TfL fare evasion

[26231421]

Hi,

I am seeking guidance/legal advice about a fare evasion situation I am involved in with TfL that is being taken to court.

I was caught using my younger sibling's 11-15 Zip card (I am 21 years old) by a revenue inspector in early July. Shortly after, I received a letter where I had to accept or deny the charge and provide an explanation. I accepted, hoping I would just receive a fine, as this is what the inspector told me would happen. However, about a month later, I received a Single Justice Procedure Notice. I was quite shocked by this, as I didn’t realise the situation was so serious and since the inspector had only mentioned a fine. Seeing this letter caused me a great deal of stress, as I am extremely worried (and still am) about the possibility of having a criminal record. I'm currently studying to become a Chartered Accountant with the ICAEW, and I am very fearful that I will not be able to continue with the qualification or might lose my job because of this incident. I've done a lot of research, but I'm still confused about whether this criminal record will affect me. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty around it— some people say it doesn’t show up on DBS checks, while others say it will, and I'm not sure if I would need to disclose this to my employer. I also don’t know if I should be stressing this much - my main concern is the criminal record and if it will affect my job but I'm not sure if it will.

Anyway, I submitted my plea and pleaded guilty. In the mitigation statement, I didn’t make any excuses for what I did. I accepted full responsibility and explained my situation, stating how this would have a devastating impact on my life as it would take away everything I’ve worked so hard for. I also expressed my deep regret and apologized, saying I have learned from the situation and it will never happen again. I requested that they not prosecute me for this reason. I was hopeful that after this they might just fine me, as I was being very apologetic, and I thought they might show some sympathy toward my situation, especially since I’ve never had to deal with the law before, and this is my first offence.

However, a few days later (at the end of August), I received a court summons letter. I was very confused and shocked by this, as I had clearly selected the option that I didn’t want to come to court and had pleaded guilty. I called the general help number for clarification, and the lady said she couldn’t give legal advice. However, she explained that the reason for the court summons may be because my statement was unclear and although I pleaded guilty, the rest of my statement suggested I wasn’t fully admitting guilt. I was very confused by this, as I had clearly stated I accepted full responsibility. The only thing I was trying to express was that I didn’t want a criminal conviction. She told me she understood why I wouldn’t want to come to court and that I could maybe email them about it.

I haven’t emailed them yet because I wanted to get some advice first. I don’t want to say anything wrong. I’m still unsure how serious this situation is and whether I should seek proper legal advice. From what I’ve seen, legal advice is extremely expensive, and I’m not sure if I can afford it. I was hoping to get advice on here on what to say in the email. I’m thinking of just making it clear again that I am pleading guilty and accepting responsibility, and if I was unclear in my statement, to clarify that I was just kindly asking if they would consider not prosecuting me.

I’m not going to lie or make up a story about how this was an accident, as I would like some genuine advice. I did it on purpose, but it’s not something I do regularly. I didn’t think much of it at the time. It didn’t seem like a massive deal to me, and of course I knew there was a possibility of getting caught, but I always thought the worst case would be an £80 fine, which I always see warnings for at stations. I never imagined it would be serious enough to be taken to court. I understand that fare evasion is wrong, but I feel like the consequences are a bit extreme. I don’t think it’s fair for me to lose my job over something like this, but I guess that’s the law. I don't really have any knowledge regarding situations like this, so any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

Transport for London take misuse of Zip Oyster very seriously and a prosecution under the TfL Bylaws is the usual outcome. Whether the matter is dealt with under the SJON or court summons doesn't really impact the outcome, the difference in reality is whether or not you have to attend in person - with the SJPN you don't need to attend in person but with a summons you do. The reason they want you to attend in person is because if they believe you've used the card for a sustained period of time they might want these additional offences to be 'taken into account' when setting the level of fine.

If you plead guilty (or are found guilty by the court) then you will have to pay:

- A fine based on your income (usually discounted by a third if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity)
- A surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine
- A contribution towards TfL's costs
- Compensation for the fares avoided

If you are found guilty then this is a criminal conviction. If you are prosecuted under the TfL Bylaws (which is what normally happens) then the conviction isn't normally recorded on the Police National Computer and won't normally appear on Basic DBS checks although we always advise people to be honest when asked if they have a conviction, although we would always advise being honest if you are asked if you have a criminal conviction.

Here's a link to TfL's Revenue Enforcement & Prosecutions Policy which you might find worth reading:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf

 

[dosxuk]

I received a Single Justice Procedure Notice.

Anyway, I submitted my plea and pleaded guilty.

Here's where things went wrong for you. You've told the courts you are guilty of the offence.

However, a few days later (at the end of August), I received a court summons letter. I was very confused and shocked by this, as I had clearly selected the option that I didn’t want to come to court and had pleaded guilty. I called the general help number for clarification, and the lady said she couldn’t give legal advice. However, she explained that the reason for the court summons may be because my statement was unclear and although I pleaded guilty, the rest of my statement suggested I wasn’t fully admitting guilt. I was very confused by this, as I had clearly stated I accepted full responsibility. The only thing I was trying to express was that I didn’t want a criminal conviction.

This is exactly the reason you have been summonsed - you're pleading guilty to the court, but then asking them to not prosecute you. The two statements don't add up to a clear acceptance of what you did wrong and that you agree to be found guilty. As a result, they want you to appear in court so that this inconsistency can be solved.

If you want the court to not find you guilty, you would need to tell them you're not guilty. That would then entail turning up to court, explaining why you didn't commit the offence and hoping they agree.

I’m thinking of just making it clear again that I am pleading guilty and accepting responsibility, and if I was unclear in my statement, to clarify that I was just kindly asking if they would consider not prosecuting me.

This won't work. You are dealing with the courts, not TfL. The only way to avoid prosecution now is to appear in court.

But do not get your hopes up - even you accept you committed the crime you're accused of - it would be very strange for court to find someone not guilty when both the prosecution and defence both agree the defender was guilty. However, the courts do have a wider range of punishments available to them than you would receive by default after playing guilty on the SJPN.

 

[AlterEgo]

Here's where things went wrong for you. You've told the courts you are guilty of the offence.



This is exactly the reason you have been summonsed - you're pleading guilty to the court, but then asking them to not prosecute you. The two statements don't add up to a clear acceptance of what you did wrong and that you agree to be found guilty. As a result, they want you to appear in court so that this inconsistency can be solved.

If you want the court to not find you guilty, you would need to tell them you're not guilty. That would then entail turning up to court, explaining why you didn't commit the offence and hoping they agree.

And to be abundantly clear for the OP, this involves having a specified defence in law. You cannot really plead not guilty on the grounds that "it's unfair" or "I would not like to suffer the consequences".

As the OP has made an equivocal plea, yes, this is why they are being summonsed to court, but once there, they will have no real choice but to plead guilty.

Regrettably for the OP, they are finding out that committing crime, and evading fares in such a plainly blatant way, does have consequences - much as shoplifting and pickpocketing also have consequences once you get caught. Most chartered accountants need to declare any and all unspent convictions - and depending on the role - even spent ones, regardless of whether or not any DBS shows them, to satisfy a fit and proper person test. It is a highly responsible job with a high level of vetting and requires a very high level of trust; you can be signing off hundreds of millions of pounds worth of accounts and affect stock market movements. "I did this dishonest thing because I thought the personal consequences to me would be limited" is not how I would be going about explaining this offence to an employer.

That said, I encourage the OP to do their own research about disclosure.

 

[Haywain]

The only way to avoid prosecution now is to appear in court.

That's a way of avoiding being found guilty. If you are in court as the suspect then you are being prosecuted, and it can no longer be avoided.

 

[island]

Anyway, I submitted my plea and pleaded guilty. In the mitigation statement, I didn’t make any excuses for what I did. I accepted full responsibility and explained my situation, stating how this would have a devastating impact on my life as it would take away everything I’ve worked so hard for. I also expressed my deep regret and apologized, saying I have learned from the situation and it will never happen again. I requested that they not prosecute me for this reason.

This will have been read as an equivocal plea. In other words, not fully accepting of your guilt. Accordingly, you have been summonsed to appear in person in court and ask whether you're guilty or not.

I was hopeful that after this they might just fine me, as I was being very apologetic, and I thought they might show some sympathy toward my situation, especially since I’ve never had to deal with the law before, and this is my first offence.

If you are fined, that would be because you've been convicted of a criminal offence. The court cannot fine someone who hasn't been convicted.

However, a few days later (at the end of August), I received a court summons letter. I was very confused and shocked by this, as I had clearly selected the option that I didn’t want to come to court and had pleaded guilty. I called the general help number for clarification, and the lady said she couldn’t give legal advice. However, she explained that the reason for the court summons may be because my statement was unclear and although I pleaded guilty, the rest of my statement suggested I wasn’t fully admitting guilt. I was very confused by this, as I had clearly stated I accepted full responsibility.

You have been correctly advised that you weren't fully admitting guilt.

The only thing I was trying to express was that I didn’t want a criminal conviction.

That is not a choice that people who have committed a criminal offence get to make.

She told me she understood why I wouldn’t want to come to court and that I could maybe email them about it.

I'm not sure why you would have been told that. A summons is an order to appear in court, in person, either yourself or by a solicitor. There is no option to email.

I did it on purpose, but it’s not something I do regularly. I didn’t think much of it at the time. It didn’t seem like a massive deal to me, and of course I knew there was a possibility of getting caught, but I always thought the worst case would be an £80 fine, which I always see warnings for at stations. I never imagined it would be serious enough to be taken to court.

Unfortunately, you were wrong in that belief.

I understand that fare evasion is wrong, but I feel like the consequences are a bit extreme. I don’t think it’s fair for me to lose my job over something like this, but I guess that’s the law.

For what it's worth, it's not the law that you will lose your job if convicted. That's up to your employer.

I’m not going to lie or make up a story about how this was an accident, as I would like some genuine advice.

Please can you say, specifically and as concisely as possible, what it is that you want advice on? You do not need to repeat any facts, just set out, in bullet points, the questions you want us to answer.

 

[Pushpit]

The very small sliver of consolation I can offer is that you can try to approach TfL's solicitor in court and see if they would be prepared to not prosecute. I cannot see any grounds for them to agree to this, TfL has a very low tolerance for excuses in this space. But I agree that your statement was probably sufficient to confuse the magistrate as to whether you accept your guilt if there was a plea not to prosecute embedded in it. At SJP level they don't have the ability to query you about your statement or seek clarification.

While upsetting and stressful for you, the reality is that this is not crime of the century. The regular queries here about DBS are a red herring - you are in trouble due to a form of deception and your best way out is to only tell the truth. So if asked about any criminal record you have, or it is in your contract of employment, you must declare it to your employer. It may be a bit unpleasant at the time but it's unlikely to have life changing consequences and after 1 year from the court sentence your conviction will be spent. Clearly if you have a very senior role in finance then the standards, relating to deception, are going to be very high, but over time your stupidity with respect to a Zip card will become less and less important.

 

[87 027]

I'm currently studying to become a Chartered Accountant with the ICAEW, and I am very fearful that I will not be able to continue with the qualification or might lose my job because of this incident. I've done a lot of research, but I'm still confused about whether this criminal record will affect me. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty around it— some people say it doesn’t show up on DBS checks, while others say it will, and I'm not sure if I would need to disclose this to my employer.

That said, I encourage the OP to do their own research about disclosure.

So if asked about any criminal record you have, or it is in your contract of employment, you must declare it to your employer. It may be a bit unpleasant at the time but it's unlikely to have life changing consequences and after 1 year from the court sentence your conviction will be spent.

As well as your employer there is a duty of disclosure to the regulator. I would suggest that the following is a good place to start.

Guidance on your duty to report misconduct

All ICAEW members have a duty to report any event which may indicate that they and/or another member, firm affiliate or relevant person may be liable to disciplinary action.

www.icaew.com

It applies to ICAEW members and other "relevant persons" which includes "prospective members", i.e. chartered accountant trainees. Appendix 2 gives examples of what needs to be disclosed and this includes all convictions other than minor motoring offences not involving disqualification. This is significantly broader than the pre-2023 rules which only required reporting of specific offences, and the public interest test has been removed and individuals and firms must now report any matter which may give rise to disciplinary action.

(from page 2)
Self-reporting obligation
You are also under a duty to report any of your own actions / omissions which could make you liable for disciplinary action under the DBLs [disciplinary bye-laws].
If your report results in disciplinary proceedings being brought against you, the fact that you have made a self-report will count in your favour. If you are in any doubt as to whether to make a report, it is recommended that you discuss matters with the Advisory Service.

APPENDIX 2
Examples of matters that are likely to constitute misconduct relating to an individual’s personal activities include:
• Being charged with, or convicted of, one or more criminal offences involving dishonesty, fraud, extortion or bribery; discrimination; violence or sexual misconduct; the possession or distribution of child sex abuse images or where the offence is associated with terrorism; money laundering; perverting or obstructing the course of justice or facilitating or concealing serious criminal activity by others.
• Convictions, or accepting a caution, for any other criminal offence except minor motoring offences.
For example, a motoring offence for speeding or careless driving that does not result in disqualification does not need to be reported but more serious motoring convictions do need to be reported.
• Where a member has been removed or dismissed from a position of trust on the basis of dishonest or allegedly dishonest behaviour.
For example, if a member has been removed or dismissed from any role in relation to a charity or charitable trust on suspicion of dishonest conduct which does not result in a police charge.

It may be worth ringing the ICAEW Ethics Advisory Service for advice - their phone number is on page 2

 

[26231421]

Thank you for all your responses, I really appreciate it.

So if asked about any criminal record you have, or it is in your contract of employment, you must declare it to your employer.

"I did this dishonest thing because I thought the personal consequences to me would be limited" is not how I would be going about explaining this offence to an employer.

Firstly, this is not how I would explain to my employer, I just wanted to be completely transparent on here. I am not too sure if I would even be asked anything. This is what it says in my contract:

We may terminate your employment immediately without notice or payment in lieu of notice or provision of benefits if you are convicted of any criminal offence (other than an offence under any road traffic legislation in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for which a fine or non-custodial penalty is imposed)

I know it says other than an offence for which a fine or non-custodial penalty is imposed, but my job is an ACA training contract and I’m worried I won’t be able to carry on with the qualification which means I won't be able to continue with the job either. However, I just called up ICAEW this morning and they said that having a criminal record does not completely prevent you from completing the qualification. They said I would just have to declare it and they would look into it and decide after that, so I have a bit of hope now. If I cannot continue though, my other worry is that I will find it difficult to get another job, but I’m not sure how serious this is and if it is something I would need to declare to a new employer unless they specifically ask.

It applies to ICAEW members and other "relevant persons" which includes "prospective members", i.e. chartered accountant trainees. Appendix 2 gives examples of what needs to be disclosed and this includes all convictions other than minor motoring offences not involving disqualification. This is significantly broader than the pre-2023 rules which only required reporting of specific offences, and the public interest test has been removed and individuals and firms must now report any matter which may give rise to disciplinary action.

Thank you for this, I will look into it.

This is exactly the reason you have been summonsed - you're pleading guilty to the court, but then asking them to not prosecute you. The two statements don't add up to a clear acceptance of what you did wrong and that you agree to be found guilty. As a result, they want you to appear in court so that this inconsistency can be solved.

That is not a choice that people who have committed a criminal offence get to make.

The reason why I pleaded guilty while also asking them to not prosecute me is because when I was researching online, I heard that although unlikely, it was a possibility to not receive a conviction and just be given the fine or even a warning in some cases. I am completely ok with paying a fine as I’m aware there has to be some sort of punishment. Nowhere in the statement was I making excuses for what I did, I was just asking if I could receive a reduced punishment (i.e. not the criminal record) as I read online this was a possibility. And when I go to court I am still going to be pleading guilty because as I said, I did accept responsibility so I can’t really plead not guilty. But now I’m confused about what will happen in court since I’m just going to repeating what I said in the statement and that I am guilty.

This whole situation is quite nerve wracking for me. I’ve always been the kind of student who never got in any kind of trouble in school and now I have received a court summons. The idea of going there is terrifying, so I want to avoid it if possible. The lady on the phone told me they can decide in my absence, so I am still going to write to them as she advised me to do this. Even if it won't do anything it's worth the try. However, if there is a possibility of them not prosecuting me then I will go (if they give me me option not to), but from what everyone is saying it sounds like I cannot avoid the prosecution.

Please can you say, specifically and as concisely as possible, what it is that you want advice on? You do not need to repeat any facts, just set out, in bullet points, the questions you want us to answer.

In summary my main questions are:

• Is there any chance of me not receiving the criminal record?
• If so, what should I say when I write to them? Or in court is there anything I’d be able to say to not receive the prosecution?
• Is anyone aware of what will happen in court and what the process is like?
• Will the prosecutor be bringing other evidence too?
• If I were to apply to other jobs is this something I’d need to declare?

 

[SuspectUsual]

when I was researching online, I heard that although unlikely, it was a possibility to not receive a conviction and just be given the fine or even a warning in some cases

A court cannot impose a fine without first having convicted you

 

[John R]

In summary my main questions are:

• Is there any chance of me not receiving the criminal record?
• If so, what should I say when I write to them? Or in court is there anything I’d be able to say to not receive the prosecution?
• Is anyone aware of what will happen in court and what the process is like?
• Will the prosecutor be bringing other evidence too?
• If I were to apply to other jobs is this something I’d need to declare?

You are being prosecuted (=taken to court and accused of committing a crime). It's highly unlikely that TfL will withdraw that, having come so far. And even more unlikely to do so simply because you're afraid of the impact it might have on your employment in a highly regulated sector.

Given you have already said you are guilty (and you are guilty), I don't see a way of avoiding a conviction (=having been prosecuted, found guilty). That means you will be fined, and will then have a criminal conviction.

The prosecutor will have a statement from the person who stopped you - that's all they need.

Re other jobs, that will depend on what you are told when you apply. It's important to be honest, as not disclosing a conviction can be worse than the conviction itself in some roles.

 

[Haywain]

I know it says other than an offence for which a fine or non-custodial penalty is imposed,

That is referring specifically to "an offence under any road traffic legislation".

I heard that although unlikely, it was a possibility to not receive a conviction and just be given the fine or even a warning in some cases.

On rare occasions TfL issue a warning. They never accept a settlement which may be what you are thinking of as a 'fine' here. In your case they have issued a summons and are going to prosecute. As stated above there is a remote chance that speaking to their prosecutor at the court before your case is heard could see the case withdrawn but that must be regarded as extremely unlikely.

 

[AlterEgo]

In summary my main questions are:

• Is there any chance of me not receiving the criminal record?

No. We have never seen TfL simply drop a prosecution once it has laid papers and you have a court date. They prosecute tens of thousands of people a year.

• If so, what should I say when I write to them? Or in court is there anything I’d be able to say to not receive the prosecution?

You could plead not guilty, but you would need a defence in law, which by your own admission you do not have. You are guilty of the offence which does not appear to be in question, so I would recommend pleading guilty to receive a discount on the fine and to avoid a trial, where you will be convicted anyway.

• Will the prosecutor be bringing other evidence too?

They do not need any other evidence. They have the witness statement evidence collected at the time, and your admission of the offence you sent them by reply.

• If I were to apply to other jobs is this something I’d need to declare?

It depends on the job. The conviction will be spent after one year in any case. Unlock is a charity which can help with this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==

This is what it says in my contract:

We may terminate your employment immediately without notice or payment in lieu of notice or provision of benefits if you are convicted of any criminal offence (other than an offence under any road traffic legislation in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for which a fine or non-custodial penalty is imposed)

I know it says other than an offence for which a fine or non-custodial penalty is imposed

That proviso is specifically referring to driving offences. The meaning of that sentence is they retain the right to terminate your employment without notice or payment if you are convicted of this offence. It is also likely, although you do not confirm, that your contract specifically binds you to tell them immediately you are convicted of any offence.

 

[Haywain]

I am not too sure if I would even be asked anything. This is what it says in my contract:

We may terminate your employment immediately without notice or payment in lieu of notice or provision of benefits if you are convicted of any criminal offence (other than an offence under any road traffic legislation in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for which a fine or non-custodial penalty is imposed)

I think we should be clear about this and what it means - you may not be asked anything but you have a duty to be open and honest with your employer. The clause in your contract means that if they find out about a conviction they can dismiss you and we generally feel that this is likely to be the result of them finding out from an external source where it has not been disclosed by you. Now, it is possible that they will take this approach anyway if you do disclose the conviction but it is less likely as you are at least being open about the situation. In the field you wish to enter dishonesty is exacerbated by non-disclosure.

 

[26231421]

That is referring specifically to "an offence under any road traffic legislation".

That proviso is specifically referring to driving offences. The meaning of that sentence is they retain the right to terminate your employment without notice or payment if you are convicted of this offence. It is also likely, although you do not confirm, that your contract specifically binds you to tell them immediately you are convicted of any offence.

I think we should be clear about this and what it means - you may not be asked anything but you have a duty to be open and honest with your employer. The clause in your contract means that if they find out about a conviction they can dismiss you and we generally feel that this is likely to be the result of them finding out from an external source where it has not been disclosed by you. Now, it is possible that they will take this approach anyway if you do disclose the conviction but it is less likely as you are at least being open about the situation. In the field you wish to enter dishonesty is exacerbated by non-disclosure.

Okay I see, I completely misread it. I read the 'elsewhere' as referring to other crimes. I will figure out how I go about disclosing it to them after I receive the conviction.

The prosecutor will have a statement from the person who stopped you - that's all they need.

They do not need any other evidence. They have the witness statement evidence collected at the time, and your admission of the offence you sent them by reply.

So what exactly will happen in court? Will they just be asking me to confirm if I'm pleading guilty or not guilty?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==

If you are prosecuted under the TfL Bylaws (which is what normally happens) then the conviction isn't normally recorded on the Police National Computer and won't normally appear on Basic DBS checks

Also can I just add, if I were to not disclose it how would my employer find out if it doesn't show up on DBS checks? And why would they even be doing a DBS check since I am already employed.

after 1 year from the court sentence your conviction will be spent

If it will be spent after a year then what are the chances of them finding out?

I'm not too sure how all this stuff works, this is my first proper job since I finished uni a year ago.

 

[Haywain]

if I were to not disclose it how would my employer find out if it doesn't show up on DBS checks?

Convictions are a matter of public record, and sometime even get reported in the press. Your employer may not find out, but is it worth the risk? As I said previously, it is better that you front up and tell them than they find out through other sources.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Also can I just add, if I were to not disclose it how would my employer find out if it doesn't show up on DBS checks? And why would they even be doing a DBS check since I am already employed.

They might not, but court decisions are a matter of public record so it's perfectly possible they could. Maybe they check periodically, maybe a random coincidence, who knows.

But the one thing we can all agree on is that if you took the risk of not disclosing your conviction, and they *did* subsequently find out, you're creating another level of dishonesty over and above the offence you were convicted for by hiding it

Front up and be honest is the best advice

 

[AlterEgo]

So what exactly will happen in court? Will they just be asking me to confirm if I'm pleading guilty or not guilty?

I'm not an expert on court procedure so will leave this to others.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==


Also can I just add, if I were to not disclose it how would my employer find out if it doesn't show up on DBS checks? And why would they even be doing a DBS check since I am already employed.

If your employer is in a regulated profession like chartered accountancy they may use court record scraping services like LexisNexis to find out anyway. That is, they have your name and DoB, and simply do a weekly or monthly scrape of all the court records.

If it will be spent after a year then what are the chances of them finding out?

Probably not a wise question to be asking if you're trying to hedge against committing further dishonesty by not disclosing the matter to an employer. It is possible that as a trainee chartered accountant you will have a duty to disclose your conviction immediately to them, and in any case chartered accountancy once qualified is a role exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This means you will always have to disclose your conviction if you are asked, even after it is spent, and your employer will be legally allowed to ask you about old or spent convictions, and impose penalties or fire you if you are convicted or fail to disclose a conviction.

One grey area is how a regulatory body will view your conviction. Offences involving dishonesty are a serious matter, but TfL normally prosecute you under Bylaws which require no intent or dishonesty be proven - that's neat and tidy for them. However when you talk about your conviction, you will inevitably be asked the circumstances, and you will need to admit your dishonesty at that stage.

 

[Pushpit]

Okay I see, I completely misread it. I read the 'elsewhere' as referring to other crimes. I will figure out how I go about disclosing it to them after I receive the conviction.

It may make it an easier conversation if you mention to your boss beforehand that there is a chance of a conviction happening, rather than announcing it after it has happened. If it was me I wouldn't like a surprise that has been clearly bubbling under for months beforehand. Whereas letting them know ahead of time and then confirming afterwards may give reason for them to accept that you are doing your best to be candid and honest. They can't do anything to do if you do not have a conviction yet, or at least it would be unlikely. There may be support available in your organisation. I imagine you are not in a unionised company, but there may be some sort of staff council or external welfare agency able to advise.

 

[island]

It is possible that as a trainee chartered accountant you will have a duty to disclose your conviction immediately to them, and in any case chartered accountancy once qualified is a role exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This means you will always have to disclose your conviction if you are asked, even after it is spent, and your employer will be legally allowed to ask you about old or spent convictions, and impose penalties or fire you if you are convicted or fail to disclose a conviction.

I think some minor clarification is needed here:

• Chartered accountancy can have a standard DBS check upon entry to the profession (only)
• A minor conviction will drop off a standard DBS check after eleven years

Nevertheless, honesty will be the best policy.

 

[LAX54]

They might not, but court decisions are a matter of public record so it's perfectly possible they could. Maybe they check periodically, maybe a random coincidence, who knows.

But the one thing we can all agree on is that if you took the risk of not disclosing your conviction, and they *did* subsequently find out, you're creating another level of dishonesty over and above the offence you were convicted for by hiding it

Front up and be honest is the best advice

If someone is not honest with their employer, and in this industry, then it will, or would question how the public would see it when seeking a Chartered Accountant, its not really a first offence, but just the first time being caught out.
Is this seen as fraud, as opposed to 'not a massive deal' ?

 

[John R]

Just to give one example of how not disclosing can be more serious than the crime, I am an actuary, a very similar profession to accountancy. A few years ago my employer dismissed another actuary who had been convicted of a criminal offence. They were dismissed not because they had been convicted of the offence, but because they had not disclosed it either to the employer, or to the actuarial professional body, as they were required to do.

And bluntly, if your attitude is "how can I get away with not disclosing it, even if I am required to do so", I think there's a wider question you need to think carefully about as to whether you are embarking on the right career.

 

[some bloke]

It seems to me that you now need to either get formal confirmation in writing from the regulator and/or employer that you don't need to declare the charge, or declare it.

The regulator"s document which @87 027 cited above says,

"Examples of matters that are likely to constitute misconduct relating to an individual’s personal activities include:
• Being charged with, or convicted of, one or more criminal offences involving dishonesty, fraud, extortion or bribery".

Because your case began through SJP, it should be a byelaw prosecution: the charge should be related to not having a valid ticket, rather than mentioning intent to avoid a fare.

However, we might think that in a relevant sense your offence did "involve dishonesty".

Regulators and employers tend to be interested in the picture more completely, not just technicalities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==

As it seems highly unlikely that you will not be convicted unless a lawyer finds an unusual way (which is difficult with these strict liability offences) you might decide that it's best to declare the charge.

To ask a meaningful and honest question about whether to declare it, you may think that you would have to include the dishonesty bit.

And the usual approach is that if in doubt you should declare.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think some minor clarification is needed here:

• Chartered accountancy can have a standard DBS check upon entry to the profession (only)
• A minor conviction will drop off a standard DBS check after eleven years

Nevertheless, honesty will be the best policy.

My wife is a chartered accountant and I have provided the advice based on her own experience and understanding; you may be conflating the requirements for registration with a professional body with those typically required of employers.

 

[WesternLancer]

So what exactly will happen in court? Will they just be asking me to confirm if I'm pleading guilty or not guilty?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==

@island wrote a useful post on another thread about what happens at court which I am copying below in case it helps give you an idea (I'm not an expert ref courts so hopefully if any of this is not relevant to your case then it can get corrected):


When attending court, you should bring with you copies of all paperwork you have received, and a form MC100 income and expenditure form. If there is anything on paper that you will want to give the court, such as a statement, you must have six copies of each document:

• Three for the magistrates
• one for the legal advisor
• one for the prosecution
• one for yourself

It is strongly recommended to dress formally. Where possible, gentlemen should wear a dark suit, tie, and formal shoes, and ladies should wear a suit with jacket, a formal top and skirt/trousers, or a dress, nothing too revealing, formal shoes and tights or similar should be worn. Jeans, trainers, open-toed shoes, anything bright, gaudy, or with slogans of any sort should be avoided.

At the court, you should make sure to arrive in good time before the time indicated on your summons. You will need to pass through security checks, which will typically include a walk-through metal detector and a bag search. Certain items are prohibited – check the Courts Service website.

Most courthouses have a number of courtrooms. You will need to check a noticeboard to see which courtroom your case has been assigned to. Staff can point this out. Speak to staff to identify yourself as a defendant.

You will probably have a fair bit of waiting around to do. Bring a book/magazine. You can use your phone whilst waiting in the court building but it should be on silent/do not disturb when in the court room itself.

When you are called into the courtroom, staff will indicate where you need to go. Do not sit down until invited to do so. You will likely have three magistrates sitting at the back on the highest level, with a legal adviser in front of them. (It's possible but unlikely that these four will be replaced by a single district judge.) Towards the centre of the court will be one or more prosecutors – solicitors representing TfL.

The legal adviser will ask you to confirm your personal details (name/address/DOB) and from there they will step you through what needs to be done – you'll likely be asked to confirm your guilty plea and then explain your mitigation. Mitigation means the reasons you are saying the court should punish you less harshly, or not at all.

After that, it could go off in several different directions, so I can't predict beyond there, all I can do is remind you that the court understands that their process is unfamiliar and will be happy for you to ask clarifying questions if you are unsure about anything. If you end up with a fine, you'll be asked if you can pay it right away (which really means within 28 days) or if you need to pay in instalments; they'll usually want it paying within 12 months. A letter will be sent to you with instructions on how to pay online, over the phone, or with a barcode at a "Paypoint" (convenience store).

Finally, don't be tempted to call anyone "your Honour" – that phrase isn't used at Magistrates Court. The magistrates collectively are addressed as "your Worships". Anyone else, including magistrates individually, should be addressed as "sir" or "madam" (not "ma'am").

 

[greyman42]

I was caught using my younger sibling's 11-15 Zip card (I am 21 years old) by a revenue inspector in early July.

Was this a one off or have you used the card on multiple occasions?

 

[26231421]

Thank you again for the responses, I've had a read and I have some further questions.

Attending court and chance of not being prosecuted:

Can I please get some clarification on a few things, as I am unfamiliar with all of this:

• What is an out-of-court settlement, and how would I request one?
• Could I contact TfL to ask for this before the hearing, or would I need to ask the prosecutor in court?
• Is it likely that this could be an option, or is it not worth trying? (I’ve heard TfL doesn’t usually offer these?)
• Since I’m already going to court, is it too late to request this (if it’s even an option)?

Additionally, the court summons I received states:

“For a case management hearing to discuss and identify the issues in the case and then fix a trial date. You should attend with witness names, addresses, and dates of birth (if any), along with their availability for the trial date.”

When I called, they said this is a pre-trial hearing. Does this mean the actual trial would only occur if I changed my plea to not guilty?

I also called again to confirm if it’s possible for me not to attend the hearing since I’m still pleading guilty. They said I could email and request this, and in the same email, I could restate my plea.

So, my main question is: Is there any chance at all that I won’t be prosecuted? If not, I’ll email to clearly state that I am guilty and request that they decide the case in my absence, if possible. They also mentioned that if I still need to provide input, I could request a phone or video call due to my anxiety about attending in person.

If prosecuted:

After reading all the responses I have realised that the bigger issue is not telling my employer but informing the ICAEW. I’m fairly sure that if the ICAEW allows me to continue, my employer would also be okay, as they are quite lenient and understanding. However, this is something I’ll address after receiving a response from the ICAEW. If they say I cannot continue, I wouldn’t be able to remain employed anyway.

I’m not sure if anyone would know this, but regarding disclosing the conviction to the ICAEW, what exactly would they be aware of? Would they just know the offence— “Entering a compulsory ticket area on the Transport for London regional railway network without a valid ticket”—or would they also have access to details like my plea, my conversation with the inspector, etc.?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2024 ==

Because your case began through SJP, it should be a byelaw prosecution: the charge should be related to not having a valid ticket, rather than mentioning intent to avoid a fare.

However, we might think that in a relevant sense your offence did "involve dishonesty".

Regulators and employers tend to be interested in the picture more completely, not just technicalities.

Can I ask what a byelaw prosecution is?

On the letters I have received, it states:

‘Byelaw 17(1) - No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area unless he has with him a valid ticket’

and

‘Enter a compulsory ticket area on the Transport for London regional railway network without a valid ticket.
Contrary to byelaw 17(1) and 23 of the Transport for London Railways 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’

Since this is a byelaw prosecution, does this mean it’s possible that the ICAEW may allow me to continue with my qualification?

Whereas letting them know ahead of time and then confirming afterwards may give reason for them to accept that you are doing your best to be candid and honest.

Thank you for the advice. I think I’ll speak to my line manager after the court hearing, before I receive the letter with the penalty, to give her a heads-up and get her advice. Once I receive the letter, I’ll contact the ICAEW and see what they say.

They were dismissed not because they had been convicted of the offence, but because they had not disclosed it

Can I ask what the offence was? I just want to compare it to my situation to understand how serious my offence might be considered by my employer.

@island wrote a useful post on another thread about what happens at court which I am copying below in case it helps give you an idea

Thank you for this, I really appreciate it.

 

[Hadders]

TfL do not offer out of court settlements. They do sometimes give a formal warning instead or prosecuting but this won't normally happen for misusing a Zip Osyter card.

I suggest you read TfL's Revenue Protection & Prosecutions which I lijked to in my earlier post, particularly section 8.

I don't know the answer to your question about what ICAEW would be able to find out. I suspect they would only know the details of the offence but I'll leave it to other forum members to answer who know more than me about this sort of thing.

 

[26231421]

TfL do not offer out of court settlements. They do sometimes give a formal warning instead or prosecuting but this won't normally happen for misusing a Zip Osyter card.

I suggest you read TfL's Revenue Protection & Prosecutions which I lijked to in my earlier post, particularly section 8.

I don't know the answer to your question about what ICAEW would be able to find out. I suspect they would only know the details of the offence but I'll leave it to other forum members to answer who know more than me about this sort of thing.

What is a formal warning? Would I get this by pleading not guilty or how would I receive it? Would I need to ask the prosecutor in court, or is it too late since I’ve already received the court summons? Even though I’ve expressed my sincere regrets and apologies regarding the situation, is this something they are unlikely to consider when making their decision?

I will have a read of TfL's Revenue Protection and Prosecutions, thank you.

 

[Hadders]

What is a formal warning? Would I get this by pleading not guilty or how would I receive it? Would I need to ask the prosecutor in court, or is it too late since I’ve already received the court summons? Even though I’ve expressed my sincere regrets and apologies regarding the situation, is this something they are unlikely to consider when making their decision?

I will have a read of TfL's Revenue Protection and Prosecutions, thank you.

If you've received a court summons TfL have decided to prosecute you. They aren't going to give you a formal warning.