Convictions that could impact on a future career

[soil]

I think it's worth pointing out that whilst a prosecution and conviction may seem to be a bad outcome, it is likely to be less financially punishing (by a distance) than the cost of engaging a solicitor, and the conviction is a minor matter that will have very little impact on future careers.

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

 

[simonw]

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

It wouldnt exactly help get a job in finance or related industries either.

 

[Haywain]

It wouldnt exactly help get a job in finance or related industries either.

In the short term it may be a problem, but not in the long term.

 

[Titfield]

There are many careers / occupations where a "fit and proper" person test is applied.

The detrimental effect of a minor conviction such as this declines over time.

There are many nuances to this not least that that it is applied to those already in the "profession" more severely than those who may enter that profession at sometime in the future.

 

[island]

It wouldnt exactly help get a job in finance or related industries either.

This gets brought up quite a lot, and I keep having to knock it down.

Employers in finance and related industries can only have a basic DBS. Spent convictions don't count, and railway offences are spent after a year.

The only exception is applicants for what is called an "approved person" or "senior manager" role. These require a standard DBS which discloses spent convictions, but the only roles that come within this definition are some of the board of directors, the CEO, and some (but not all) of their direct reports. You're talking 10-15 years plus experience territory.

 

[simonw]

This gets brought up quite a lot, and I keep having to knock it down.

Employers in finance and related industries can only have a basic DBS. Spent convictions don't count, and railway offences are spent after a year.

The only exception is applicants for what is called an "approved person" or "senior manager" role. These require a standard DBS which discloses spent convictions, but the only roles that come within this definition are some of the board of directors, the CEO, and some (but not all) of their direct reports. You're talking 10-15 years plus experience territory.

Who said anything about expired?. An unexpired conviction will get you turned down for many jobs. The op is a university student and may well be seeking a permanent role soon.

 

[island]

Who said anything about expired?. An unexpired conviction will get you turned down for many jobs. The op is a university student and may well be seeking a permanent role soon.

I think you're backtracking to cover up your mistake there, you tagged onto a post about affecting a career in law (which requires a standard DBS for everyone) but it's a rather different story. 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.

 

[Haywain]

An unexpired conviction will get you turned down for many jobs.

A byelaw conviction is immediately spent so won't have much effect at all for most jobs.

 

[Titfield]

The more likely "risk" is that someone in Recruitment will do a search on google / social media of all candidates, discover a newspaper report of your conviction and then when doing a sift of whose application to progress / whose to decline, decide to put you in the decline pile.

 

[simonw]

I think you're backtracking to cover up your mistake there, you tagged onto a post about affecting a career in law (which requires a standard DBS for everyone) but it's a rather different story. 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.

Please don't try and second guess my actions and thought process. Thank you

 

[AlterEgo]

A byelaw conviction is immediately spent so won't have much effect at all for most jobs.

It’s spent after a year if punished by a fine (which they typically are in almost all cases).

Rehabilitation Periods

A table of rehabilitation periods for the most common sentences and disposals, and example scenarios.

www.gov.uk

 

[soil]

I think you're backtracking to cover up your mistake there, you tagged onto a post about affecting a career in law (which requires a standard DBS for everyone)

This is dangerously misleading.

Under The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, made under PACE 1984, the national police records include imprisonable offences, plus specified non-imprisonable ones.

Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, when asked about an offence which is spent, an offender is entitled to answer "no".

ROA 1974 defines when offences become spent, which for a fine is after 12 months. Again, no relation or reference to recordable offences at all.

That means that:

1) if you are convicted of a non-imprisonable offence, such as railway byelaws, and are fined, then if asked if you have been convicted of a criminal offence, you must answer "yes" (the fact of it not showing up on a DBS check is not related in any way to whether you have been convicted or not); however,
2) after 12 months you can answer "no"

However, The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 provides swathes of exceptions including lawyers, teachers, nurses, midwives, accountants, dentists, vets, finance, opticians, pharmacists, police officers, traffic wardens, armed forces, prison officers, care home workers, where the "spent" rules simply do not apply, and you do NOT have the right to answer "no convictions" for spent offences in those cases.

In 2013, the 1975 Order was judicially reviewed by:

1) a man who stole a bike when he was 11, who wanted to take a sports study degree, which meant he would work with children
2) a care worker prevented from working a care home because she had caution for stealing fake nails
3) a man prevented from joining the army for robbery and manslaughter aged 16.

The Court of Appeal found the 1975 order to be in breach of ECHR A8. It was repaired by the 2013 Amendment order, which defines protected convictions, being effectively double-spent, i.e. those non disclosable for the professions in question.

These are:

1) cautions given aged under 18, after two years
2) cautions given aged 18+, after six years
3) non-custodial sentences imposed, after 11 years (5 ½ years if under 18).
except for a very long list of excluded offences such as robbery, certain regulatory offences, etc, which are always disclosable forever.

That means that the OP's child would be obligated to disclose the conviction for the next 11 years, for the many many jobs affected.

There are two ways they could deal with this:

1) they could lie when asked if they have any convictions of any kind, other than protected ones, knowing that only a standard DBS check is taken. However, if the facts came to light later, they would be struck off.
2) they could disclose the conviction, as they are required to do, and hope that the dishonesty is not considered disqualifying.


Also note that the SRA state:

SRA Assessment of Character and Suitability Rules

Our criteria for assessing character and suitability.

www.sra.org.uk

Most serious
(A finding in this category is likely to result in refusal)
You have been convicted by a court of a criminal offence:

• involving dishonesty, fraud, perjury, and/or bribery;

You have accepted a caution from the police for an offence involving dishonesty, violence or discrimination, or a sexual offence.

 

[island]

This is dangerously misleading.

Under The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, made under PACE 1984, the national police records include imprisonable offences, plus specified non-imprisonable ones.

Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, when asked about an offence which is spent, an offender is entitled to answer "no".

ROA 1974 defines when offences become spent, which for a fine is after 12 months. Again, no relation or reference to recordable offences at all.

That means that:

1) if you are convicted of a non-imprisonable offence, such as railway byelaws, and are fined, then if asked if you have been convicted of a criminal offence, you must answer "yes" (the fact of it not showing up on a DBS check is not related in any way to whether you have been convicted or not); however,
2) after 12 months you can answer "no"

However, The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 provides swathes of exceptions including lawyers, teachers, nurses, midwives, accountants, dentists, vets, finance, opticians, pharmacists, police officers, traffic wardens, armed forces, prison officers, care home workers, where the "spent" rules simply do not apply, and you do NOT have the right to answer "no convictions" for spent offences in those cases.

In 2013, the 1975 Order was judicially reviewed by:

1) a man who stole a bike when he was 11, who wanted to take a sports study degree, which meant he would work with children
2) a care worker prevented from working a care home because she had caution for stealing fake nails
3) a man prevented from joining the army for robbery and manslaughter aged 16.

The Court of Appeal found the 1975 order to be in breach of ECHR A8. It was repaired by the 2013 Amendment order, which defines protected convictions, being effectively double-spent, i.e. those non disclosable for the professions in question.

These are:

1) cautions given aged under 18, after two years
2) cautions given aged 18+, after six years
3) non-custodial sentences imposed, after 11 years (5 ½ years if under 18).
except for a very long list of excluded offences such as robbery, certain regulatory offences, etc, which are always disclosable forever.

That means that the OP's child would be obligated to disclose the conviction for the next 11 years, for the many many jobs affected.

There are two ways they could deal with this:

1) they could lie when asked if they have any convictions of any kind, other than protected ones, knowing that only a standard DBS check is taken. However, if the facts came to light later, they would be struck off.
2) they could disclose the conviction, as they are required to do, and hope that the dishonesty is not considered disqualifying.


Also note that the SRA state:

SRA Assessment of Character and Suitability Rules

Our criteria for assessing character and suitability.

www.sra.org.uk

Most serious
(A finding in this category is likely to result in refusal)
You have been convicted by a court of a criminal offence:

• involving dishonesty, fraud, perjury, and/or bribery;

You have accepted a caution from the police for an offence involving dishonesty, violence or discrimination, or a sexual offence.

That's a lot of words to tell me things I already know and accuse me of "dangerously misleading" by something I didn't say. I said that a career in law requires a standard DBS check, and a job in finance, other than the top echelons of senior management, requires a basic. Both of those statements are correct and not in any way misleading. Are you sure you replied to the right person?

 

[LCC106]

I feel as though this thread has gone wildly adrift from the support the original poster was requesting. Maybe the ins and outs can be better addressed separately and we can get back to helping the OP?

 

[soil]

That's a lot of words to tell me things I already know and accuse me of "dangerously misleading" by something I didn't say. I said that a career in law requires a standard DBS check, and a job in finance, other than the top echelons of senior management, requires a basic. Both of those statements are correct and not in any way misleading. Are you sure you replied to the right person?

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.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

In terms of giving advice, it's quite important to distinguish between what the law says and what actually happens. So while the law says that you can only omit mentioning an offence if it's spent, for many professions full disclosure doesn’t prevent employment. How do we know this? Well, I know it for one nursing and teaching training institution because my spouse used to clerk the relevant committees (ok, until 4 years ago: maybe things have changed since then), and we also have a current contributor who asserts a similar position from within the NHS.

In general this forum is at its best when it tailors advice to the OP's specific needs. So while we can't ignore the law, we can think about what we know about what happens in the real world.

 

[styles]

I review adverse PVGs and enhanced Disclosure Scotland checks in a volunteering role. We do have a couple of absolute bars due to the nature of the roles, mainly sexual offences. Vast majority of offences we will consider after a conversation with the applicant, going through some standard questions we set. I can't imagine we would turn somebody down solely based on a single fare evasion conviction, unless when we had the conversation with them they say they don't see the issue with evading fares and have no remorse whatsoever. If they did it because they were in financial trouble, this may lead us to put restrictions in place, e.g. they can't handle finances or cash for the group for a couple of years then we'll review.

In practice I think many, though not all, employers are like this. Though it does require being honest and transparent, and arguably if you know you're going to be getting a disclosure check done, I'd recommend mentioning it to them advance and having a chance to explain the circumstances and how circumstances or attitude has changed since. I think it looks a bit better 'owning it' than waiting for the slip of paper from Disclosures Scotland or DBS landing on your prospective manager's or HR's desk and the conviction being a surprise.

Regulated professions and roles can be different of course. A single fare evasion offences is less likely to be an issue for an NHS nurse accountable to the NMC, than a barrister accountable to the BSB.

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!)

 

[KirkstallOne]

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.

 

[enyoueffsea]

Regulated professions and roles can be different of course. A single fare evasion offences is less likely to be an issue for an NHS nurse accountable to the NMC

I see a lot of cases on here relating to the NHS with people worried about the consequences of a prosecution.

I’ve seen staff employed across the NHS with many different convictions, a lot more significant than a bylaw offence.

It would be extremely unlikely a single offence would have any impact on a role in the NHS.

The NMC say, unless it is a serious offence resulting in a custodial sentence:
“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.”

The GMC state:
“Certain minor convictions, particularly those that are spent under UK law or where a custodial sentence wasn't given, may not be deemed to impair fitness to practise”

The only exception to this is very senior roles at Board level where the fit and proper person test is applied, usually any previous conviction disqualifies.

The main problem people will face is if they fail to disclose the conviction.

 

[AdamWW]

The only exception to this is very senior roles at Board level where the fit and proper person test is applied, usually any previous conviction disqualifies.

I don't move in such rarified heights but I find it disappointing that any strict liability offence could automatically result in someone being disqualified for a position, particularly when carried out as a private prosecution with no public interest test effectively applied.

Such a conviction could arise, for example, for losing a ticket, having a phone die unexpectedly, or a railcard app failing at an inopportune moment.

 

[styles]

I don't move in such rarified heights but I find it disappointing that any strict liability offence could automatically result in someone being disqualified for a position, particularly when carried out as a private prosecution with no public interest test effectively applied.

Such a conviction could arise, for example, for losing a ticket, having a phone die unexpectedly, or a railcard app failing at an inopportune moment.

Even at a board level, it wouldn't normally be automatic on the basis of a strict set of rules which bars anybody with any conviction.

It's more that in a practical sense the board isn't going to easily approve the appointment of somebody which a criminal record unless the person and the circumstances of the criminal history are exceptional.

A finance company I worked at had a CEO with a speeding record.

With a bylaws offence it's that trade-off of media publicity around the offence versus that person being a truly exceptional candidate. A lot of boards just don't want the aggro of the Daily Mail articles about their new board member having been convicted of travelling without a ticket, explaining that it was accidental because a Railcard expired or whatever, because they know it'll be twisted. The FCA won't automatically bar people from such roles for a single instance of using an expired Railcard, but again, they almost certainly would for somebody who intentionally evaded 83% of their fares for 3 months.

 

[Gloster]

A few comments from a non-expert. It seems to me that serious sanctions (disbarring, suspension, restrictions on practicing) are only usually enforced in two circumstances:

- Frequent or very large scale deliberate fare dodging
- When the perpetrator attempts to hide the offence or mislead employers, regulators, etc. about the details.

There does seem to be an acceptance that people make the odd mistake and will be given the benefit of the doubt about motives. With railway fares there may be a tacit understanding that they are now so complicated that even an honest and careful person may fall foul of them.

That said, it is always best to avoid problems. If they get down to two finely balanced applicants, the one that has a minor ticketing conviction may well lose out.

 

[styles]

A few comments from a non-expert. It seems to me that serious sanctions (disbarring, suspension, restrictions on practicing) are only usually enforced in two circumstances:

- Frequent or very large scale deliberate fare dodging
- When the perpetrator attempts to hide the offence or mislead employers, regulators, etc. about the details.

There does seem to be an acceptance that people make the odd mistake and will be given the benefit of the doubt about motives. With railway fares there may be a tacit understanding that they are now so complicated that even an honest and careful person may fall foul of them.

That said, it is always best to avoid problems. If they get down to two finely balanced applicants, the one that has a minor ticketing conviction may well lose out.

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.

 

[AdamWW]

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

RoRA offences also require intent, don't they?

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.

But given that they are strict liability, it seems disappointing to me if they nevertheless end up being used to determine someone's character.

(Although if I understand the NRCoT being on the wrong route isn't a criminal offence).

 

[mikeg]

I have a question: Given the strict liability nature of the byelaws, are they necessarily a dishonesty offence? Ie. Somebody who accidentally travels with the wrong ticket is not dishonest.

It's clear to me the Regulation of Railways act 1889 s5 would be dishonest but in many cases the byelaws are a case of carelessness or less. Granted, some dishonest people are prosecuted under the byelaws because it's easier, but the clearly dishonest s5 1889 offence was never proven.

 

[styles]

RoRA offences also require intent, don't they?

Railway bylaws offences are strict liability. RoRA are not.

But given that they are strict liability, it seems disappointing to me if they nevertheless end up being used to determine someone's character.

(Although if I understand the NRCoT being on the wrong route isn't a criminal offence).

Admittedly I've muddied the waters by giving specific examples of expired Railcard or routing issues in my comments above!

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

I have a question: Given the strict liability nature of the byelaws, are they necessarily a dishonesty offence? Ie. Somebody who accidentally travels with the wrong ticket is not dishonest.

Well that is really up for your employer or regulator to decide! But any sensible person would say no it's not necessarily dishonesty, but the circumstances of the offence may make that particular instance dishonest of course.

 

[mikeg]

Railway bylaws offences are strict liability. RoRA are not.

Admittedly I've muddied the waters by giving specific examples of expired Railcard or routing issues in my comments above!

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


Well that is really up for your employer or regulator to decide! But any sensible person would say no it's not necessarily dishonesty, but the circumstances of the offence may make that particular instance dishonest of course.

Thanks, I was of the opinion that there is a legal definition of dishonesty, formerly the 'R v Ghosh' case, but that this has changed slightly following a further case? Unless I'm hallucinating? Or is it not relevant here?

 

[styles]

Thanks, I was of the opinion that there is a legal definition of dishonesty, formerly the 'R v Ghosh' case, but that this has changed slightly following a further case? Unless I'm hallucinating? Or is it not relevant here?

In the case of employers and industry regulators, it's really their call on whether an event is dishonest.

People can be removed by industry regulators for dishonesty without even having a criminal conviction.

The FCA for example say they will assess all candidates on a 'case by case basis': https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/FIT/2/1.html

 

[enyoueffsea]

I don't move in such rarified heights but I find it disappointing that any strict liability offence could automatically result in someone being disqualified for a position, particularly when carried out as a private prosecution with no public interest test effectively applied.

Such a conviction could arise, for example, for losing a ticket, having a phone die unexpectedly, or a railcard app failing at an inopportune moment.

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.

TfL a slight exception to that of course.

I used the word usually as there is nothing to say it would be an automatic bar but as others have said above, it’s usually not worth the hassle and potential media outrage/repercussions to later justify.

 

[styles]

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.

TfL a slight exception to that of course.

I used the word usually as there is nothing to say it would be an automatic bar but as others have said above, it’s usually not worth the hassle and potential media outrage/repercussions to later justify.

Indeed, sensible people would get an out of court settlement in most minor cases.