Doesn’t change the severity of the conviction or the consequences if you are asked to attend( except for bigger amount to pay if they are asking you to plead guilty to more than one instance of evading fares, but the benefit is the matter finishes with this one prosecution). It’s just that you have to go through a court day.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
fare evasion - please help
- Thread starter ticketuser99
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It would be useful if you could upload a copy of all the paperwork you've been sent about going to court (but do redact any personal information before uploading).
Generally speaking, bylaw convictions are not entered into the Police National Computer and ordinarily won't show an basic or standard DBS checks. That said, a bylaw conviction is a criminal conviction and also a matter of public record and organisations do sometimes have other ways of finding out this sort of information.
For most purposes the conviction will be considered as spent after one year. If you are asked if you have an unspent conviction then I would always advise being honest about it. A bylaw conviction for a minor railway ticketing matter won't normally adversely affect career opportunities.
The charity Unlock is a good starting place for more information:
Generally speaking, bylaw convictions are not entered into the Police National Computer and ordinarily won't show an basic or standard DBS checks. That said, a bylaw conviction is a criminal conviction and also a matter of public record and organisations do sometimes have other ways of finding out this sort of information.
For most purposes the conviction will be considered as spent after one year. If you are asked if you have an unspent conviction then I would always advise being honest about it. A bylaw conviction for a minor railway ticketing matter won't normally adversely affect career opportunities.
The charity Unlock is a good starting place for more information:
ticketuser99
Member
It would be useful if you could upload a copy of all the paperwork you've been sent about going to court (but do redact any personal information before uploading).
Generally speaking, bylaw convictions are not entered into the Police National Computer and ordinarily won't show an basic or standard DBS checks. That said, a bylaw conviction is a criminal conviction and also a matter of public record and organisations do sometimes have other ways of finding out this sort of information.
For most purposes the conviction will be considered as spent after one year. If you are asked if you have an unspent conviction then I would always advise being honest about it. A bylaw conviction for a minor railway ticketing matter won't normally adversely affect career opportunities.
The charity Unlock is a good starting place for more information:
Attachments
ticketuser99
Member
What would this mean consequences wise? Could this be worse? Or will it just be one fine and one criminal record?
In terms of what I’m bring to court with is this serious criminal charge? Or is it a usual charge for fare evasion?
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,593
Just the one of each. Asking for other offences to be taken into consideration is a means of saving the court’s time.
just to follow up on this, LU policy is that bwv is activated for instances of work place violence and aggression (WPVA), and for safeguarding reasons. TfL employed TSEs (who do not deal with revenue issues, except for GLA bylaw 9.2 - improper use of the ticket barriers), are the only staff on the combine who do use their bwv to record and document bylaw offences, but LU RCIs and RCOs won't use bwv for documenting evidence in fare evasion cases, so even if it was activated they would not routinely requisition that footage, so it just gets deleted after a certain time, if that has not escalated to a point where they need to submit a report of WPVA where it would be evidence.
If it is collected in any situation that TfL knows could lead to a prosecution, TfL is required to retain it, notify the defence, and review the contents to determine whether there is anything that might undermine its prosecution or help the defence. What that means in practice is that if TfL was unable to produce it (e.g. because of routine deletion) in a situation where it was potentially relevant to the defence, then TfL might forego some of its ability to challenge any assertion by the defence as to what it would show - or in other words the defence benefits from any doubt.
Can you explain “bwv”, please?
Presumably Body Worn Video rather than the Bach catalogue, but I had to look it up just now.
notmyrealname
Member
Body-worn video?
ticketuser99
Member
Can they prosecute me under the fraud act of 2006? Which is a much more serious offence. The letter says bylaw 17 (1) but the internet says misuse of someone’s Oyster card falls under the 2006 fraud act
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Can they change the prosecution to convict me of the fraud act of 2006? As they are calling me in to take the other offences into account at court. Are they able to change the prosecution from Bylaw 17 (1) to the fraud act 2006? As the fraud act is a serious case that can affect me much worse then being prosecuted under bylaw 17 (1)
They could change it, but they won't. What you did is fraud, but the company uses railway-specific legislation for simplicity and so they don't have to prove your intent to a court.
ticketuser99
Member
What’s stopping them from changing it? “Don’t have to prove” seems like the could if they wanted to. What’s stopping them.
Optimising their use of limited resources. Fundamentally it would take up more staff time to do that, reducing the number of other people they can deal with.
It's more complex and they really don't care for it. TfL is a giant prosecutions factory which prosecutes tens of thousands of people every year. It's you and a few hundred other people every day caught in the swishing net of the inspectors, no point drawing out the process for them and expending resources. Not having to prove intent makes the prosecution very simple indeed.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,593
In what way do you think this is relevant to the defence? The OP was caught, bang to rights, and advised that they would most likely be liable to a fine. And that's exactly what will happen on conviction.
ticketuser99
Member
So criminal record wise I’m looking at 1 year visible on DBS, restricted work on finance, medicine and education if I choose that area to get a job?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But I will be found guilty of bylaw 17 (1) and given a criminal record?
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,593
Yes, without a doubt.
ticketuser99
Member
What’s the likelyhood of mitigating the criminal record due to the lack of job opportunities it brings?
What do you mean by this?
Depends if you mean a standard or enhanced DBS, but this is a complex area and the charity Unlock is better placed to advise than people giving very general advice on a forum.
Yes.
WesternLancer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 15,077
I'm assuming the OP means that the court should be lenient because if they give the OP a guilty verdict and criminal record it will make it more difficult for the OP to get a job
To answer this with my personal view there is no likelihood.
The court is required to consider if you are guilty of the offence (ie did you do it or not) and that is yes / no as I understand it. The court may opt to set a lower sentence (ie a lower fine) but there is already a process for doing that since if you fill in the paperwork at the court correctly giving your income, the fact that your income is lower by virtue of being unemployed will mean that you get a lower fine.
But you are still guilty and if the court decides you are guilty they make a record of it (literally a 'criminal record'). That record is in the public domain - you used to see lists of people who had guilty verdicts in local newspapers back in the day - you maybe still do. The issue about when you have to declare them and for how long, when asked on thing like job application is another matter and i think has been explained above in this thread.
You can't "mitigate a criminal record" - if you're guilty, you get convicted, and you don't get to ask for it to be a special little dirty secret between you and the magistrate.
ticketuser99
Member
I’ve heard cases when training doctors are given fines and not criminal sentences, just checking the leniency on the matter
Not sure what you mean by criminal sentence. A court will only impose a fine as a result of a guilty conviction - the conviction automatically results in a criminal record. Any fine, penalty, community service etc. is a follow-on from the conviction.
If you go to court and are guilty, you are convicted, fined, sentenced.
There is no such thing as being prosecuted in court for this and not being given a "criminal sentence", you're confusing the matter with people negotiating settlements or warnings before it got to that stage.
You are being prosecuted, you are guilty, and you will be convicted of the offence and have the remainder taken into consideration, fined according to your income, have to pay a surcharge, and the victim's costs.
1
Yes, but this is the lowest level of offence possible. Provided you do not attempt to conceal it, it is unlikely that it will be of great concern to most employers.
ticketuser99
Member
What do you mean by my sentenced?
ticketuser99
Member
And is imprisonment or community service a possible outcome?
AndroidBango
Member
In your case, no.
- Status