[ficklebow]

had a very minor traffic offence, and i was advised to this this on my TWP application, which I did. I was asked to get a memorandum of conviction as it did not appear on my police check.

Now the high commission have asked my police check be reissued with this conviction on it. Unfortunately Acpo say that there are no details on the national police computer so they cannot do this.

Can anyone advise me? Why do they need this on the police check??? Im beginning to think i should not have mentioned it at all. Its been months now.

[Robin (The Gadget family)]

What was the minor traffic offence?

If it isn't a criminal offence then you would not have a criminal conviction.....maybe just points on your driving licence...depending on what the offence was. You need to give us a bit more information.

[ficklebow]

it wasnt a criminal conviction, i recieved one month ban for driving without due care ( drove on wrong side of road in error crashed into oncoming car) i was given 1 month ban instead of points as i was young driver and otherwise would have lost license, so they were lenient.

however i was advised to declare it on work application forms by bunac.

[JAJ]

Originally Posted by ficklebow it wasnt a criminal conviction, i recieved one month ban for driving without due care ( drove on wrong side of road in error crashed into oncoming car) i was given 1 month ban instead of points as i was young driver and otherwise would have lost license, so they were lenient. however i was advised to declare it on work application forms by bunac.

Are you saying you have incriminated yourself? Either you were convicted in court (or formally cautioned), or you weren't ... which is it?

[ficklebow]

yes it was a court conviction. But it is not a criminal conviction, civil, hence why it does not appear on a police check. not sure why you are confused, thought i explained that already?

[JAJ]

Originally Posted by ficklebow yes it was a court conviction. But it is not a criminal conviction, civil, hence why it does not appear on a police check. not sure why you are confused, thought i explained that already?

If you are brought to court pursuant to a police charge, that is a criminal case.

Are you saying you have a conviction but it is "spent" under UK law?

[ficklebow]

If it is CRIMINAL then why does it not appear on a CRB check or Police check? The conviction date was only in march 2009. It comes up nowhere. According to the court, it is a civil not criminal matter when I approached them for a memorandum.

I have no idea what spent would be in this case. i was told for such a minor offence akin to running a red light would not be a problem.

[ESarge]

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. For this site, I've previously researched criminal inadmissibility fairly heavily.

If ACPO say that they won't put it on the record then that's that. You've already provided CIC with the official evidence. I would write them a letter saying just that.

The legal situation is this: CIC will convert your criminal act to its equivalent in the Canadian Criminal Code. If the equivalent offence has a maximum penalty of less than 10 years in prison then you wait 5 years after the end of the sentence to apply for rehabilitation (or 10 years to be deemed rehabilitated).

I would take a look at the Canadian Criminal Code and attempt to work out the equivalent for yourself. You can then include your justification in the letter you write them.

The most important step is to check out the UK spent conviction legislation and see how it would apply to you. Include that argument with your letter.

They may decide to admit you but I wouldn't change my life while waiting.

[Pollyana]

Originally Posted by ficklebow it wasnt a criminal conviction, i recieved one month ban for driving without due care ( drove on wrong side of road in error crashed into oncoming car) i was given 1 month ban instead of points as i was young driver and otherwise would have lost license, so they were lenient. however i was advised to declare it on work application forms by bunac.

It would have been a conviction but would have counted as a Motoring Offence, and as such would probably not have been entered onto PNC unless there were other offences at the same time - even though you appeared in court and were convicted. Most offences like this were held by DVLA, and on local police paper files only, and never went onto PNC. Even now they often only go to DVLA.
Hence probably the only trace of it now is on DVLA or court records if you're lucky. ACPO and Subject Access checks will never come up with it, even when listing spent convictions, as it would never have been there in the first place.

Polly
(former police record checker and PNC inputter!)

[ficklebow]

thanks for the advice people. I know the offence is a federal offence in Canada, and as it is not reckless or drink driving, it is not a serious offence in any case at all.

I have already been instructed to have my medical, which I have, this is the only thing now. I cant see they can now reject me for information they had before the medical.

[ficklebow]

oh and looking into it more, according to ontario:

Careless Driving - Highway Traffic Act of Ontario - Section 130
Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years.

[ESarge]

Now I could be wrong (it's easy to check the operations manuals) but I'm pretty sure that provincial law is not looked at for the conversion. It's the Canadian Criminal Code only that you need to check.

[ficklebow]

Ive been looking around as I did when I first applied for my TWP and it seems only Dangerous Driving is listed as a criminal offence in Canada. Careless driving is not according to what information I have available to me about the Canadian Criminal Code. That's why i pasted the information I had found, as it seems this is the only area where careless driving/driving without due care is mentioned.

[ESarge]

Can you write an argument that says that the admitted facts of your case do *not* fit the definition of Dangerous Driving in the Canadian Criminal Code?

Put that together in a way that a bureacrat can agree with and you'll probably be right.