Misuse Freedom Pass Court Summons

[WesternLancer]

I don't believe that's an option. It's a question of did you commit each offence or not. Yes or no, and nothing more.

Thanks for clarifying as that’s helpful information for the op I think

 

[island]

So at court, all that will be asked is which incidents you want to have taken into consideration. If TfL want to look further at the ones you haven't accepted they'll do that later - and you could decline to comment on them if they do come back to you.

If we're talking about incidents in August and the court hearing is in March, TfL won't be able to look further at anything, as they'll be out of time to prosecute.

 

[AlterEgo]

Majority of uses yes - Maybe 10 journeys no. Could court accept me saying I’d take responsibility for those other journeys though as it’s my younger sister who is also a minor

No, because you'd be trying to admit criminal liability to save someone else from consequences. Which is a crime.

@Fawkes Cat gives good advice here.

 

[John R]

No, because you'd be trying to admit criminal liability to save someone else from consequences. Which is a crime.

@Fawkes Cat gives good advice here.

The OP might like to google Vicky Pryce if they want to understand the risk taken by claiming you used the card for those journeys. She was (and indeed since release, still is) a well known economist often seen on TV commenting on economic issues.

 

[WesternLancer]

The OP might like to google Vicky Pryce if they want to understand the risk taken by claiming you used the card for those journeys. She was (and indeed since release, still is) a well known economist often seen on TV commenting on economic issues.

But not on tv whilst in prison I guess.

 

[Statto]

The OP might like to google Vicky Pryce if they want to understand the risk taken by claiming you used the card for those journeys. She was (and indeed since release, still is) a well known economist often seen on TV commenting on economic issues.

Also the OP might also want to google, Fiona Onasanya, she was an MP (Peterborough) & scolicitor, got caught speeding, lied about it, tried to blame someone else, got found out, ended up being convicted of, perverting the course of justice, served a prison sentence, she then faced & lost a recall petition, & ended up being struck off the solicitors list too, she would have been ok had she just paid for the speeding ticket in the first place, but doubled down & lied about it.

 

[duffield]

No, because you'd be trying to admit criminal liability to save someone else from consequences. Which is a crime.

@Fawkes Cat gives good advice here.

Although there is a big difference between claiming you used the card yourself on these occasions (a lie) and stating that while the minor sister physically used the the card, as her accompanying adult and being aware of this, you think you are effectively responsible for her actions (appears to be true). Anyhow, as per other posts, it should not be necessary to blame anyone else, simply to truthfully say yes or no to each occasion and hopefully that will be all that is required.

 

[jumble]

I would avoid getting into this at all. Better to say ‘no comment’ I would think.

It wasn’t many years ago that an MPs wife went to prison for lieing to court and saying she drove the car over the speed limit when it was him in order to save him from the relatively minor consequences of the speeding ticket.
Career over for him. Prison for her iirc.

Mu understanding is that they both were given porridge
This case is a bit different that the wronged wife went and confessed all later which made a prosecution really straight forward as no one had to find any evidence
However as you say lying to courts is a bad strategy

 

[SuspectUsual]

Mu understanding is that they both were given porridge
This case is a bit different that the wronged wife went and confessed all later which made a prosecution really straight forward as no one had to find any evidence
However as you say lying to courts is a bad strategy

As a brief aside, Huhne and Price both got 8 months and served 2. To characterise Pryce as having "confessed all" is a bit misleading though - she leaked her story to the press having got a friend / neighbour involved in it. The friend was a barrister, she was also charged with perverting the course of justice and got 16 months in prison for it, and (obviously) then disbarred

Anyway, the OP. Just don't tell lies in court. End of

 

[WesternLancer]

Mu understanding is that they both were given porridge
This case is a bit different that the wronged wife went and confessed all later which made a prosecution really straight forward as no one had to find any evidence
However as you say lying to courts is a bad strategy

thanks for added info - I was relying on memory but you are correct I see.

Of course the OP has received good advice up thread on how to address the matter of the younger sister's use of the card when travelling with the OP - they should stick to using that advice IMHO.

 

[Haywain]

Huhne and Price both got 8 months and served 2

Just to note that they were "released under supervision", meaning they were tagged and subject to a night time curfew for a further two months.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Just to note that they were "released under supervision", meaning they were tagged and subject to a night time curfew for a further two months.

Indeed. But interesting to note that the barrister who Pryce drew into her conspiracy to leak the details to the press ended up getting twice as long as either of the perpetrators

 

[Gooner18]

My two pence worth.

I think the nursing union may take a very dim view on this, after all it brings the OP integrity, honesty into question, what if they have done the same filling out forms. I.e saying they had given medication when they have not etc. What would people thought be if a police officer had done this, you would be demanding they should be sacked. I think the same may apply here.

Some things don’t add up.
The OP clearly finds it amusing that they “ just found this and started to use it “. If this was the case i would expect the owner of the card to notice they had lost it and reported and ordered a replacement ( i presume this would cancel the lost one ). With this case i would certainly expect this as the OP has clearly been using her card for some time, including letting others use it ! Which again brings in their integrity/ honesty into even more question!
Following on this subject Their willingness to lie in court , if the card was used as stated “ letting her younger sister (17) use it in her presence while the OP used her Oyster card this will be easily checked via the system. I.e when the stolen card was used and any immediate use of the Oyster card registered to topped up by the OP.

 

[WesternLancer]

My two pence worth.

I think the nursing union may take a very dim view on this, after all it brings the OP integrity, honesty into question, what if they have done the same filling out forms. I.e saying they had given medication when they have not etc. What would people thought be if a police officer had done this, you would be demanding they should be sacked. I think the same may apply here.

Some things don’t add up.
The OP clearly finds it amusing that they “ just found this and started to use it “. If this was the case i would expect the owner of the card to notice they had lost it and reported and ordered a replacement ( i presume this would cancel the lost one ). With this case i would certainly expect this as the OP has clearly been using her card for some time, including letting others use it ! Which again brings in their integrity/ honesty into even more question!
Following on this subject Their willingness to lie in court , if the card was used as stated “ letting her younger sister (17) use it in her presence while the OP used her Oyster card this will be easily checked via the system. I.e when the stolen card was used and any immediate use of the Oyster card registered to topped up by the OP.

Plenty of cases involving nurses and TfL fare evasion on this forum iirc. Don’t hear about them all being struck off. Rightly or wrongly

 

[John R]

Plenty of cases involving nurses and TfL fare evasion on this forum iirc. Don’t hear about them all being struck off. Rightly or wrongly

Given that would likely happen after conviction, I'm not sure if any would come back here to tell us.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Plenty of cases involving nurses and TfL fare evasion on this forum iirc. Don’t hear about them all being struck off. Rightly or wrongly

My wife used to work in the admissions office of a nursing school, and clerk the referral panel. I appreciate that this is second hand, and training could be a little different from permanent employment, but I can confirm that while it must be declared a conviction for fare dodging is not career ending for a nurse.

 

[WesternLancer]

Given that would likely happen after conviction, I'm not sure if any would come back here to tell us.

Yes. Fair point.

Are these convictions considered substantially more serious than say a speeding or road traffic conviction when it comes to employment?

Just important not to try and conceal it i would assume

 

[John R]

Yes. Fair point.

Are these convictions considered substantially more serious than say a speeding or road traffic conviction when it comes to employment?

Just important not to try and conceal it i would assume

In terms of assessing a person’s suitability for a role where integrity is paramount I think there is a difference between a conviction for fare dodging and a speeding offence or lower level traffic offence, which can result from a brief period of inattention.

 

[nw1]

Plenty of cases involving nurses and TfL fare evasion on this forum iirc. Don’t hear about them all being struck off. Rightly or wrongly

I would say they should not automatically be struck off for an unrelated crime such as fare-dodging. To do so is the height of holier-than-thou, judgmental sanctimoniousness.

Destroying someone's career through this kind of action is arguably a far worse moral crime than the original fare-dodging. I am not Christian, but it brings to mind the phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

 

[Bertie the bus]

I would expect any professional body to take this quite seriously. As already pointed out the OP seems to find the fact they found and used somebody else’s card quite amusing and I would expect the NMC will want to satisfy itself that if they find some property belonging to a vulnerable patient in their care a similar thing won’t happen.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

In terms of assessing a person’s suitability for a role where integrity is paramount I think there is a difference between a conviction for fare dodging and a speeding offence or lower level traffic offence, which can result from a brief period of inattention.

We seem to have drifted from advice which might be useful to the OP to suggesting what we think the position should be.

To return to what the position is (which is what the OP will have to deal with), it might be worth looking at what the Nursing and Midwifery Council (,'the NMC' i.e. the regulator: employers may have their own additional rules but I would speculate that they won't be much different from the regulator's) have to say at https://www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/...llegations/criminal-convictions-and-cautions/

There's too much to quote, but I would note that there is a lot of emphasis on disclosure (as we routinely say that people should do) and it then goes on to say

FtP library

Criminal convictions and cautions​

Reference: FTP-2c

Last Updated 06/05/2025
Next guide
Previous guide

In this guide​

• Overview
• Considering criminal conviction or caution declarations
• Assessing the seriousness of convictions and cautions
• Offences reported to the police that don’t result in a conviction

Overview​

Back to top
This page sets out when a nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s criminal offending may be relevant to their registration or fitness to practise.
We also explain how we assess the seriousness of criminal convictions and what we do when possible criminal conduct does not end with a caution or conviction.

Considering criminal conviction or caution declarations​

Back to top
Nurses, midwives or nursing associates must declare any cautions or convictions, unless these are for a protected caution or conviction, when they apply to join our register or renew their registration with us.
They also need to let us know if they are charged with a criminal offence, are convicted or receive a caution while they’re on our register.
Not telling us about a conviction or caution is a clear breach of the Code.
If there’s evidence the nurse, midwife or nursing associate was dishonest about criminal offending when they applied to join our register or renew their registration, we’ll have to carry out a full investigation into the circumstances to determine if this affects their registration.
If a nurse, midwife or nursing associate is involved in criminal offending after they joined the register, or renewed their registration, it won’t affect their entry in the register, but it may affect their fitness to practise if they kept the fact they were charged, accepted a caution, or were convicted, from us.
This is because we have a clear expectation, as set out under the Code, that nurses, midwives or nursing associates should let us know if they are charged with a criminal offence or receive a caution, conditional discharge or criminal conviction as soon as they can.
In all these cases we’ll consider the possible effect on the nurse, midwife or nursing associate’s registration, or their fitness to practise, even if the offending itself was not serious.

Assessing the seriousness of convictions and cautions​

Back to top

Specified offences and custodial sentences​

We will almost always take concerns to a fitness to practise panel when a professional

• has been convicted of any of the serious crimes we classify as specified offences and/or
• has been given a custodial sentence (including suspended sentences).

That is because this offending is considered to be so serious that it is likely to undermine our professional standards and public confidence in the professions we regulate.
In all other cases we will look closely at the underlying circumstances of offending to determine whether there is a risk to the public that we need to act on, or whether it is likely to undermine our professional standards or public confidence in the professions we regulate.
(...)

Offending outside professional practice​

Whilst it is less likely that we will need to take action when offending occurs outside professional practice or isn’t closely related to it, and it is neither a specified offence nor involves a custodial sentence, sometimes the underlying behaviour will be so serious as to:

• indicate deep-rooted attitudinal issues which could pose a risk to people in the professional’s care or to the professional’s colleagues, or
• be capable of undermining public trust and confidence in the profession or raise fundamental questions about the person’s ability to uphold the standards and values set out in the Code.

We will always consider each case on its facts.

For example, depending on the particular facts and context, we might take action against professionals who receive non-custodial sentences for

• coercive control;
• serious and/or repeated violence against others;
• stalking or harassment offences.

When considering risk to the public, we will need to assess how likely the nurse, midwife or nursing associate is to repeat similar conduct or failings in the future and, if they do, if it is likely that people in their care or colleagues would come to harm, and in what way.

Outside specified offences2, we are more likely to identify deep-rooted attitudinal issues which indicate a risk to the public, and/or consider that the conduct raises fundamental questions about the professional’s ability to uphold the values and standards in the Code, where there is serious and/or repeated mistreatment, and/or the behaviour targets children or vulnerable people.

The sort of offences that are quoted and would lead to a nurse losing their job are far more serious than fare dodging. I will accept that it's possible to imagine circumstances where fare dodging might be a problem for the NMC: but it's not easy.

 

[Cowley]

I’m going to pause this for the time being as it’s starting to stray from what’s useful.

@YummyCinnamon - If you need more advice, please contact us via the report function and we’ll reopen it.