Single Justice Procedure Notice - Penalty Fare Magistrates Court Charge

[jjakot11]

So, I was given a penalty fare notice back in March after I tapped in using my phone at Clapham but my phone had died before getting to Waterloo. I forgot to appeal the notice, which was within my right as I had actually tapped in, due to the fact I lost the penalty notice. Was later issued a greater fine which I was unable to pay due to having been made redundant and have now received a charge in the post asking me to plead either guilty or not guilty to:

Failure to hand over valid ticket not in a designated compulsory ticket area - railway bye-law; Contrary to byelaw 18(2) and 24 of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Railway Authority and confirmed under schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000, as amended by Section 46 of the Railways Act 2005. I've looked online for information regarding this as I'm due to start work in the financial sector in a couple of weeks and would very much not like this to be taken to court or appear as a criminal conviction

I've emailed the prosecutions email for the railway company explaining this and provided a snapshot of a bank statement showing the maximum fare charge I incurred for not having tapped out for this particular journey and this also showed another tfl journey within a similar timeframe which I hope at least shows I pay for my travel regularly and pleaded to settle this out of court. Would anyone have any insight into what sort of reply to expect, potential cost to settle out of court and whether a not guilty plea would stand up in court providing I show evidence of initially tapping in and then being charged a maximum fare? Thanks in advance

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum.

Let's start with the bad news. On the basis of what you have told us,

I was given a penalty fare notice back in March after I tapped in using my phone at Clapham but my phone had died before getting to Waterloo.

if this goes to court you will be convicted, because the charge is

Failure to hand over valid ticket not in a designated compulsory ticket area - railway bye-law; Contrary to byelaw 18(2) and 24 of the Railway Byelaws

You didn't hand over a valid ticket, and the byelaw just considers your action and not your intention.

Now for some good news: I understand byelaw convictions are ''immediately spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act - so you are not obliged to tell a new employer about it. But (less than good) if I were an employer and discovered that an employee had (a) been charged a penalty fare and (b) not paid it until they were brought to court, I would be unhappy: I would be less unhappy if the employee made a clean breast of it and explained what had happened and why.

So your instinct to seek an out of court settlement is right. Someone with more knowledge should be along soon who can comment on your chances of success at this stage.

 

[jjakot11]

Thank you very much for the swift reply, just to clarify on the last page I received it says if you plead guilty or the court finds you guilty you acquire a criminal conviction, will this go on my record and if a byelaw conviction is immediately spent how does it remain on your criminal record?

You can understand my dilemma, I'd already signed the contract prior to receiving this notice, it would be unwise for me to mention anything at work if this can be resolved outside of it as I believe at this stage (haven't even started working there yet) it would reflect so poorly on a new employee even though honesty is an admirable trait.

 

[Stigy]

Thank you very much for the swift reply, just to clarify on the last page I received it says if you plead guilty or the court finds you guilty you acquire a criminal conviction, will this go on my record and if a byelaw conviction is immediately spent how does it remain on your criminal record?

You can understand my dilemma, I'd already signed the contract prior to receiving this notice, it would be unwise for me to mention anything at work if this can be resolved outside of it as I believe at this stage (haven't even started working there yet) it would reflect so poorly on a new employee even though honesty is an admirable trait.

If found guilty, you’ll receive a criminal conviction as it’s a criminal offence. However, Byelaw convictions are non-recordable, basically meaning that there’s no immediate paper trail that would be there if convicted of a recordable offence (recordable convictions are recorded in the Police National Computer and this is where agencies such as the Data and Barring Service (DBS) get their info from).

In a nutshell, if asked directed if you have been convicted if a criminal offence, you’d be lying if you said you hadn’t been. However, it’s extremely unlikely that you’d be ‘found out’ assuming the company for whom you work don’t go beyond the likes of DBS to check on your past. As has been said though, I’d be more unhappy as your employer if I found you lied to me (it boils down to integrity). You’d probably be able to play naive and say you weren’t aware it was a criminal matter, but I’d be inclined justvto make them aware it was just a penalty fare matter that you forgot about, and it sounds less serious.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

if a byelaw conviction is immediately spent how does it remain on your criminal record?

- In effect, on conviction it goes straight on to your criminal record - and then comes straight off again. So for most purposes it's as if the conviction never happened.

There's one purpose for which it definitely happened - that's paying the fine and court costs and so on. And rather more tentatively, I think an enhanced DBS check (the sort needed to work with children and other vulnerable people) might uncover it. Please note I am not certain on this point.

, I'd already signed the contract prior to receiving this notice, it would be unwise for me to mention anything at work if this can be resolved outside of it as I believe at this stage (haven't even started working there yet) it would reflect so poorly on a new employee even though honesty is an admirable trait.

- you will know your new employer better than anyone else here, so ultimately it is your decision. I only note that were I an employer and I was to discover that an employee had not brought a material matter to my attention, I would not be pleased - possibly to the point of considering it to frustrate the relationship of trust between employer and employee and so to frustrate the contract of employment (so in English rather than legalese, if they found out that you hadn't told them, they'd sack you).

 

[jjakot11]

Thank you very much for this reply stigy, certainly has made me feel a lot more at ease. Don't know if you or anyone else has more experience dealing with these queries but on the notice it says one might usually receive a 33% reduction in the fine should they plead guilty, is it worth me pleading guilty for a reduction in the fine? From all accounts online it seems as though looking to settle out of court may incur larger fees but if this is a spent conviction and there is a considerably less significant chance this flags up to an employer would I be better off admitting guilt? I will obviously asses the terms of the out of court settlement should I receive one but I was just looking for more general information regarding this topic

 

[jjakot11]

also thanks for your reply Fawkes Cat, I completely understand why it's in my best interest to inform my employer, I just don't know if it's necessary to discuss it before I've received a response in regards to being able to settle out of court.

 

[221129]

Thank you very much for this reply stigy, certainly has made me feel a lot more at ease. Don't know if you or anyone else has more experience dealing with these queries but on the notice it says one might usually receive a 33% reduction in the fine should they plead guilty, is it worth me pleading guilty for a reduction in the fine? From all accounts online it seems as though looking to settle out of court may incur larger fees but if this is a spent conviction and there is a considerably less significant chance this flags up to an employer would I be better off admitting guilt? I will obviously asses the terms of the out of court settlement should I receive one but I was just looking for more general information regarding this topic

The out of Court Settlement is almost always cheaper. As it is the costs incurred by the TOC. On conviction at court you would still have to pay these (likely higher) costs plus a fine (which is the bit that is discounted) and a victim surcharge.

 

[221129]

also thanks for your reply Fawkes Cat, I completely understand why it's in my best interest to inform my employer, I just don't know if it's necessary to discuss it before I've received a response in regards to being able to settle out of court.

There is no point mentioning it until you have a conviction.

 

[jjakot11]

Thanks again 221129, you've all been so helpful I don't know how to thank you all!

 

[Stigy]

Thank you very much for this reply stigy, certainly has made me feel a lot more at ease. Don't know if you or anyone else has more experience dealing with these queries but on the notice it says one might usually receive a 33% reduction in the fine should they plead guilty, is it worth me pleading guilty for a reduction in the fine? From all accounts online it seems as though looking to settle out of court may incur larger fees but if this is a spent conviction and there is a considerably less significant chance this flags up to an employer would I be better off admitting guilt? I will obviously asses the terms of the out of court settlement should I receive one but I was just looking for more general information regarding this topic

The best thing would be to avoid court full stop, and offer to settle with the TOC administratively, meeting all reasonable costs the have incurred. If it goes to court, you will indeed receive a third off the fine for an early guilty plea. To be honest if you don’t settle out of court, you’d be silly to go not guilty. It’s a strict liability offence meaning there’s no defence really. Because of the single justice system also now in place, this means that the evidence is simply given to the magistrates and they make a decision based on what’s in front of them for simple bylaw matters (the prosecutors don’t attend these cases as they ordinarily used to). This can be good or bad for the defendant depending on the quality of the statements, but equally it means if the evidence in the statements isn’t great, a TOC would be far more willing to settle out of court. They will of course not say this, but it makes sense for them to settle with you if there’s a chance the case will be thrown out.

 

[Puffing Devil]

If you opt for trial (not guilty plea) you opt out of the single just process; it would be scheduled for a full trial with the associated costs.

 

[furlong]

Small point, but 18(2) is not failure to hand over a valid ticket, but rather failure to hand over your ticket for inspection so its validity can be verified. (Validity is handled in law a different way.)

("My phone had died" might make for an interesting test case for a variety of reasons, but I won't divert the thread with a debate as to whether or not there might be 'no case to answer' in a situation such as this. I have witnessed a passenger with a dead phone being given the benefit of the doubt, the phone being plugged in and charged in a station office while they waited so the "ticket" on it could be accessed - but needless to say when the phone was working again, "ticket" was there none.)

 

[furlong]

So this doesn't sound like a prosecution for not paying your fare, but rather one simply for not handing over your ticket. In those narrow terms (ignoring wider legal principles), it doesn't matter if you prove you did have a valid ticket all along - they allege you still failed to hand it over.

 

[najaB]

And rather more tentatively, I think an enhanced DBS check (the sort needed to work with children and other vulnerable people) might uncover it.

It would not. However the type done in order to get a job with MI-5 or GCHQ, etc. would.

 

[island]

There is no point worrying the OP about enhanced DBS checks at present as financial sector roles require at most a standard one.

 

[jon0844]

It would not. However the type done in order to get a job with MI-5 or GCHQ, etc. would.

Which is a shame, as James Bond probably manages to avoid paying for travel so as not to leave any trace of his movements.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I would ignore anyone posting above that they would look unfavourably upon such a conviction were they an employer.

Such a conviction becomes spent immediately. It is your right to lie whenever anyone asks you about it. This is an important principle of our criminal justice system and no one can take that away from you. No one can ask you about spent convictions, and if they do, you don't have to tell them

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I wonder ignore anyone posting above that they would look unfavourably upon such a conviction were they an employer.

Such a conviction becomes spent immediately. It is your right to lie whenever anyone asks you about it. This is an important principle of our criminal justice system and no one can take that away from you. No one can ask you about spent convictions, and if they do, you don't have to tell them

There are exceptions to this though - if an employer etc. specifically states that the application/job is exempt from the general Rehabilitation of Offenders Act rules of spent convictions, then, provided they are actually right, you should definitely not lie about having convictions. Lying about having convictions, if they are discovered then or later, would have much greater consequences. However, this only applies in exceptional circumstances - such as others have suggested, applying to MI5, GCHQ, high-level police or for MoD non-admin jobs.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Though if a prospective employer makes such a claim, check that that they are right. First's online application forms previously claimed that they'll need details of spent convictions as bus driving is a Regulated Activity per the Health and Social Care Act 2008

 

[najaB]

First's online application forms previously claimed that they'll need details of spent convictions as bus driving is a Regulated Activity per the Health and Social Care Act 2008

School bus driver? Just noticed that it was the Health and Social Care Act.

 

[Haywain]

Such a conviction becomes spent immediately. It is your right to lie whenever anyone asks you about it. This is an important principle of our criminal justice system and no one can take that away from you. No one can ask you about spent convictions, and if they do, you don't have to tell them

On the whole, I think that most employers would prefer you to be honest about something like this. Tell them up front and most would, in my opinion, appreciate the information and the honesty of telling them about it.

 

[Muzer]

On the whole, I think that most employers would prefer you to be honest about something like this. Tell them up front and most would, in my opinion, appreciate the information and the honesty of telling them about it.

It doesn't matter what the employer would want. What matters is the law. You have no obligation to tell them and they can't discriminate against you because you didn't tell them. There's absolutely no reason why someone should disadvantage themselves by telling their employer something they have no legitimate reason to know about.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

It doesn't matter what the employer would want. What matters is the law. You have no obligation to tell them and they can't discriminate against you because you didn't tell them. There's absolutely no reason why someone should disadvantage themselves by telling their employer something they have no legitimate reason to know about.

It's worth pointing out the difference between the above and @PermitToTravel's statement

I would ignore anyone posting above that they would look unfavourably upon such a conviction were they an employer.

Such a conviction becomes spent immediately. It is your right to lie whenever anyone asks you about it.

It seems to me (and other people obviously feel differently) that if an employer asks someone with a byelaw conviction 'Do you have any criminal convictions?' there are three possible answers:

- to disclose that you do have one
- to state that you are under no obligation to disclose spent convictions
- to say that you have no convictions.

We are, I think, all agreed that no one is under any obligation to disclose that they have a conviction. The second answer states the legal position, but in practice it seems to me it invites a follow-up question of 'so do you have any convictions that you are under no obligation to disclose?'. Continued stonewalling would surely lead most employers to conclude that someone did have a conviction but didn't want to talk about it. What the employer then decides to do with this conclusion is another matter.

It's the third answer that bothers me. I'm fairly sure that those who say that an employer could not act against an employee on the basis of this (i.e. not disclosing information that the employee is entitled to keep private) are right. But it does seem to me that if an employer found that an employee had lied to them (and that's how PermitToTravel has characterised this sort of statement), then the employer could easily argue that the issue at stake was not what the lie was about, but the fact that an employee felt that lying to the employer about anything was appropriate. So you wouldn't be sacked because you had a byelaw conviction: you'd be sacked because you lied. But you'd still be sacked.

So my advice is still to volunteer the information. The OP (I think) explained that he was going into a financial sector job. That's not a sector that I've worked in but given that the financial sector has management of other people's assets (your bank account, my pension fund) then surely the greatest requirement - even above financial savvyness and good judgement - is trustworthiness, shown by honesty. In today's world, where the banks and financial institutions have not exactly covered themselves in glory over the last generation, they may not have done much about their culture (and in their hearts may not want to do much about their culture) - but they will want to be seen to be as clean as possible. And if that means sacking a new employee for a lie - whether a lie of commission ('I have no criminal convictions') or omission ('I don't need to tell you about my criminal convictions'), that will be a cost that the financial institution will be happy to take.

 

[PermitToTravel]

It's worth pointing out the difference between the above and @PermitToTravel's statement


It seems to me (and other people obviously feel differently) that if an employer asks someone with a byelaw conviction 'Do you have any criminal convictions?' there are three possible answers:

- to disclose that you do have one
- to state that you are under no obligation to disclose spent convictions
- to say that you have no convictions.

We are, I think, all agreed that no one is under any obligation to disclose that they have a conviction. The second answer states the legal position, but in practice it seems to me it invites a follow-up question of 'so do you have any convictions that you are under no obligation to disclose?'. Continued stonewalling would surely lead most employers to conclude that someone did have a conviction but didn't want to talk about it. What the employer then decides to do with this conclusion is another matter.

No, the law is pretty bloody clear:

(2)Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below, where a question seeking information with respect to a person’s previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances is put to him or to any other person otherwise than in proceedings before a judicial authority—

(a) the question shall be treated as not relating to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer thereto may be framed accordingly; and

(b) the person questioned shall not be subjected to any liability or otherwise prejudiced in law by reason of any failure to acknowledge or disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction in his answer to the question.

(3) Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below,—

(a) any obligation imposed on any person by any rule of law or by the provisions of any agreement or arrangement to disclose any matters to any other person shall not extend to requiring him to disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction (whether the conviction is his own or another’s); and

(b) a conviction which has become spent or any circumstances ancillary thereto, or any failure to disclose a spent conviction or any such circumstances, shall not be a proper ground for dismissing or excluding a person from any office, profession, occupation or employment, or for prejudicing him in any way in any occupation or employment.

No such dismissal would be legal. Your advice to the OP is actively harmful. Please stop.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

No, the law is pretty bloody clear:


No such dismissal would be legal. Your advice to the OP is actively harmful. Please stop.

This is an advice thread, so I agree that I should stop as it's not the place for an argument. But the law you have quoted refers specifically to cautions, so I don't think that it makes quite the point that you think it does.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

No, the law is pretty bloody clear:


No such dismissal would be legal. Your advice to the OP is actively harmful. Please stop.

I'm not sure you appreciate how limited peoples' employment rights are here until you have reached 2 years' service. You can be fired for any or no reason, provided it does not discriminate against a protected characteristic, and that it is not retribution for exercising an employment right.

The RoAA was clearly not designed with this in mind - so whilst it might indeed be improper to dismiss an employee for failing to disclose a spent conviction, there is no such thing as "unfair dismissal" before 2 years' service - only "automatically unfair dismissal", which must be claimed on the basis of one of the two things I have mentioned above.

As a result, AIUI, you can be fired for failing to disclose a spent conviction within the first 2 years of service - merely because, from a practical perspective, no sane HR department will give a reason for the dismissal. They will simply give you notice without a reason. Then proving that the dismissal was because of the non-declaration would be very hard.

 

[PermitToTravel]

This is an advice thread, so I agree that I should stop as it's not the place for an argument. But the law you have quoted refers specifically to cautions, so I don't think that it makes quite the point that you think it does.

Thanks, I've fixed the quote to refer to the section about convictions. (the wording is the same)

I'm not sure you appreciate how limited peoples' employment rights are here until you have reached 2 years' service. You can be fired for any or no reason, provided it does not discriminate against a protected characteristic, and that it is not retribution for exercising an employment right.

The RoAA was clearly not designed with this in mind - so whilst it might indeed be improper to dismiss an employee for failing to disclose a spent conviction, there is no such thing as "unfair dismissal" before 2 years' service - only "automatically unfair dismissal", which must be claimed on the basis of one of the two things I have mentioned above.

As a result, AIUI, you can be fired for failing to disclose a spent conviction within the first 2 years of service - merely because, from a practical perspective, no sane HR department will give a reason for the dismissal. They will simply give you notice without a reason. Then proving that the dismissal was because of the non-declaration would be very hard.

Thanks

In the spirit of properly advising the OP, from a practical perspective, is there any way an employer could find out about this? I understand that local newspapers occasionally report on such cases (although generally without naming people as there are usually dozens convicted on the same day) - would I be right in saying that for a case heard through the Single Justice Procedure, there is no chance of media coverage?

 

[najaB]

No such dismissal would be legal.

I'm not 100% sure that is correct. A dismissal for failure to disclose would be illegal, a dismissal for lying might not.

 

[PermitToTravel]

They're the same thing, so I really doubt that. Source?