TfL Prosecution - Misuse of Friend's Student Oyster - Rejection Email Received

JBuchananGB said:

Although this has been through the court system without your knowledge, and you could use a Statutory Declaration to have it reset and have the case dealt with again, the fees you might pay to a specialist solicitor would likely be more than the amount which you now owe, you will almost certainly be found guilty again, and will have to pay the same penalties and costs etc. anyway.
Pragmatically it might be the best to pay the amount required and move on. No one here can comment on what effect that might have on any of your future prospects, other than that it is always proper to declare the conviction to anyone who wants to know. It is usually worse not to declare such things and for the relevant body to find it out for themselves.

Click to expand...

Good advice.

The thing for the op to do is to urgently speak to thier college / university graduate visa staff advisor to get a free opinion on if the conviction here will have any great impact on that application.

If they do t know then pay for an immigration advisors opinion.
If the answer is that it puts the graduate visa at risk THEN consider a rail fares solicitor to help with this matter.
A list of suitable rail fares solicitors gets regular mention on the forum.
Obv that will all cost money. Apart from the college advisor.

Egg Centric said:

A general point which I'm almost certain won't apply to the NHS but will to sloppier employers - if you have it cancelled by a stat dec then as you await a retrial you could truthfully answer "no" to a question phrased like "Have you any criminal convictions?". Again I wojld expect the NHS to have much smarter worded questions than that which bring the truth out... but just something to think about.

Click to expand...

I think most applications ask about the existence of convictions.

The OP might be wandering into dishonesty territory with all of this discussion about whether the offence is recordable etc. Almost all patient contact NHS posts require enhanced disclosure/DBS - it has nothing to do with your education level. If you lie about a conviction there is always the chance this will catch you out at some point. If it does and you haven't declared it then you can expect a very difficult conversation with your line manager, and your regulator if you are a registered healthcare professional. Please don't do this.

Most NHS employment contracts will require you to own up to a conviction after you are appointed, as does your regulator. Your criminal record is considered after you are offered a post - the interviewing panel are not aware of it. Bringing it up at interview isn't going to help you. Declare it where required on the application.

The recruiting manager might ask you about it. Be honest, explain what happened and be reflective about what you have considered since. It's up to the recruiting manager to make the call but I suspect most might find a way forward with that.

davp said:

I think most applications ask about the existence of convictions.

Click to expand...

Sure but if you file a statutory declaration then once it's accepted you don't have a criminal conviction. What you do have is pending criminal proceedings against you*. There's a difference

I would imagine that at least for relevant roles NHS jobs will ask about the latter too, but a lot of employers who will ask about the former will not ask about the latter.

That's what I was trying to get across.

(Personally I'd rather have a doctor or nurse who was happy to bend the rules in the right circumstances, but I'm a bit weird)

*Not automatic but in practice

Egg Centric said:

Sure but if you file a statutory declaration then once it's accepted you don't have a criminal conviction. What you do have is pending criminal proceedings against you*. There's a difference

Click to expand...

Yes there is. I have seen forms that only ask about convictions, and I think the best advice for the OP is to read the questions on the application form carefully and answer them fully and truthfully.

If they are a regulated healthcare professional they may have a duty to disclose any proceedings to their regulator regardless of whether they are employed or what their employer requires. This information will be readily available on the regulator's website.

If they are mid recruitment as a case is coming before the court and it is clear they are going to be convicted, then there is a judgement call as to how to disclose this to a prospective employer (if the application form is not asking about pending activity). Recruiting teams in healthcare are very mindful of keeping the selection process fair, and explaining this to them would demonstrate good faith and enable them to share that information with the recruiting manager at the appropriate point in the process.

If the OP is a regulated healthcare professional then their regulator will expect self-declaration of any intended prosecution against them.

Failure to disclose would be considered a probity issue by GMC/GDC/NMC if discovered later, regardless of outcome.

Also 'Fare Evasion' is explicitly stated in the GMC disclosure guidance for students which refers to both a caution or a conviction so arguably a warning might not have helped here either. .

Swedenorer said:

Also 'Fare Evasion' is explicitly stated in the GMC disclosure guidance for students which refers to both a caution or a conviction so arguably a warning might not have helped here either. .

Click to expand...

A warning from TfL is not the same as a police caution.

It does not define caution or mention police leaving the professional to make a judgement. Where, as in the case of TfL, the only alternative to prosecution is a warning I think some might take that to imply a caution here.

Swedenorer said:

It does not define caution or mention police leaving the professional to make a judgement. Where, as in the case of TfL, the only alternative to prosecution is a warning I think some might take that to imply a caution here.

Click to expand...

That is not a caution, which has a specific meaning in this context. A private company telling you not to do a certain thing again is between you and the private company. A police caution requires an admission of guilt which is why it is included. Caution can only mean a police caution in this context.

Swedenorer said:

It does not define caution or mention police leaving the professional to make a judgement. Where, as in the case of TfL, the only alternative to prosecution is a warning I think some might take that to imply a caution here

AlterEgo said:

That is not a caution, which has a specific meaning in this context. A private company telling you not to do a certain thing again is between you and the private company. A police caution requires an admission of guilt which is why it is included. Caution can only mean a police caution in this context.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This is spot on

@udit You haven't answered the question "Did you receive a Single Justice Procedure Notice in the post"

If yes - pay the fine and move on. Nothing else we can help with here.

If no, and your income is less than £440 per week, you may want to submit a Statutory Declaration (SD) to the court and re-open the matter. This resets the matter to the pre-trial phase and allows you time to try to negotiate a settlement with TfL and also will reduce the fine if you are unsuccessful with that approach.

You can download and complete the SD from here and take it to a local solicitor to be witnessed for a fixed £5 fee, then you send it to the court, who will relist the matter. You can use this time to engage a specialist solicitor to attempt to secure a warning, but there is no guarantee of success and it will cost you over £500 for that approach. If the cost of a solicitor is too high, or you feel it will not be successful, then you can call or visit the court and let them know you have only just found out about the case when you had the outcome letter. They will arrange a time for you to come into court to make the SD and will most likely reopen and re-sentence on the same day.

However, as @AlterEgo says, the clock is already ticking on the offence for the time when it becomes spent for usual DBS and Declarations, which means it would be off your record sooner if you let the conviction stand and simply paid the amounts due. You would still need to declare it to whichever regulatory body you are aligned to, and the university if you are still studying.