Drink Driving

[MDCW]

Who is going to be the one to give a convicted drink driver a job driving a train of all things!? also how would you feel getting onto a train with one driving?

 

[ComUtoR]

also how would you feel getting onto a train with one driving?

How do you know you already haven't ?

 

[Ken H]

do train staff need a CRB check?

 

[ComUtoR]

do train staff need a CRB check?

Some TOCs require it. I know my TOC does.

Information about DBS checks (the new name for CRB checks) can be found here :

https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record

Employers can check the criminal record of someone applying for a role. This is known as getting a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

You can request a more detailed check for certain roles, for example in healthcare or childcare

 

[broadgage]

I would hope that the TOC would apply the same logic to ALL driving convictions. Driving while tired or under stress can in many instances be more dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol.

Yes, but.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is simple to prove. A simple test without any need for subjective impressions.
Driving whilst tired or under stress is indeed dangerous but there is no simple YES/NO test as with alcohol.

There are very few valid defences for drunken driving, the driver was either over the limit, or they were not.
In case of driving whilst tired or stressed, there ARE defences. Mainly along the lines of "I was fit to drive, the accident was caused by the other party, or by the weather, or by badly maintained roads, or by sudden mechanical failure."

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Yes, but.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is simple to prove. A simple test without any need for subjective impressions.
Driving whilst tired or under stress is indeed dangerous but there is no simple YES/NO test as with alcohol.

There are very few valid defences for drunken driving, the driver was either over the limit, or they were not.
In case of driving whilst tired or stressed, there ARE defences. Mainly along the lines of "I was fit to drive, the accident was caused by the other party, or by the weather, or by badly maintained roads, or by sudden mechanical failure."

Not always the case (as per drink driving too) people have been convicted of driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving and causing death thereby from falling asleep at the wheel. The point being if you have such a conviction then it should pretty much equate to a drink driving conviction but social mores seem to think it is more acceptable to drive when knackered than it is when drunk - they are both a danger to all around them.

 

[C J Snarzell]

One of my friends was done for drink driving about 15 years ago. He is now working as a bus driver for Stagecoach. Again this is a safety critical role not unlike train driving.

I think the main issue to remember here is that all of us make mistakes but I believe as long as the drink driving conviction is unspent you're sadly not going to get anywhere applying for any driving roles.

First of all the employer would respect honesty in declaring it, but they would perhaps want to see some sort of time period in between the conviction. For example if you got convicted six months ago you are unlikely to get a train driving job but you're in with a chance if it is ten years since it happened.

I think the unspent period is five years from when you get your driving licence back. I could be wrong about this so correct me if am?

 

[andys495]

Drink drive convictions remain on your record for 11 years. This is because if convicted again within 10 years from the date of the original offence the courts are obliged to then give you a minimum 3 year ban regardless of the circumstances. It still remains a driving offence not a criminal offence but a criminal record would be created with the details so the police and courts are aware. After that period it would archived.

 

[Stigy]

Drink drive convictions remain on your record for 11 years. This is because if convicted again within 10 years from the date of the original offence the courts are obliged to then give you a minimum 3 year ban regardless of the circumstances. It still remains a driving offence not a criminal offence but a criminal record would be created with the details so the police and courts are aware. After that period it would archived.

Drink Driving is a criminal offence by virtue of the fact that it carries a criminal conviction. Railway offences are my forte, but motoring offences aren’t a million miles different in terms of penalties etc. Speeding for example, although not the worst of motoring offences, is criminal in that it’s a strict liability offence heard by Magistrates or a District Judge. The opposite of a criminal offence is a civil one, heard by a county court judge or similar. The difference is what’s classed as recordable and what’s not. Most driving convictions, same with all Railway Byelaws, are non recordable. However they’re still criminal.

The amount of times I’ve heard BTP saying, “If you deal with him it’s a civil matter, but if you deal with me it’s a criminal matter”. No, it’s only civil when issuing a penalty fare (which I don’t do), if I report somebody for an offence, it’s the same as if a police officer reports them. Same as any other railway official. Grinds my gears.

 

[ComUtoR]

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2018/08/is-drink-driving-a-criminal-offence/

https://www.drinkdriving.org/info/drink-driving-criminal-conviction/

Both state its a criminal offense as it breaks the law; specifically the Road Traffic Act 1988

 

[andys495]

Drink driving may be a criminal offence for the purposes of declaration on an application form but it is not a criminal offence by definition as it does not get criminal number. Once the 11 years is spent the record ceases. I think the point would be that any question asked on the application is likely to be, have you EVER been convicted. In which case the answer would have to be ‘yes’ regardless of how long ago the incident happened. At a point where thousands of applicants are applying for one post, and where even a spelling mistake on a CV could cost you a place, I think a yes to that answer would be the end of you.

 

[andys495]

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2018/08/is-drink-driving-a-criminal-offence/

https://www.drinkdriving.org/info/drink-driving-criminal-conviction/

Both state its a criminal offense as it breaks the law; specifically the Road Traffic Act 1988

Ok we may be splitting hairs a bit here. It is a criminal offence as can be dealt with in a criminal court but it does not give you a criminal record like theft or assault may do if convicted.

 

[Stigy]

Drink driving may be a criminal offence for the purposes of declaration on an application form but it is not a criminal offence by definition as it does not get criminal number. Once the 11 years is spent the record ceases. I think the point would be that any question asked on the application is likely to be, have you EVER been convicted. In which case the answer would have to be ‘yes’ regardless of how long ago the incident happened. At a point where thousands of applicants are applying for one post, and where even a spelling mistake on a CV could cost you a place, I think a yes to that answer would be the end of you.

The only way an offence would get a criminal number (AS - Arrest Summons number I believe you’re referring to?) is if it’s recordable. Numerous criminal convictions are non-recordable on the PNC. Drink driving is however PNC recordable so would get an AS number.

 

[andys495]

No a CRO number but I know what you’re getting at. It still remains a driving conviction and not a criminal conviction.

 

[Stigy]

No a CRO number but I know what you’re getting at. It still remains a driving conviction and not a criminal conviction.

No, it’s a criminal conviction because it’s a criminal offence. The same way as a railway byelaw conviction is criminal. And the same way as offences under the Regulation of Railways Act are criminal. The difference here is whether you have to declare it. The latter is recordable but the former isn’t.

 

[andys495]

There are lots of minor criminal convictions that are not recordable.
I think we’re barking up different trees here. You obviously have some experience as do I and dealt with these matters for many years. So if I were dealing with somebody that was convicted of drink driving 15 years ago but nothing else since and asked to declare whether they had a criminal record the answer would be no. Declaring it on an application form 15 years later may be different, which I think is where you are coming from, and their caveat would normally be something along the lines of ‘ever been convicted of any criminal offence or driving offence’.

 

[EBlackadder]

Driving with Excess Alcohol is a Recordable Offence which will result in a Criminal Record. All offences triable either way, or on indictment are recordable. Certain summary offences are also recordable if they could be punished with imprisonment. Driving with excess alcohol carries a potential sentence of imprisonment and is therefore recordable.

I promise you: Driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs and driving with excess alcohol are recordable offences that will result in a criminal record upon conviction.

There was a single exception to this rule, which was due to Parliamentary cock-up (the draughtsmen forgot about it). Raciallay Aggravated Harassment, Alarm of Distress, which carries a maximum sentence on conviction of 2-years custody, was forgotten about when the offence was created in 1998. It meant we were in the ludicrous position of being able to arrest, charge, try, convict and ultimately imprison and yet had no power to take fingerprints or DNA - which can only be done with recordable offences. This was changed by way of an offence-specific amendment in 2016: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1006/pdfs/uksiem_20161006_en.pdf

When dealing with suspects who had convictions for R/A Section 5 it was often difficult to identify those convictions, as without a CRO number we were relying on decent local records being kept. This problem did not exist with the drink driving offences, which are recordable and are easily traced.

Source: Former custody Sergeant.

 

[andys495]

Driving with Excess Alcohol is a Recordable Offence which will result in a Criminal Record. All offences triable either way, or on indictment are recordable. Certain summary offences are also recordable if they could be punished with imprisonment. Driving with excess alcohol carries a potential sentence of imprisonment and is therefore recordable.

I promise you: Driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs and driving with excess alcohol are recordable offences that will result in a criminal record upon conviction.

There was a single exception to this rule, which was due to Parliamentary cock-up (the draughtsmen forgot about it). Raciallay Aggravated Harassment, Alarm of Distress, which carries a maximum sentence on conviction of 2-years custody, was forgotten about when the offence was created in 1998. It meant we were in the ludicrous position of being able to arrest, charge, try, convict and ultimately imprison and yet had no power to take fingerprints or DNA - which can only be done with recordable offences. This was changed by way of an offence-specific amendment in 2016: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1006/pdfs/uksiem_20161006_en.pdf

When dealing with suspects who had convictions for R/A Section 5 it was often difficult to identify those convictions, as without a CRO number we were relying on decent local records being kept. This problem did not exist with the drink driving offences, which are recordable and are easily traced.

Source: Former custody Sergeant.

I agree with what you say. However if after 15 years of his only offence of drink driving the person goes to court again for another matter and the question asked has he got any previous criminal convictions or cautions the answer would be no.

 

[ComUtoR]

https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2015/08/18/will-a-driving-conviction-appear-on-my-criminal-record/
https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/using/motoring-offences-and-criminal-records
https://www.keepmeontheroad.co.uk/blog/motoring-offence-criminal-record/

These motoring offences are not imprisonable and do not appear on a criminal record

• Speeding
• Careless driving
• Construction and use offences (including using a mobile phone)
• Failing to observe traffic a sign
• Failing to provide driver details

These motoring offences are imprisonable and do appear on a criminal record

• Drink driving
• Drug driving
• Failing to provide a breath/blood/urine specimen
• Failing to stop or report an accident
• Dangerous driving

The file attached is a list of recordable offenses search 80301 for a list of recordable driving offences.

 

[andys495]

https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2015/08/18/will-a-driving-conviction-appear-on-my-criminal-record/
https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/using/motoring-offences-and-criminal-records
https://www.keepmeontheroad.co.uk/blog/motoring-offence-criminal-record/

These motoring offences are not imprisonable and do not appear on a criminal record

• Speeding
• Careless driving
• Construction and use offences (including using a mobile phone)
• Failing to observe traffic a sign
• Failing to provide driver details

These motoring offences are imprisonable and do appear on a criminal record

• Drink driving
• Drug driving
• Failing to provide a breath/blood/urine specimen
• Failing to stop or report an accident
• Dangerous driving

The file attached is a list of recordable offenses search 80301 for a list of recordable driving offences.

Again I don’t disagree with you but is DD recorded as a crime as per recording stats - No.

 

[andys495]

I have no HR or recruitment experience but the point is - Is the candidate likely to be asked has he ever had any previous convictions for drink drinking? Answer - yes
Is it likely to effect any prospects of employment? Answer - most probably yes (in my opinion).

 

[C J Snarzell]

From what I know about drink driving, it is a criminal conviction. However in some instances, say for example a background check when applying for a job working with children or vulnerable people where there is a screen process I shouldn't think it would make a difference.

My brother is a HGV driver but he served time in prison a few years ago as a result of breaching a court order. It was domestic related and I have to be blunt - he was a complete dickhead at the time, but his ex-partner was not whiter than white and manipulated the police and the court system. The point I am making is that his criminal background doesn't really affect his job but he used to drive buses for Arriva and there were issues at the time raised by his employers because he was working on bus routes during school times. I think the issue was that he was convicted of domestic violence related offences and they didn't want him coming into contact with children. Can I just say that he has never done anything to harm his own children or put them in danger and has never been convicted of assault but as soon as the word 'domestic violence' is tagged it opens up a can of worms.

I know I'm going off the subject a little bit so I apologise. The friend I referred to who got done for drink driving in 2003 regularly goes on holiday and him and his wife are looking to move to Australia in the next couple of years. A drink driving conviction doesn't affect things like this but in my brother's case he will never be in a position to go to certain countries.

It is a strange offence drink driving as it is criminal but it doesn't impact on a lot of things but clearly professional driving jobs whether on roads or railways are out of the question as long as the conviction is unspent!!!! I think it was a good point raised by the member about the image aspect to the train company - would a train driver convicted of drink driving a car really be good image to a train company and would customers/passengers want to travel on board a train knowing the driver had been done for drink driving?

Like I've said we are all human and we all make mistakes. I know a few people who have been done for drink driving. The loss of a driving licence is hard enough but in one case a friend lost his job because he was travelling long distances to work. He also had to do 100 community service from the court. He had never been in trouble before and not since. I remember him telling me that the probation service were complete arseholes with him. Thankfully, he's got his licence back now and he is back on his feet now doing a he likes. One thing he did tell me was that it used to annoy him when certain people got on their soapbox to him about what he had done. I am not judgemental but I think it's fair to say that a lot of us (including me!) at some stage in our adult lives have driven a car slightly over the limit or borderline. Maybe having more than you should in the evening and then driving to work at 8am the following morning??? Drink driving is WRONG and people lose their lives because of it but on that note we should just reflect on times we have been close to a charge sheet ourselves and not be too judgemental to others.

 

[EBlackadder]

I agree with what you say. However if after 15 years of his only offence of drink driving the person goes to court again for another matter and the question asked has he got any previous criminal convictions or cautions the answer would be no.

Agreed, but this is to do with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and certain offences being 'spent', rathr than no Record existing. An Enhanced DBS Check, for example for the Police, Security Services, Senior Civil Service etc... would result in such offences being disclosed. I agree that a TOC will struggle to justify an Enhanced Check for the overwhelming majority of roles. Anything with a Safeguarding feature, or possibly a senior Security role could be justified I suppose.

 

[andys495]

Can I also just add at this point that I’m not trying to condone drink driving. I used to hunt out drink drivers as a job. I’m just trying to clarify a point. As is usual people have different opinions and that’s what a discussion forum is all about. I think I’m just going to agree to disagree on some of the finer points and I respect and understand what the others are trying to say. But if you will excuse me but I have to leave for work to drive a train.

 

[ComUtoR]

There are certain jobs where you would not be allowed to have a drink driving conviction but train driving isn't one of them. Up till relatively recently you were allowed to drink on the job and many frequently did.

Not forgetting that a driving license isn't even a pre-requisite to drive a train.

 

[Need2]

Drink drive convictions remain on your record for 11 years.

No they do not. It may be on your driving licence for 11 years but your criminal conviction for drink driving becomes 'spent' after 5.
Apart from certain roles requiring the enhanced DBS check, you do not have to declare your conviction to anyone (including prospective employers) after 5 years.

 

[Need2]

I have no HR or recruitment experience but the point is - Is the candidate likely to be asked has he ever had any previous convictions for drink drinking? Answer - yes

Why would they ask that?

 

[C J Snarzell]

I come from a police background and I know the job was what you describe as a hard drinking profession.

Many cops from years gone by were drinking on duty and regularly driving over the limit. If you watch The Sweeney that is a prime example of the drinking culture that used to go on in the police years ago.

My dad is a retired cop and as a youngster in the 1980s I remember he would go to work on nights and have a couple of pints in the station bar before he started his shift at 11pm. He would also have a few liveners after work and then get behind the wheel!!!

We lived in a different culture back then and I would say drink driving only became robust about twenty years ago. Before then many people flouted the law and the offence was treated quite leniently on many occasions.

Many cops from my dad's era actually got potted for drink driving but still kept their jobs. Nowadays they literally hang you out to dry (no pun intended!) - cops are publically sacked in front of chief constables and put on a police barring list. That's not including court, community service and the loss of your licence.

Even the building professional - lads would be supping cans of beer on building sites. I did a CSCS course recently and construction jobs are safety critical too these days so that old way of life has now long gone.

 

[Stigy]

Agreed, but this is to do with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and certain offences being 'spent', rathr than no Record existing. An Enhanced DBS Check, for example for the Police, Security Services, Senior Civil Service etc... would result in such offences being disclosed. I agree that a TOC will struggle to justify an Enhanced Check for the overwhelming majority of roles. Anything with a Safeguarding feature, or possibly a senior Security role could be justified I suppose.

To add; Enhanced DBS checks aren’t on a par with those carried out by the police or security services for their staff (SC - Security Clearance). For example, SC vetting takes in to account one’s finances and family members too. If we are talking DV (Developed Vetting), then that’s even more ‘intimate’ and looks at all records with no cut off as to how far back they go, and also looks at internet history and all sorts of other private things. I’m current SC vetted and when they’re on form, BTP still take about 6-weeks to clear it. Any DBS check is usually back within days as it’s a simple PNC check basically, whatever the level. It just varies as to what information they check or can disclose.

We are going off on something of a tangent here I know!

 

[Ducatist4]

Going even further off topic here - there is no such thing as a spent conviction for the purposes of the Fire Arms Act. If you are applying for a firearms or shotgun certificate you need to declare everything apart from fixed penalty speeding tickets etc (and the usual advice is to declare those as well - shows you are not hiding anything).
I know of people who have been refused a certificate because they forgot to declare something minor that happened twenty years ago.
Things way back in your past can really come back and bite you sometimes.