Hypothetical: What will happen to my job?

[Fawkes Cat]

Quite frequently, we get new correspondents here who have been caught without a ticket / short faring / generally getting far enough on the wrong side of the railway such as to be threatened with prosecution. And quite a lot of the time, they want to know what the consequences will be for their job if they are convicted.

I am happy that our broad advice is good for bylaw convictions - i.e that bylaw convictions don't end up on the PNC, and won't show up on any sort of DBS check. And I have no reason to think that what we say about RORA convictions (they will be recorded, but drop off a standard DBS after a year) is wrong. But what I think we are generally being asked is 'what will my employer do if they find out I have been convicted?'

Obviously we can never give a 100% guaranteed answer to this: if offender A and offender B have been convicted of the same offence in the same circumstance, but work (in the same line of trade) for employers 1 and 2 respectively, it may be that employer 2 is sympathetic to B while employer 1 sacks A. But do we have any actual evidence of what - in the real world, and in general - employers do if they find out about a fare dodging employee?

Actual evidence might help us give better advice!

 

[island]

An RRA conviction will appear on a standard DBS indefinitely. Perhaps you were thinking of a basic DBS.

A company I’m familiar with withdrew a job offer recently to a candidate who declared she had no criminal record, which was found to be untrue on the conducting of a DBS. The reason for the withdrawal was her dishonesty by not disclosing the unspent conviction (which was for common assault), not the conviction itself.

 

[SussexMan]

An RRA conviction will appear on a standard DBS indefinitely.

Not true. The following will explain why.

Filtering Guidelines

 

[kevconnor]

There are a number of factors to take account of. Working in both social care and financial services where enhanced DBS are required then trustworthiness is important, if a person is not open and honest about a conviction which later comes up on a DBS then they may have their offer withdrawn.

It's different however if the person already works for the employer or declares it in advance and I can't see too many roles where such a conviction would be a bar to employment or a cause for dismissal.

 

[island]

I don’t believe financial services roles require enhanced DBS.

 

[najaB]

I don’t believe financial services roles require enhanced DBS.

That is correct.

 

[kevconnor]

That is correct.

Afraid that is incorrect, whilst many roles within finance wont require enhanced DBS Chartered accountants are exempt under Rehabilitation of offender act 1974 (exemption order 1975) and enhanced DBS can be required for these roles. Membership of ACCA requires a DBS check to be carried out and an employer is entitled to carry out a check when recruiting to these roles. there are other roles within financial services which require DBS checks.

 

[najaB]

Membership of ACCA requires a DBS check to be carried out and an employer is entitled to carry out a check when recruiting to these roles. there are other roles within financial services which require DBS checks.

Indeed, I was only thinking about 'mindless drone' roles.

 

[route:oxford]

Quite frequently, we get new correspondents here who have been caught without a ticket / short faring / generally getting far enough on the wrong side of the railway such as to be threatened with prosecution. And quite a lot of the time, they want to know what the consequences will be for their job if they are convicted.

I am happy that our broad advice is good for bylaw convictions - i.e that bylaw convictions don't end up on the PNC, and won't show up on any sort of DBS check. And I have no reason to think that what we say about RORA convictions (they will be recorded, but drop off a standard DBS after a year) is wrong. But what I think we are generally being asked is 'what will my employer do if they find out I have been convicted?'

Obviously we can never give a 100% guaranteed answer to this: if offender A and offender B have been convicted of the same offence in the same circumstance, but work (in the same line of trade) for employers 1 and 2 respectively, it may be that employer 2 is sympathetic to B while employer 1 sacks A. But do we have any actual evidence of what - in the real world, and in general - employers do if they find out about a fare dodging employee?

Actual evidence might help us give better advice!

Surely it all depends on where you are in the UK when you fare dodge?

I can't find a case of a passenger going through the courts in Scotland for fare dodging - plenty of Scotrail being fined for failing. There is a story about a passengers being fined £1,000+ for singing on the train though.

Then there is more than one system for checks. There's DBS in England and Disclosure Scotland North of the Border.

Fraud is fraud. The last one I dealt with went through the disciplinary process and was dismissed. The professional body was duly notified and his professional qualification revoked.

 

[najaB]

I can't find a case of a passenger going through the courts in Scotland for fare dodging - plenty of Scotrail being fined for failing.

Largely because leave to bring a private prosecution is rarely granted, as I'm sure you are aware.

 

[island]

Afraid that is incorrect, whilst many roles within finance wont require enhanced DBS Chartered accountants are exempt under Rehabilitation of offender act 1974 (exemption order 1975) and enhanced DBS can be required for these roles. Membership of ACCA requires a DBS check to be carried out and an employer is entitled to carry out a check when recruiting to these roles. there are other roles within financial services which require DBS checks.

You’re the one who’s wrong there I’m afraid. Accountants are not eligible for an enhanced DBS check, only standard, and then only when they are joining the profession, not for a new role.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-che...l-or-legal-professional/accountant-or-actuary

 

[shredder1]

Quite frequently, we get new correspondents here who have been caught without a ticket / short faring / generally getting far enough on the wrong side of the railway such as to be threatened with prosecution. And quite a lot of the time, they want to know what the consequences will be for their job if they are convicted.

I am happy that our broad advice is good for bylaw convictions - i.e that bylaw convictions don't end up on the PNC, and won't show up on any sort of DBS check. And I have no reason to think that what we say about RORA convictions (they will be recorded, but drop off a standard DBS after a year) is wrong. But what I think we are generally being asked is 'what will my employer do if they find out I have been convicted?'

Obviously we can never give a 100% guaranteed answer to this: if offender A and offender B have been convicted of the same offence in the same circumstance, but work (in the same line of trade) for employers 1 and 2 respectively, it may be that employer 2 is sympathetic to B while employer 1 sacks A. But do we have any actual evidence of what - in the real world, and in general - employers do if they find out about a fare dodging employee?

Actual evidence might help us give better advice!

Employers have criminal records also, I spent sometime working with the probation services in employment, training and education, and some companies will employ offenders, especially with convictions at this level, but there are many variables of course.

 

[Mathew S]

When I (albeit a few years ago now) worked in education the basic principle was one of 'just be honest'. It was lying about a conviction which would lose you a job, not having one in the first place. I knew someone get a job as a youth worked despite having a firearms offence and trespassing on MOD property on their DBS, because they were honest and explained the circumstances upfront. I've even known teachers be done for drugs offences and keep their jobs, again because they were open and honest.
I don't think the advice in here is wrong, and of course we can't predict the reaction of a specific employer to a specific case. But I do think employers prefer to find out from people themselves being open and honest about it rather than anywhere else.

 

[Mathew S]

Employers have criminal records also, I spent sometime working with the probation services in employment, training and education, and some companies will employ offenders, especially with convictions at this level, but there are many variables of course.

One in three men and almost one in ten women in the UK (adults) have at least one criminal conviction by their early fifties. We all work with people who've been on the wrong side of the law, whether we know it or not.

 

[shredder1]

One in three men and almost one in ten women in the UK (adults) have at least one criminal conviction by their early fifties. We all work with people who've been on the wrong side of the law, whether we know it or not.

An interesting stat, what would be the date of this? I know a significent increase has occurred with new laws brought in, things like ASBO`s and internet crime and the changing drug laws from legal highs, but I bet its not far out. Goal posts move, as a child of the 50`s, bird egg collecting was a favourite pass time for many, its now a criminal offence of course and rightly so.

 

[DuncanS]

Both the DBS and DS system work with the rehabilitation of offenders act and minor offences will be removed at the end of their "unspent" period as set out by the relevant RoOA (its 2013 up here) - more serious crimes will stay on for a longer period.

In Scotland from February 17th there will only be 12 offences which will stay on a disclosure forever, everything else will see the individual have the right to request removal if the offence is spent under RoOA and there has been sufficient time passed since the date of conviction.

 

[fowler9]

In one company I worked for I had a colleague who had prior conviction for a drug offense which he told the company about, no problem. Someone else who started working for the company and didn't let them know about a prior drug offense was let go when the company found out about about it. Another person I worked with at another company was sacked then they got in trouble for football hooliganism. Not sure what you can draw from any of that but they are my experiences. Just to add to that I have never known of anyone being sacked or not given a job for speeding or bunking on the train.

 

[Mathew S]

An interesting stat, what would be the date of this? I know a significent increase has occurred with new laws brought in, things like ASBO`s and internet crime and the changing drug laws from legal highs, but I bet its not far out. Goal posts move, as a child of the 50`s, bird egg collecting was a favourite pass time for many, its now a criminal offence of course and rightly so.

Not sure on the date, but the source is the charity Unlock: http://www.unlock.org.uk/about-us/our-mission/

 

[Hadders]

An interesting stat, what would be the date of this? I know a significent increase has occurred with new laws brought in, things like ASBO`s and internet crime and the changing drug laws from legal highs, but I bet its not far out. Goal posts move, as a child of the 50`s, bird egg collecting was a favourite pass time for many, its now a criminal offence of course and rightly so.

On the flip side more crimes are kept out of court due to Fixed Penalty Notices and Administrative Settlements than before. That's before we start looking at things like the Police refusing to deal with shoplifters who have stolen less than £200 worth of stock.....

 

[shredder1]

On the flip side more crimes are kept out of court due to Fixed Penalty Notices and Administrative Settlements than before. That's before we start looking at things like the Police refusing to deal with shoplifters who have stolen less than £200 worth of stock.....

Yes indeed,

 

[shredder1]

Not sure on the date, but the source is the charity Unlock: http://www.unlock.org.uk/about-us/our-mission/

OK thanks

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I can't find a case of a passenger going through the courts in Scotland for fare dodging - . . .

Here are two cases of private prosecutions by the Railways, which I hope you agree are very significant, identifying that one of the principles of Criminal Evidence in Scotland is that of corroboration :-

British Railways Board v Dick (1965) SLT (Sh. Ct.) 25

Passenger David Dick was accused on the evidence of the one Witness, Inspector James Watt. The sufficiency of a single witness was a statutory exception to the general rule requiring two or more credible witnesses. The 1845 RCC(S)A S.137 provides that proof of an offence may be “upon the Oath of One credible Witness or more”. The Sheriff-Substitute granted Dick an absolute discharge.
B.R.B. Appealled to the Glasgow Sheriff Court.
The higher Court convicted Dick under S.96 of the Act.
Sheriff-Substitute John Bayne on 9th December 1964
​

shortly followed by :-

Gerber v British Railways Board (1969) SLT 81 (Scot)

Court found “in the absence of corroboration of the ticket inspector’s evidence, there was insufficient evidence to warrant conviction”.
Bernard Gerber travelled from Williamwood to Mount Florida and was asked to produce a ticket after having concealed himself behind the booking office. He produced a ticket for Mount Florida to Uddingston and claimed to have thrown away the used ticket. On checking with the ticket office at Williamwood, that story was disproved. Accused of intending to avoid payment contrary to RoRA S.5.3 (a).
Gerber Appealed.
Four witnesses confirmed the prosecution evidence. Prosecution referred to British Railways Board v Dick (1965) SLT (Sh.Ct.) 25 in which a conviction followed from evidence of a single witness. Held that the decision in Dick was wrong in law as the Common Law of Scotland required corroboration of the essential facts of a case.

Lord Justice General Clyde, Lords Guthrie & Migdale on 1st November 1969​

Since that decision in Gerber, there has not been an appetite for private prosecutions by the Railways in Scotland. Other private Prosecutions have usually been advised to make a robust and confident assessment of the outcome - consider the abandoned private prosecution following the 'Glasgow bin lorry' tragedy in December 2014. Private Prosecutions in Scotland are very poorly reported but are more common than often understood (I've seen two in the High Court myself, with no press or law reporter in Court). There was the widely publiced first failed prosecution in X v Sweeney in 1982 followed by the under-publicised successful prosecution of exactly the same offence on a second attempt thereafter. But procedures in Scotland changed in July 2015, and now a victim of a crime in Scotland may request a review of a decision not to prosecute under the 2014 Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act S.4 . The Railways do not appear to have taken advantage of that opportunity.
Yet.

 

[falcon]

In short. Railway bye law offences and RORA offence do not show up on any DBS checks they are filtered out.They are far too insignificant.

List of Offence NOT fitered out is here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ever-be-filtered-from-a-criminal-record-check

 

[najaB]

In short. Railway bye law offences and RORA offence do not show up on any DBS checks they are filtered out.

That is incorrect. RoRA offences are recordable, and are considered spent after 12 months. Until then they will show up on a DBS check.

 

[yorkie]

In short. Railway bye law offences and RORA offence do not show up on any DBS checks they are filtered out.They are far too insignificant.

Not quite true in the case of the latter; see reply by najaB for the correct information.

That is incorrect. RoRA offences are recordable, and are considered spent after 12 months. Until then they will show up on a DBS check.

 

[falcon]

That is incorrect. RoRA offences are recordable, and are considered spent after 12 months. Until then they will show up on a DBS check.

I cannot see that on the filtering list where does that come from?

 

[najaB]

I cannot see that on the filtering list where does that come from?

The key word is in the title of the document you linked to: List of offences that will never be filtered from a DBS certificate.

It only lists offences that will never be hidden.

 

[Mathew S]

I cannot see that on the filtering list where does that come from?

Filtering isn't as simple as saying 'is it on the list of specified offences?' and if not it will be filtered:

What PNC information will be filtered from inclusion on a DBS certificate?
The rules as to when a conviction or caution will be filtered are set out in legislation. This states that a certificate must include the following:

• cautions relating to an offence from a list agreed by Parliament (see below)
• cautions given less than 6 years ago (where individual 18 or over at the time of caution)
• cautions given less than 2 years ago (where individual under 18 at the time of caution)
• convictions relating to an offence from a prescribed list (see below)
• where the individual has more than one conviction offence all convictions will be included on the certificate (no conviction will be filtered)
• convictions that resulted in a custodial sentence (regardless of whether served)
• convictions which did not result in a custodial sentence, given less than 11 years ago (where individual 18 or over at the time of conviction)
• convictions which did not result in a custodial sentence, given less than 5.5 years ago (where individual under 18 at the time of conviction)

That's taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-filtering-guidance/dbs-filtering-guide

So, for Standard and Enhanced disclosures ONLY:

• If an individual has more than one conviction then all will always be included on the disclosure certificate, even if they would otherwise have been filtered.
• Convictions for which a custodial sentence was handed down will always be included on the disclosure certificate, no matter what they are for. This applies even for suspended sentences.
  
• Convictions resulting in a discharge, fine, or community sentence will normally remain on for 11 years from the date of conviction (or 5.5 years for under-18s).

For Basic disclosures, an offence drops off the disclosure certificate once it is considered spent as per the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This is a complex area, but in summary these are the time periods after which a conviction is considered spent:

• Community order or youth rehabilitation order: Total length of order plus 1 year
  
• Prison sentence or detention in a young offender institution for 6 months or less: Total length of sentence (including licence period) plus 2 years
• Prison sentence or detention in a young offender institution for over 6 months and up to and including 30 months (2½ years): Total length of sentence (including licence period) plus 4 years
• Prison sentence or detention in a young offender institution for over 30 months (2½ years) and up to 48 months (4 years): Total length of sentence (including licence period) plus 7 years
• Imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for over 48 months (4 years) or a public protection sentence: Never spent

The periods before a conviction is spent are halved for under-18s. That information is from NACRO and can be found here: https://www.nacro.org.uk/resettleme...riminal-records/rehabilitation-offenders-act/
https://www.nacro.org.uk/resettleme...riminal-records/rehabilitation-offenders-act/
Anyone who does have any kind of conviction and wishes to determine if/when it will be regarded as spent can use http://www.disclosurecalculator.org.uk/ which is provided by the charity Unlock and will work the relevant dates out for you step by step.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry @falcon but it is not a case of saying "anything not listed on there won't be shown"

(I remember when a colleague got a job, a caution he got when he was aged about 15 was disclosed! He hadn't disclosed it to his employer, because at the time the police had said something like 'it won't appear on your record once you reach 18'. It didn't stop him getting the job though)

 

[falcon]

Sorry ! yes I see it now when I searched it brought up a list of never filtered offences. Thanks.

I can see from these posts that some minor offences are NOT filtered until after a certain period.

So it does appear that a conviction for and RORA offence could be revealed.

People don't realise what a bad idea it is to try and avoid paying for a ticket.