Single Justice Procedure Notice - Penalty Fare Magistrates Court Charge

[najaB]

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

It's a basic legal principle. For example, remaining silent and not telling the police during questioning is a legal right and isn't illegal. Lying to them is.

 

[PermitToTravel]

(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;

makes it sound like it's not even a lie. The legislation would be meaningless if it had the restrictions you seem to think it does

 

[pedr]

In order for the scheme to work, subsection 2 (a) needs to mean that if an employer says the words “have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence” they are actually ‘saying’ “do you have any convictions which are not spent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act”. Since that is what the employer has asked (even if it is not what they think they have asked) then it is truthful to say “No” in response even if it would be untruthful if the Act didn’t exist.

Here’s what a quick google turns up: http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/convictions-employment-law-2/

 

[farleigh]

It's a basic legal principle. For example, remaining silent and not telling the police during questioning is a legal right and isn't illegal. Lying to them is.

I did not know that. What offence covers lying to the police??
I would have said this wrong but am happy to be corrected.

 

[najaB]

I did not know that. What offence covers lying to the police??
I would have said this wrong but am happy to be corrected.

If it's an investigation: perverting the course of justice.

 

[Stigy]

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

Depends on the job and whether the rehabilitation of offenders act applies. Some jobs require you to declare even convictions classed as spent (police officers/staff etc, or jobs where one is required to undergo developed vetting or security clearance).

 

[farleigh]

If it's an investigation: perverting the course of justice.

Thanks NB. Excuse my ignorance but does that not make everybody who pleads not guilty and is subsequently found guilty to have perverted the course of justice.
Sorry to take this off topic.

 

[najaB]

Thanks NB. Excuse my ignorance but does that not make everybody who pleads not guilty and is subsequently found guilty to have perverted the course of justice.
Sorry to take this off topic.

Not necessarily. You could have 'done the deed' but still have a legal defence. E.g. you could have killed someone, but not be guilty of murder since you acted in self-defence.

On a more practical level, in your example having already been found guilty of the main offence there's no public interest in a second prosecution for lying about it.

Generally though, 'I decline to answer that question.' is a better strategy than lying to the police if you ever find yourself accused of a crime (regardless of if you did it or not).

 

[Stigy]

If it's an investigation: perverting the course of justice.

Although technically accurate, the CPS would never prosecute for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice unless clear and intentional

Thanks NB. Excuse my ignorance but does that not make everybody who pleads not guilty and is subsequently found guilty to have perverted the course of justice.
Sorry to take this off topic.

Technically, but try proving it. Unless there’s definitive proof that a defendant intended to pervert the course of justice, it wouldn’t be prosecuted, in any case, let alone after being found guilty of an offence. Although the magistrates or a jury find a defendant guilty after they pleaded not guilty, that’s not to say there’s enough evidence to say said defendant intended to pervert the course of justice.

Even though technically it could be construed as perverting the course of justice, general lying to the police whilst under investigation would never be prosecuted either.

 

[najaB]

Although technically accurate, the CPS would never prosecute for Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice unless clear and intentional

Oh, definitely. I was just pointing out that a law had been broken, not that a prosecution was likely.

 

[farleigh]

Thanks both