Chance of criminal record?

[Stuart Ingram]

Hello,

Today I was caught without a valid ticket at Chislehurst station, southeastern. To summarise, over the past 7 months, I have stayed on for an extra stop, beyond Elmstead Woods - my usual station, approx 15 times. The only reason has been to save a few minutes for the walk home. In hindsight, my stupidity on this is shining through.

I was interviewed at the station and advised I would receive a letter in 3-6 weeks.

My question is whether this will likely result in a criminal conviction / record? I tried to get some information and the chap mentioned ‘they do like to settle’ however I’m not sure if this would still result in a record.

It’s not my intention to lodge any kind of appeal.

 

[falcon]

If 'they settle' you do not get a criminal record because that means settled before court.

 

[Stuart Ingram]

Thanks. I suppose it’s a matter of waiting for the letter. I just wonder how serious it is in comparison to other ‘offenders’ and the likelihood of avoiding a record.

 

[Nick66]

If you often go beyond your usual station, why don’t you buy a ticket? Sorry but that’s the only way to avoid this. I’ve overheard people saying “the fare is this, the fine is that, if you’re only caught once in X times it’s OK” it’s not.

 

[Stuart Ingram]

I have no defence. It only saves me a couple of minutes in the long run. The price difference in tickets is minimal.

The only point I wanted to make during my interview was they claimed I was doing it every day whilst that’s certainly not the case. I hope they check the details to prove that.

 

[cuccir]

What ticket did you hold? Was it a season ticket?

Unfortunately for you, train companies are much less inclined to settle when people have admitted to repeated fare evasion as you have. If you were using a season ticket this is also a problem for you - companies also view misuse of these quite dimly, given that their open-ended and discounted nature leaves them more open to abuse.

I hope you can see that from Southeastern's perspective, if you've been dishonest in repeatedly over-travelling, they'll be much less inclined to believe that you've not done this every day.

That said - out of court settlements are possible, particularly if you've got no record of this before. Southeastern can and do often offer settlements. There should be an opportunity to respond apologetically to their letter: do this, and offer to pay for the missed fares and their costs in investigating to date. Hopefully they'll reply to you with a figure to settle.

 

[Stuart Ingram]

Yes it was a season ticket.

I absolutely see it from their point of view. No excuses on my part. It’s my poor wife I feel bad for.

Worst case, other threads seem to indicate it stays on a criminal record for a year until spent?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . they claimed I was doing it every day whilst that’s certainly not the case. I hope they check the details to prove that.

If there was to be a Prosecutions (and I am sure that a settlement will be offered if this is the first time that you have come to their attention) then for a Prosecution to succeed which includes the claim that you have done this on other occasions, then they would have to present evidence of that claim to the standard of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

In terms of 'a record', after making a settlement before it reaches a summons being issued to attend a Court, then the only record will be that held by the Railway Company. It will NOT appear in the 'Police National Computer' or any other such record which is accessible during security vetting or searches of records in Courts or other governmental agencies.

 

[furlong]

Season ticket between where and Elmstead Woods at what price?

 

[30907]

What ticket did you hold? Was it a season ticket?

Unfortunately for you, train companies are much less inclined to settle when people have admitted to repeated fare evasion as you have. If you were using a season ticket this is also a problem for you - companies also view misuse of these quite dimly, given that their open-ended and discounted nature leaves them more open to abuse.

I hope you can see that from Southeastern's perspective, if you've been dishonest in repeatedly over-travelling, they'll be much less inclined to believe that you've not done this every day.

That said - out of court settlements are possible, particularly if you've got no record of this before. Southeastern can and do often offer settlements. There should be an opportunity to respond apologetically to their letter: do this, and offer to pay for the missed fares and their costs in investigating to date. Hopefully they'll reply to you with a figure to settle.

And, with respect to the OP, the price difference on a London Terminals season is 25%, which isn't what I would call minimal.

 

[Stuart Ingram]

Furlong - London Cannon Street to elmstead woods season ticket was 1350. Chislehurst season ticket was 1800.

 

[Stuart Ingram]

Can I check the time a conviction would stay on my record for?

I have seen references to both one and five years?

 

[falcon]

When you were interviewed did you say you had done it approx 15 times to the inspector. Were you cautioned "you do not have to say anything ....blah blah"?

 

[Stuart Ingram]

Yes I admitted to the number of times.

I was cautioned / charged yes.

 

[furlong]

Presumably the ticket says London Terminals rather than Cannon Street on it. Some tickets allow unexpected alternative routes setting off in the opposite direction, but I can't find any in this particular case.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Yes I admitted to the number of times.

I was cautioned / charged yes.

If you are convicted of an offence under the Railway Byelaws 2005 (e.g. Byelaw 18 - failing to showing a valid ticket when asked) - then this is non-recordable and immediately spent and should not appear on any PNC record nor on any DBS disclosure.

If you are convicted of an offence under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (e.g. Section 5(3) - failing to pay the fare due with intent to avoid payment thereof) - then this is recordable and would appear on PNC along with all DBS checks for one year. After that year it is 'spent' under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, but it may still be disclosed, if deemed relevant, for 'enhanced' DBS checks.

 

[_toommm_]

If you are convicted of an offence under the Railway Byelaws 2005 (e.g. Byelaw 18 - failing to showing a valid ticket when asked) - then this is non-recordable and immediately spent and should not appear on any PNC record nor on any DBS disclosure.

If you are convicted of an offence under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (e.g. Section 5(3) - failing to pay the fare due with intent to avoid payment thereof) - then this is recordable and would appear on PNC along with all DBS checks for one year. After that year it is 'spent' under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, but it may still be disclosed, if deemed relevant, for 'enhanced' DBS checks.

And if you were required for an enhanced DBS check for a job, I would disclose the matter to the employer before they found it out - if you were to give your side of the story first, they would look upon it more favourably as opposed to you trying to hide it. What they then make of the offence is of course up to them though.

 

[cuccir]

Furlong - London Cannon Street to elmstead woods season ticket was 1350. Chislehurst season ticket was 1800.

Have you had a season ticket for several years? Southeastern may be trying to work out if they've just caught someone who has been cheating them out of £400+ a year for some time. It is possible they might ask to speak to you: they do this in more serious cases and I'd say yours borders on this level of severity.

Nonetheless: they do offer to settle in relatively serious cases, and they will be aware that any claim that this was daily would need proving in court. So an offer to settle is not impossible, just less likely than in some other cases.

 

[falcon]

Yes I admitted to the number of times.

I was cautioned / charged yes.

Phewwwwwwwww!
Well they have the evidence they require to prosecute under bye law offence or RORA.

As has been said you don't want an offence under RORA (regulation of railways act 1889 sec 5).

 

[PaxmanValenta]

Yes it was a season ticket.

I absolutely see it from their point of view. No excuses on my part. It’s my poor wife I feel bad for.

Worst case, other threads seem to indicate it stays on a criminal record for a year until spent?

Can I check the time a conviction would stay on my record for?

I have seen references to both one and five years?

Minor offences are spent after 5 years. However when applying for a job such as working with children or vulnerable people such as in education or healthcare which requires a full DBS check OR when wanting to travel to places like the USA, Australia and possibly EU countries after Brexit no criminal offence no matter how minor is considered spent. All offences show up. For example the USA does not recognise the British rehabilitation of offenders act.

 

[SussexMan]

Minor offences are spent after 5 years.

Where did you get your information from?

https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment

OR when wanting to travel to places like the USA, Australia and possibly EU countries after Brexit no criminal offence no matter how minor is considered spent. All offences show up.

I wasn't aware that all these countries had access to the computer system which holds details of offences. Are you sure they "show up"?

 

[najaB]

Minor offences are spent after 5 years.

This is incorrect. They are now considered spent after 12 months.

 

[island]

This is incorrect. They are now considered spent after 12 months.

Depends on the sentence rather than whether an offence is "minor" or not.

I wasn't aware that all these countries had access to the computer system which holds details of offences. Are you sure they "show up"?

"Show up" was perhaps a poor choice of words. Those countries do expect that when a visa applicant (or similar) is asked a question regarding convictions, that the applicant include spent convictions.

 

[randyrippley]

Can I just point out that the OP appears to have posted using his own name. I really hope he's not been that silly.
He's admitted to a crime in public

 

[najaB]

Depends on the sentence rather than whether an offence is "minor" or not.

Well, the assumption was that minor offences will result in light sentences