the SHOUTING, is there a more concise way of describing what you're disagreeing with in the comment you quoted?

None of this seems to contradict earlier statements.

Firstly, my use of capitals is simple emphasis, not shouting.

Also this is a discussion forum - replies do not imply disagreement.

Given that the thread is about a 20-year-old accused of using her brother's 16+ Oyster "for a few days", I wanted to clarify your example of "The SRA may strike off a solicitor when they intentionally evade 83% of their fares for 3 months (article linked further up thread), but I imagine they wouldn't go that far for someone who used their Railcard for 3 days not realising it had expired" to make it clear that

1) the intentional evasion is dishonesty, which is the serious issue, whereas your "83%, 3 months, 3 days" points are minor details
2) while minor details, they are still relevant, and determining whether they could save the OP from the, by default, fatal, dishonesty, is a complex matter (hence the length of my post)
3) the OP could not be struck off, since she is not a solicitor - she could however seek to apply to become one, whereupon the level of dishonesty resulting in refusal is likely to be lower than that pertaining to a solicitor being struck off.

 

[styles]

Mens rea is implied

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd010725/k-1.htm

"the established common law assumption that a mental element, traditionally labelled mens rea, is an essential ingredient unless Parliament has indicated a contrary intention either expressly or by necessary implication. The common law presumes that, unless Parliament has indicated otherwise, the appropriate mental element is an unexpressed ingredient of every statutory offence"

mens rea can be recklessness or intent.

So 5(1) requires

1) failure to produce ticket AND
2) failure to pay fare AND
3) failure to give name and address

The third failure would require either specific or basic intent (intent or recklessness) - e.g., if you have drunk 15 pints of beer and cannot remember your address then this is considered a defence to specific intent not to basic intent.

My understanding is that absent specific wording, recklessness would be sufficient, so said drunken passenger would be guilty under 5(1) and does have basic intent in law.

OTOH, a passenger who is unable to give their name and address because they are taken ill, etc., would not have the mens rea, and would be not guilty.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2025 ==



Firstly, my use of capitals is simple emphasis, not shouting.

Also this is a discussion forum - replies do not imply disagreement.

Given that the thread is about a 20-year-old accused of using her brother's 16+ Oyster "for a few days", I wanted to clarify your example of "The SRA may strike off a solicitor when they intentionally evade 83% of their fares for 3 months (article linked further up thread), but I imagine they wouldn't go that far for someone who used their Railcard for 3 days not realising it had expired" to make it clear that

The article linked further up thread wasn't of a 20 year old. It was a (newly qualified) qualified solicitor: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topic...honesty-solicitor-struck-off-for-fare-evasion

1) the intentional evasion is dishonesty, which is the serious issue, whereas your "83%, 3 months, 3 days" points are minor details

I fail to believe that the SRA wouldn't consider the scale of dishonesty or indeed any other circumstances surrounding the event. It matters that cases are considered case by case. It is much easier to show 83% of journeys made over a 3 month period while experiencing financial difficulty is dishonest, compared to say a single time offence where some other excuse may come up.

2) while minor details, they are still relevant, and determining whether they could save the OP from the, by default, fatal, dishonesty, is a complex matter (hence the length of my post)

3) the OP could not be struck off, since she is not a solicitor - she could however seek to apply to become one, whereupon the level of dishonesty resulting in refusal is likely to be lower than that applying to someone who is already a solicitor

Are you perhaps confusing the OP of this thread with the OP of a different one? This thread isn't specific to a particular case - that discussion is really best in the original thread with that OOP, who may benefit from specific advice.

 

[soil]

The article linked further up thread wasn't of a 20 year old. It was a (newly qualified) qualified solicitor: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topic...honesty-solicitor-struck-off-for-fare-evasion

Again, my point was that a qualified solicitor is likely to get away with a greater level of dishonesty than someone who is applying to become was one. As such, given that we don't have any examples of when a qualified solicitor wasn't struck off following fare evasion, and given that the article itself is simply an example of what happened in the past, whereas this thread is about what is likely to happen in the future, primarily to individuals who are not currently regulated but may see to become so, the issue of "applications" vs "loss of livelihood" is an important one.

I fail to believe that the SRA wouldn't consider the scale of dishonesty or indeed any other circumstances surrounding the event. It matters that cases are considered case by case. It is much easier to show 83% of journeys made over a 3 month period while experiencing financial difficulty is dishonest, compared to say a single time offence where some other excuse may come up.

Not quite sure what you are saying

The test for dishonesty is set out in Genting v Ivey, and it is an objective one by reference to ordinary, decent people.

I already addressed that you might more easily lie that you were not dishonest in my previous post

"Is it dishonest to ONCE go through the gates at a station because they are open, evading a £2.50 fare - clearly yes.

Obviously in the latter case a hypothetical evader might seek to say that they did in fact tap in, and it might be difficult to PROVE dishonesty."

However, if proven, that single instance of dishonesty involving £2.50 is, unequivocally, dishonest.

If you look at the examples and the link I provided in the previous post (https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/in...-case-law-review-of-exceptional-circumstances), you can see that while one-off dishonesty is (by definition!) dishonest, by reference to the nature, scope, and extent of the dishonesty it might be possible to avoid strike off. The factors given there include the duration and extent of the dishonesty, so for example a passenger who goes to London once a year for five years, never buying a ticket, would have less defensible dishonesty than a person who only did it once.

That means for example, that a passenger caught on multiple occasions dishonestly avoiding their fare, should be struck off, even if the amount of money was small.

For application cases there would be little information about the "exceptional circumstances" given that most of the time the application will be dealt with in private. The only way that specific detail can become public is if the application is refused and then judicially reviewed, which is rare. As such there doesn't appear to be clear information on what standard would apply for applications, save to say that it would be no lower than "dishonesty prevents working in the law, except in exceptional circumstances" applying to current solicitors.

Are you perhaps confusing the OP of this thread with the OP of a different one? This thread isn't specific to a particular case - that discussion is really best in the original thread with that OOP, who may benefit from specific advice.

I posted originally in the previous thread, however my posts on this matter were considered off-topic, and split off to this thread and the thread then hidden, with my post now the OP of this thread. However, the OOP enquired about where they were, and the thread was then unhidden, and the OOP was directed here.

As such, I don't think I am allowed to provide the OOP with advice in that thread, so have continued here.

 

[island]

You said they only need a standard DBS check.
However the DBS check they need is irrelevant as they are still required to disclose these convictions.

And I said that as well, all the way back in post 7.

A conviction for a railway offence isn't going to ruin, or even much affect, someone applying for an entry-level financial services role, even if unspent as long as they declare it at the appropriate time.

I politely request you to retract your unfair assertion that I have been "dangerously misleading".

 

[Sweetjesus]

Form some roles like FCA regulated financial services roles, a single, even relatively small, intentional ticket evasion may cause issues, because it likely points to a combination of dishonesty and financial difficulty. Employers and the regulator won't want the risk of that person committing other types of fraud if their personal finances struggle again.

This somewhat alludes to the problem with strict liability offences for things like rail ticketing though. We all know how messy the ticketing system can be. If a passenger was prosecuted under the Fraud Act, the prosecution would need to show intent, but in the case of the bylaws, this isn't needed.

While I don't condone fare evasion, I think having it as a strict liability offence, and leaving the prosecution up to the wild west of whatever TOCs decide to do, is not a great system.

But in general yes, even regulated industries are somewhat forgiving. And frankly if you work in financial services at a senior level, or are a solicitor, barrister, judge, etc; then you know the score and if you intentionally evade fares I don't think it's unreasonable to lose your job. If it's accidental, like a routing issue or a Railcard which expired a few days ago, that's different and why they shouldn't be strict liability.

I think it's also worth mentioning a significant portion of civil servants have some level of clearance at SC level or above - for various reasons, not necessarily because of access to confidential information. These are non-regulated positions and is in non-regulated field giving civil servants with no opportunity to defend themselves if their clearance is invoked. They already have it bad enough with their pay, never mind with this.

For a justice to occur, the process has to be fair.

1. Do TOCs always enforce strict liability offences? No.
2. Have TOCs made their policies of how they would deal passengers who have committed a strict liability offence available? (e.g. automatic settlement on the first offence) No.
3. How easy is it to commit a railway strict liability offence accidentally? Quite easily.

If you were to ask me which offence in England & Wales is the most unfair and most likely to affect a man on the Clapham omnibus, I would say this is it.

You get TOCs selectively enforcing laws and being opaque about how they deal each passenger and you also get people accidentally committing the offence each time they find their local station ticket machine broken (link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyx0p18kq74o) and decide to travel anyway. Most of times they won't be enforced because it's common sense but as a passenger, you are leaving your fate to a revenue inspector who is a flawed human with their own biases and their own opinions just like a judge but the only difference is that this revenue inspector (and the TOC) is a judge, jury and executioner who is not directly accountable to anyone while a judge will have many eyes upon them. An excerpt from the link is below:

Christian Waters empathises with those people prosecuted for alleged rail ticket dodging. He had his own legal battle with Northern Trains – over a £3.50 fare.

Back in 2022, Mr Waters tried to buy a ticket to Leeds but found the machine at Kirkstall Forge station in Yorkshire was not working. There was no guard on the train so he went to the excess fare window at his destination.

He was pulled aside by revenue inspectors, who handed him a penalty fare notice. He refused to pay and appealed but that was rejected.

Mr Waters then received a series of letters with escalating demands adding costs. Eventually, he received notice of a single justice procedure and he pleaded not guilty.

If you have a system that largely relies on common sense instead of written text agreed upon by a bunch of professionals who have spent hours considering each possible scenario, what you have is a bunch of innocent people being prosecuted.

 

[island]

You get TOCs selectively enforcing laws and being opaque about how they deal each passenger and you also get people accidentally committing the offence each time they find their local station ticket machine broken and decide to travel anyway.

No offence is committed by boarding a train without a ticket when there are no operative ticketing facilities.

The content of your link is not relevant to the matter.

 

[AdamWW]

No offence is committed by boarding a train without a ticket when there are no operative ticketing facilities,

True. But isn't it the presumption that ticket facilities are always working and the defendent's responsibility to provide evidence to the contrary?

 

[island]

True. But isn't it the presumption that ticket facilities are always working and the defendent's responsibility to provide evidence to the contrary?

It is correct that a defendant wishing to rely on the defence of no operative ticketing facilities may be required to prove this on the balance of probabilities. Proof can very easily be gathered such as by snapping a quick photo on one's phone.

 

[Haywain]

If you were to ask me which offence in England & Wales is ... most likely to affect a man on the Clapham omnibus, I would say this is it.

I think this is far from true. Motoring offences are criminal offences and are far more likely to affect the man on the Clapham omnibus. This will both be in terms of the effect on their employment and the indirect cost to them in terms of insurance premiums. Many of these offences are strict liability offences as well.

 

[AdamWW]

It is correct that a defendant wishing to rely on the defence of no operative ticketing facilities may be required to prove this on the balance of probabilities. Proof can very easily be gathered such as by snapping a quick photo on one's phone.

That depends.

Putting the assumption that every passengers carries a smartphone aside, demonstrating an apparently functional but unresponsive machine requires more than a quick snap.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

That depends.

Putting the assumption that every passengers carries a smartphone aside, demonstrating an apparently functional but unresponsive machine requires more than a quick snap.

I know that we don't see a representative sample of cases on this forum, and even if we did we may not see enough to be statistically significant. But I don't recall seeing many (if any) cases of people being penalised because the ticket machine wasn't working.

So at this point, we seem to be worrying about a non-problem.

 

[Titfield]

I know that we don't see a representative sample of cases on this forum, and even if we did we may not see enough to be statistically significant. But I don't recall seeing many (if any) cases of people being penalised because the ticket machine wasn't working.

So at this point, we seem to be worrying about a non-problem.

Didnt we have a spate of Merseyrail cases re ticket machine issues a few months ago?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Didnt we have a spate of Merseyrail cases re ticket machine issues a few months ago?

Fair point.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Both mine and Sarah Cooke’s cases stemmed from ticket machines that were not working correctly.

Very few of these cases do make it to prosecution as the company extracts settlements or penalty fares before that point from the sensible passenger, although I fear we will just relitigate the Westminster hearings if we continue this discussion.

 

[Statto]

mods note - split from this thread

it depends on future career.
A 20 year old using a ticket they are not entitled to is clearly dishonest, and it would have a serious impact on a career in the law - there are a number of examples of solicitors or would-be solicitors being struck off for this reason.

A question of honesty: solicitor struck off for fare evasion

Paul Bennett considers a real case in which a solicitor appeared at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for misconduct committed in their private life.

www.lawsociety.org.uk

Reminds me of the infamous Stonegate fare dodge, the offender paid £42k out of court settlement, although he wasn't a solicitor he was a hedge fund manager, he ended up getting named & shamed, & got the sack from his work, think he got a ban from his profession too.

 

[Gloster]

Reminds me of the infamous Stonegate fare dodge, the offender paid £42k out of court settlement, although he wasn't a solicitor he was a hedge fund manager, he ended up getting named & shamed, & got the sack from his work, think he got a ban from his profession too.

My recollection is that although the amount and deliberate nature of the fare dodging might well have led to sanctions, it was the fact that he hid the matter from his employers that was most damaging to him. Although he was initially anonymous, the large sum involved resulted in a certain amount of interest, so that his identity and employment eventually seeped out. Whereupon the Financial Conduct Authority, or whatever it was called at the time, made it known that they would be discussing matters. He had to tell his employers’ HR Department, who did not know that it was him, after which his feet did not hit the ground. The FCA also took a dim view of him covering it up.

(From memory, so E&OE.)

 

[Dave W]

Reminds me of the infamous Stonegate fare dodge, the offender paid £42k out of court settlement, although he wasn't a solicitor he was a hedge fund manager, he ended up getting named & shamed, & got the sack from his work, think he got a ban from his profession too.

Well yeah, but he evaded tens of thousands in fares. That's different to one off evasion. As also stated above it's more likely to be an issue whilst you're practising in these fields - it's one thing to cock up when you're younger and then become a lawyer, person in finance, nurse, whatever. Different to do so whilst in the role with the additional social responsibility.

Honesty is always the best policy. Surprised no one has parroted the old line about being denied security clearance in government because of it yet. They care more if you hide it than what you actually did, especially for this sort of thing.

Everyone is different. The crucial part from the op of this split thread is not "would have", but rather "could have". Could it be a red flag too far for some firms (think traditional barristers or similar)? Yes. Does it exclude you from the profession entirely? Very unlikely.

 

[soil]

I think this is far from true. Motoring offences are criminal offences and are far more likely to affect the man on the Clapham omnibus. This will both be in terms of the effect on their employment and the indirect cost to them in terms of insurance premiums. Many of these offences are strict liability offences as well.

I don't think this is a particularly balanced description. I have had separate red light AND speed awareness courses, plus a further two lots of speeding offences.

All four culpable, deliberate criminality, but neither FPNs (the speeding fines), nor awareness courses have any impact at all on employment. Of course getting 2 FPNs in a few months did cost me a few hundred in extra insurance, but they aren't treated as real criminality.

In addition, a lot of the strict liability offences are rightly so - bald tyres could kill someone.

OTOH there doesn't seem any compelling reason that losing your train ticket should be treated more seriously than, say, doing 70 in a 50mph zone, which could kill someone.

 

[Hadders]

I'd consider a speed awareness course to be similar to an out of court settlement.

 

[styles]

OTOH there doesn't seem any compelling reason that losing your train ticket should be treated more seriously than, say, doing 70 in a 50mph zone, which could kill someone.

The 'normal' cap for speed awareness courses is 10%+9mph over the limit, so 70mph in a 50mph area usually wouldn't result in a course. It's discretion however so no doubt there will be cases of courses being offered in such scenarios.

Except up here in Scotland of course, as we don't do speed awareness courses at all.