Getting charged under byelaw17(1)

[John Connor]

I have pleaded guilty to the following charge. Contrary to bye-law 17 (1) and 23 of the transport for london railway byelaws made under paragraph 26 of schedule 11 to the greater london authority act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the transport act 1962.

I originally pleaded guilty under the single justice procedure. however the comments i made in the form was taken as a equivocal plea and not guilty was put in on behalf. however i have since changed my plea again to guilty.

I do not wish to discuss matters of the case further, as what as happens has happens and I'm pleading guilty.

If possible I would like to know some information regarding the charges.

1, what actually is byelaw 17 ?
2, is it a Criminal offence or conviction and the difference? or neither ( i've read somewhere ) ?
3, Does it come up on a basic CRB check or only on an enhanced CRB check?
4, I understand i will no longer be eligible to the american visa waiver system, will it affect a visa application to america for holiday?
Or looking to move to canada?
5, just some general information

I have read some topics on the internet regarding some of the questions, however not a concrete answer as a lot of people are saying different to others.

 

[swt_passenger]

What they are is easy enough, via Google:

17. Compulsory ticket areas
(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.

(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey;
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) the Operator or an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

23. Offence and level of fines
Any person who breaches any of the Byelaws commits an offence and may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf

AFAICS Byelaw 17 is the same as the National Rail Byelaw 17 which is the usual one discussed here.

 

[najaB]

AFAICS it is the same as the National Rail bylaw 17 which is the usual one discussed here.

It's basically the same as Byelaw 18 (which is the most commonly discussed) with the difference that it applies to being in the CTA, rather than boarding a train to travel. (CTAs are far and few on the national rail network).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1, what actually is byelaw 17 ?
2, is it a Criminal offence or conviction and the difference? or neither ( i've read somewhere ) ?
3, Does it come up on a basic CRB check or only on an enhanced CRB check?
4, I understand i will no longer be eligible to the american visa waiver system, will it affect a visa application to america for holiday?
Or looking to move to canada?
5, just some general information

Hello again. Some answers:

2. It's a criminal offence as it involves breaching a law.
3. It doesn't come up on either a basic or enhanced DBS check.
4. I'll need to double-check but I believe that the non-recordable nature of a Byelaw offence means that it doesn't automatically make you ineligible for the VWP. It certainly wouldn't affect a tourist visa or a move to Canada.

 

[Darandio]

Was this your first offence?

I do not wish to discuss matters of the case further, as what as happens has happens and I'm pleading guilty.

Which is fair enough. However, another thread you started some months ago stated that you were adamant of no wrongdoing. This led to a quite a lengthy thread with the usual suspects talking about nasty railway employees and even discussion of them losing their job because of it. If this thread is a continuation of that one, you are now saying you were guilty, or at least made that plea.

So was it the same offence or a different one? Or have there been even more? It's possible there could be relevance for the information you are asking for.

 

[najaB]

So was it the same offence or a different one? Or have there been even more? It's possible there could be relevance for the information you are asking for.

It's possible that the OP had decided to plead guilty because it's easier/cheaper than fighting a case where they don't have a strong defence. Lose the battle to win the war.

 

[Darandio]

It's possible that the OP had decided to plead guilty because it's easier/cheaper than fighting a case where they don't have a strong defence. Lose the battle to win the war.

Indeed, but I still think it's worth knowing if this is a solitary offence, or not.

 

[najaB]

Indeed, but I still think it's worth knowing if this is a solitary offence, or not.

I agree, but have a suspicion that the OP won't answer one way or the other.

 

[455driver]

It's possible that the OP had decided to plead guilty because it's easier/cheaper than fighting a case where they don't have a strong defence. Lose the battle to win the war.

Its also possible the OP was lying her ar5e off on the other thread and the usual suspects jumped to her defence!

maybe the MODs need to add a sticky to D&P stating the need for complete honesty?
That should shorten quite a few thread on here!

 

[Agent_c]

Maybe its my naivety showing, but I find it weird that someone would plead guilty without understanding what the charge is against them...

 

[ComUtoR]

Maybe its my naivety showing, but I find it weird that someone would plead guilty without understanding what the charge is against them...

Because much of the advice given is to simply plead guilty and settle out of court for the cost/convenience.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

When a conviction doesn't result in a criminal record and the cost is more manageable than the uncertain and possibly escalating costs of contesting, and the time devoted to the issue is a fraction of the time and effort in contesting it, then that would seem a very pragmatic option to many people in that position, especially to those with other demands on their time and finances.

 

[John Connor]

Was this your first offence?



Which is fair enough. However, another thread you started some months ago stated that you were adamant of no wrongdoing. This led to a quite a lengthy thread with the usual suspects talking about nasty railway employees and even discussion of them losing their job because of it. If this thread is a continuation of that one, you are now saying you were guilty, or at least made that plea.

So was it the same offence or a different one? Or have there been even more? It's possible there could be relevance for the information you are asking for.

Same offence. As stated, I do not wish to discuss matters of that case further. All I can say is, money was taken out my account for that specific Journey. As TFL obviously know about.
However it is easier to plead guilty and get it over and done with as I'm moving abroad.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe its my naivety showing, but I find it weird that someone would plead guilty without understanding what the charge is against them...

(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.

^ the charge.

I know, what I'm being charged for, just want to know the questions, i outlined.

So, Im reading it doesn't come up on a basic or enhanced CRB check, So where does it come up ?

Am i required to declare it on car insurance

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Its also possible the OP was lying her ar5e off on the other thread and the usual suspects jumped to her defence!:

You remind me of something I said a few years ago and which I couldn't possibly justify now. . . . It was along the lines of saying that of all clients or others seeking advice, as many as 90% would, on further discussion, reveal that there were other factors which they hadn't mentioned and which were not in their favour.

I hope it's obvious that I couldn't begin to justify that implausible and outrageous claim.

 

[Agent_c]

I know, what I'm being charged for, just want to know the questions, i outlined.

And the first question was basically "What is it..."

 

[cool110]

So, Im reading it doesn't come up on a basic or enhanced CRB check, So where does it come up ?

It doesn't, unless you're caught on another ticketing offence.

 

[bristolboy]

4. I'll need to double-check but I believe that the non-recordable nature of a Byelaw offence means that it doesn't automatically make you ineligible for the VWP. It certainly wouldn't affect a tourist visa or a move to Canada.

(Long time lurker, first time poster) - this is not necessarily the case. Whilst a non-recordable bylaw offence may not show up on an immigration police check, immigration involves filling in many forms, and the Canadian ones include wording along the lines of 'Have you ever committed or been convicted of any offence in any country which is a criminal offence in Canada?'. It doesn't matter that the UK version is only a bylaw offence if, if commited in Canada, it was a criminal offence. How they equate the crimes varies by officer, but some people do find that their minor UK infractions are equated to parts of the Criminal Code (such as traveling without a ticket). It is the moral responsibility of the migrant to investigate the equation, as the question on the form requires that they inform CIC of acts they have committed which the Canadians consider criminal. (Whilst many of us may have committed actions which we didn't know were criminal, a person who plead guilty in court could not claim ignorance that they had nothing to check). Failing to do so, and simply answering "No", is document fraud, which is itself a serious criminal offence which can lead to a lifetime ban from Canada. (Basically, simply claiming 'no', a person might get away with it, but if CIC ever find out, through other documents, or a comment in an interview, world of pain. OP needs to thoroughly investigate, and can request an 'information only' look over of their situation by the Canadian High Commission).

Separately, the US visa requirement is merely that you report crimes "involving moral turpitude" - normally held to mean such things as arson, blackmail, fraud.

 

[najaB]

(Long time lurker, first time poster)

Welcome to the forum.

Failing to do so, and simply answering "No", is document fraud, which is itself a serious criminal offence which can lead to a lifetime ban from Canada. (Basically, simply claiming 'no', a person might get away with it, but if CIC ever find out, through other documents, or a comment in an interview, world of pain. OP needs to thoroughly investigate, and can request an 'information only' look over of their situation by the Canadian High Commission).

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the OP pretends that it didn't happen, rather that declaring a one-off minor ticketing infraction is highly unlikely to affect a visa application just as a single minor traffic offence would be unlikely to result in denial of a visa.

 

[island]

Whilst continuing to drag the thread further off topic I would point out that we are conflating the issue of the offence with the dishonesty in visa applications connected with failing to disclose the offence.