Potential Criminal Record ruining Career in Law?

outforlunch

Hi all,

I am facing a particular dilemma and would appreciate some advice, I have checked threads with similar themes but could find none similar to my own problem.

To cut a long story short I am worried that a moment of idiocy on my part about ten years ago will come back to haunt me.

Like I say about ten years ago I was stopped by the Guards and told to produce my licence at my nearest Garda station, I didn't and received a summons. My memory is shady of my day in court but I recall meeting the Guard at the court and showing him my licence and he said he would deal with it.

When my case was called out I stood unrepresented before the Judge and recall the Judge being none to happy with the Guard!

My memory as I said is hazy, I think because I was so nervous on the day and it was all a blur. My problem is, and as daft as it sounds I have no idea to this day whether I received a conviction. As I am unfamiliar with court procedure can anybody tell me is their an indicator on the day to make you aware you have a criminal conviction, or should you receive some notice of same?

To make matters worse I am studying law and doing quite well and now wonder will be all in vain as I believe before beginning solicitor training a declaration or background check must be made by the trainee or be carried out on the trainee to determine whether they have a criminal record.

Would really appreciate some advice from those in the know!

445279.ie

Check with the District Court office where the court was and get a copy order. That'll tell you what happened on the day

pirelli

Out to lunch

I am surprised that you would consider this a serious impediment to your career. It wouldn't have any effect IMO. Also IMO You have watched too many episodes of The Good Wife and missed the signifigance of Mr Gold and the handshakes imo.


Our local distirct judge was a convicted drink driver. Mind you it did kind of make life difficult for him.
You might have vaque idea if you were convicted and yes you would remember being sentenced and fined and if you had forgotton then a warrant would have been issued and you would have been arrested. So your a free man .. how does it feel.. yaaay.



Although your right to double check so Simply contact the court where you were summoned and give then your name and the date of the appearance and they will check it out. If you were convicted there is likely a warrant issued for your arrest for failure to pay a fine. If you had a licence you might be able to appeal through the criminal appeals 1993 procedure act and get it quashed .. while it's meant for miscarriages of justice.. i don't see why you can use it for such a situation where the newly discovered evidence is that you are a criminal and now shunned by your snotty law friends and live in a cardboard box outside tesco retrieving missing trolleys.
A trolley bounty hunter, people like you have to start somewhere...but of course im sure your not a criminal just misunderstood.

Tom Young

-1.

pirelli

-2

McCrack

-3

OP my opinion would be that it would have no bearing for entry to the LSI. Summary convictions are just that and unless it's a conviction for an offence/crime of dishonesty (which the LSI will natually consider very carefully) I would not worry. Contact the LSI ask to speak with the Regulation Dept. for clarification/peace of mind.

Reloc8

OP.

You do not have a problem.

Stop worrying about it.

Good luck with your studies.

outforlunch

Hi,

Thanks for your opinions posters. Over half through my degree at this stage and it has been playing on my mind quite a lot!

Reloc8

outforlunch wrote: »

Hi,

Thanks for your opinions posters. Over half through my degree at this stage and it has been playing on my mind quite a lot!

Needlessly.

You have nothing to worry about.

consultech

Is the timeframe for any potential conviction of any significance here? Or perhaps the nature of the conviction?

What if, for instance, you were convicted of assult in 2010, and looked to join the bar in the same year? What's the basis for the OP being "grand" and "not worrying about it" etc etc?

Reloc8

In this case its the strong probability of any summons having been struck out and the known fact (on what the OP says) of that summons relating to failing to produce a driving licence/insurance which the OP was in a position to bring to Court when summonsed. Failing to produce within 10 days is indeed an offence but where the person summons has valid licence & insurance and brings them to court summons for so failing are invariably (in the practical sense) struck out/withdrawn.

To be honest even if a fine was recorded, and you didn't stick this into a job app because you forgot about it/didn't realise a fine had been imposed, and it was later discovered, you would have nothing to worry about.

But lapse of time alone in respect of a criminal conviction has no relevance. An assault would be an entirely different matter. So yes, it is the nature of the conviction. I can't recall what the bar requires disclosure of at the entry stage - fairly sure it is convictions which may affect your suitability etc. etc. and not just convictions involving dishonesty - if so you would certainly disclose the conviction, whenever it occurred. I could be wrong on that though.

We don't have any system by which criminal records are expunged on passage of time - should we shouldn't we etc. (yes) is a very good question.

drkpower

If a conviction for failing to poduce a driving licence (and other convictions of that nature & gravity) were a bar to practice a solicitor/barrister, there wouldnt be too many of us practising. OP, you need to relax, if a matter like this is giving you sleepness nights, you are going to a very tired lawyer indeed.

pvp

Hi guys,
How about if somebody got fined in 2002 for shoplifting for example and today applying for a job where there is a question about criminal convictions? Should you mention this or after some period of time passed you are allowed to "forget" about this black mark?

MagicSean

A conviction for a crime of dishonesty should always be disclosed no matter how old it is.

pvp

Thanks!
Do courts keep records of such minor offences for years as well?

johnnyskeleton

pvp wrote: »

Thanks!
Do courts keep records of such minor offences for years as well?

I think the old bailey had a sort of exhibition of their records some years back (might have been posted about on this forum).

Anyway, some of their records went back to the 17th century.

In Ireland, the most common place for them to be recorded is the Garda pulse system. Some older offences are not recorded in these for some reason (usually in smaller stations).

Reloc8

Yep - I'd expect a Dublin Metro Area station to have input such a conviction from 2002 i.e. yes it would be available on inspection though.

EoghanRua

pirelli wrote: »

Our local distirct judge was a convicted drink driver.

The problem here is that is often one law/procedure for those already in and another for those trying to get in. I am currently registering as a teacher and have to jumpt through all the hoops regarding Garda vetting etc. whereas there are people teaching for years who have never been Garda vetted.

But here's a question someone might answer please - one of our crew was in court a few years ago for breaking a red traffic light and received a fine of €80 or something similar and five penalty points. She forgot to pay the original fine and ended up in court anyway, hence the extra penalty points.

Obviously this will show up in her Garda vetting report, but we are filling out other forms and it asks 'have you been convicted of any criminal offence?' and she's wondering whether to answer yes or no.

It doesn't strike me as a criminal offence - which I would expect to have a potential prison sentence as a remedy - but she is finding it very difficult to get a precise definition of a criminal offence.

She doesn't want to write 'yes' if it's not but neither does she want to be seen to be contradicting what will be on her vetting report anyway which she is concerned about if she answers 'no'.

A precise legal definition and your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

McCrack

A conviction is when a person is before a criminal court (District, Circuit, Central, Special) and either pleads guilty or found guilty by a Judge and/or jury. Unless released on probation a person who pleads guilty or is found guilty (immaterial whether a fine or imprisonment imposed or not) a conviction follows and at present stays on record for life.

Traffic offences are mostly prosecuted in the District Court and yes they are criminal convictions.

EoghanRua

McCrack wrote: »

A conviction is when a person is before a criminal court (District, Circuit, Central, Special) and either pleads guilty or found guilty by a Judge and/or jury. Unless released on probation a person who pleads guilty or is found guilty (immaterial whether a fine or imprisonment imposed or not) a conviction follows and at present stays on record for life.

Traffic offences are mostly prosecuted in the District Court and yes they are criminal convictions.

So all traffic offences are by definition criminal offences? Thanks for clearing that up. What made me wonder too was the fact that it was only failure to pay the fine in time that had her in court and not the offence per se. I thought that 'criminal offences' would have automatically ended up in court in the first instance.

I don't know why they ask these questions on these forms when the Garda vetting is going to provide the information anyway.

Our man in Havana

Say if you are caught speeding and receive a fixed penalty of €80 and 2 points and you pay up that is not a conviction. If you fail to pay and if gets to court and you lose then you are convicted.

EoghanRua

Haddockman wrote: »

Say if you are caught speeding and receive a fixed penalty of €80 and 2 points and you pay up that is not a conviction. If you fail to pay and if gets to court and you lose then you are convicted.

That's grand, I understand entirely the distinction between a court conviction and a fine.

It was the use of the word 'criminal' that we were wondering about. We thought that perhaps 'criminal' might relate to the gravity of the offence and that one could be convicted of an offence in court without it being a criminal offence.

It takes a while to get your head around the idea that whether you break a traffic light or rob a bank you are still nominally guilty of the same offence!

McCrack

No there is a distinction between a Fixed Penalty Notice and a fine. A FPN is what it is. It's usually €80 and two points issued by a Garda. It's not a fine in the strict legal sense although most people consider it a fine. No criminal conviction follows if a person chooses to pay it.

A fine in it's strict legal sense in imposed upon conviction in a criminal court by a Judge and a person has no choice to pay it or face imprisonment in default.

There is a difference.

EoghanRua

McCrack wrote: »

No there is a distinction between a Fixed Penalty Notice and a fine. A FPN is what it is. It's usually €80 and two points issued by a Garda. It's not a fine in the strict legal sense although most people consider it a fine. No criminal conviction follows if a person chooses to pay it.

A fine in it's strict legal sense in imposed upon conviction in a criminal court by a Judge and a person has no choice to pay it or face imprisonment in default.

There is a difference.

This is beside the point really as it was the nature of the conviction I was concerned with rather than which name is given to the transfer of money from an individual to the authorities.

But since you raise it there may indeed be a legal distinction between a FPN and a fine, but in effect there seems no difference to me except that one is issued by the court. Suggesting an element of choice about paying an FPN is fanciful as the choice to not pay it involves a probable worsening of your position.

It's like saying to someone "you don't have to jump off this cliff, you have the choice of jumping off a higher one if you like - but if you choose that one you'll have to jump". That's not really choice as most of us understand it.

Failure/refusal to pay a FPN can equally land you in prison just that the the process takes a little longer and the money you have to shell out metamorphoses into a 'fine' before you go to prison. To all intents and purposes the distinction seems to be largely nominal - one for the legal semantic contortionists I would say.

McCrack

A conviction is a conviction and I have explained that. A fine can only be imposed by a Judge upon conviction. Minor traffic offences usually attract a FPN and if the person chooses to pay they are spared Court and possible criminal conviction. The Garda equally is spared having to meet proofs to the satisfaction of the Court.

This is the distinction and an important one.

As for "legal semantic contortionists" bit I must admit I havent a clue what
that means.

MagicSean

EoghanRua wrote: »

This is beside the point really as it was the nature of the conviction I was concerned with rather than which name is given to the transfer of money from an individual to the authorities.

But since you raise it there may indeed be a legal distinction between a FPN and a fine, but in effect there seems no difference to me except that one is issued by the court. Suggesting an element of choice about paying an FPN is fanciful as the choice to not pay it involves a probable worsening of your position.

It's like saying to someone "you don't have to jump off this cliff, you have the choice of jumping off a higher one if you like - but if you choose that one you'll have to jump". That's not really choice as most of us understand it.

Failure/refusal to pay a FPN can equally land you in prison just that the the process takes a little longer and the money you have to shell out metamorphoses into a 'fine' before you go to prison. To all intents and purposes the distinction seems to be largely nominal - one for the legal semantic contortionists I would say.

Not nominal at all. If you pay a FPN it is not considered a previous conviction and not declared to the court in any future proceedings. Failing to pay it is giving up your chance to avoid a conviction.

And the difference between robbery and breaking a red light is that one is indictable and the other isn't. You won't be brought before the central criminal court for breaking a red light.

EoghanRua

k_mac wrote: »

And the difference between robbery and breaking a red light is that one is indictable and the other isn't. You won't be brought before the central criminal court for breaking a red light.

.

EoghanRua

k_mac wrote: »

1) Not nominal at all. If you pay a FPN it is not considered a previous conviction and not declared to the court in any future proceedings. Failing to pay it is giving up your chance to avoid a conviction.

2) And the difference between robbery and breaking a red light is that one is indictable and the other isn't. You won't be brought before the central criminal court for breaking a red light.

1) You are getting into legal distinctions. I never mentioned that. What I said was that for a person required to give somebody else money there is no element of real choice as implied by the other poster. From that perspective the distinction is nominal - I was not referring to any legal implications.

2) This merely confirms what I was saying......robbery and breaking a red light are both criminal offences. Where the cases are heard is another matter.

Our man in Havana

You can keep the latter off your record if you pay the FPN promptly.

EoghanRua

McCrack wrote: »

1) A conviction is a conviction and I have explained that.

2) A fine can only be imposed by a Judge upon conviction. Minor traffic offences usually attract a FPN and if the person chooses to pay they are spared Court and possible criminal conviction.

3) The Garda equally is spared having to meet proofs to the satisfaction of the Court.

1) This never required an explanation. The issue raised was not what a conviction was, but the significance of the accompanying adjective criminal - and frankly this remains unclear. I'm still no wiser in the broader sense as to what constitutes a criminal offence. Perhaps every offence that comes before the court is by definition a criminal offence, I have no idea. But I do know that the case I mentioned is one so that's all that really matters.

2) As I said in another reply this is the legal disctinction and I understand that. What I am saying is that when someone receives a demand for money in the post it is not outrageously misguided for them to regard it as a fine.

OED definition - fine: a sum of money exacted as a penalty by a court of law or other authority.

It seems to me that based on the OED which reflects actual general usage of language a fixed penalty notice is in fact a fine but it is given a different name legally to distinguish it as being at a different stage in the legal process. Hence the distinction is nominal notwithstanding any other distinguishing legal features.

3) This is a long long way from the simple question with which I started but I'll tackle it anyway - as I understand it is this case the Garda had to adduce no evidence expect to state that the incident took place. Hardly a dizzying level of "proofs" in fairness. In fact the Garda didn't even have the correct location of the incident on the summons.

pirelli

You certainly have a point Eoghan.

Perhaps we should catagorise crimes into three sections felony misdeameanours and offences. Then just as the irish judical system has done we should abolish it ...and then create a sex offenders register and of course a serious offenders system. Then a criminal system based on reoccurring misdemeanours. Petty theft would be now classed on the old system as a misdemeanour and spent after 7 years as recommended by the law reform comission.

So in effect your FPN would expire anyway after 3 years as it stands. So in effect the OP should not disclose an offence that will ultimately become spent.

A spent offence under the 1976 spent conviction act in britian need never be disclosed to a potential employer etc. Ireland of course years behind in any such legislation, but however the british have a cruel twist, certain misdemeanours will bar you from working in certain a jobs such as a teacher or an accountant.

You might say ireland is better or fairer in that it doesn't have such a restriction but that is not the case; What Irleand does have is a situation where certain professions all believe no criminal can ever work in their industry which is very unfair because at least in britain these workers are entitled to work in most professions.

In fact we learned only recently of a conspiracy amongst the Institutions of technology to prevent people with convictions ever getting a third level education in ireland.

So imagine a system peppered with miscarriages of justice where innocent people have to deal with a backward **** hole like ireland. At least in britian you can get a job or in spain you have a constitutional right to compensation for a miscarriage of justice. Ireland is one of the worst countries to live in with a miscarriage of justice imo.

looksee

Should we be concerned that someone halfway through a law degree is asking for legal advice in a chat room?

Reloc8

heheh ^

In fariness this is a pretty discrete question on the practical application of an aspect of the road traffic acts - I wouldn't expect an undergraduate student (or even a lecturer) to know the answer as a matter of course.

Eh, otherwise, insofar as the thread is still on topic (? query ?)...payment of a fixed penalty notice does not result in a criminal conviction and need not be disclosed in response to the query 'do you have any criminal convictions ?'.

A criminal conviction can be imposed only by a court.

outforlunch

Thanks for the defence Reloc8!

looksee

pirelli

outforlunch wrote: »

Thanks for the defence Reloc8!

Actually I had thought we were on the question raised by Eoghan in regard to a Fixed penalty notice in modern law is now spent after 3 years.

The offence committed by outforlunch had been found guilty would have been a summary conviction and would not be spent after 3 years and will remain on his record for life. Therefore you do have to disclose it.

From the 1933 Road traffic act

Non dislcosure of a driving licence

(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

( The 1961 act doesn't explain it as much )

I should be a Barrister I should.

Reloc8

Yes.

If you presume that outforlunch was convicted of that (or any offence).

And if you presume that the question asked of e.g. the job applicant is 'have you ever been convicted of any criminal offence'.

In most situations the question is phrased to exclude convictions under the Road Traffic Acts excepting s. 53 RTA for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury and Section 112 RTA (unauthorised taking).

For completeness the relevant (i.e. modern/up to date) section for failing to produce a driving licence on demand or within 10 days is Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

pirelli

outforlunch wrote: »

Thanks for the defence Reloc8!

Reloc8 wrote: »

Yes.

If you presume that outforlunch was convicted of that (or any offence).

And if you presume that the question asked of e.g. the job applicant is 'have you ever been convicted of any criminal offence'.

In most situations the question is phrased to exclude convictions under the Road Traffic Acts excepting s. 53 RTA for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury and Section 112 RTA (unauthorised taking).

For completeness the relevant (i.e. modern/up to date) section for failing to produce a driving licence on demand or within 10 days is Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

Outforlunch has admitted he is guilty of the offence. He admitted it was ten years ago. He claims to be hazy but since we are presuming I would imagine the following happened.

1. He was summoned for two rather serious offences.
2. Failure to produce within ten days and obviously Driving without a driving licence

When outforlunch went to court he would be apologetic and admit he forgot to produce within ten days. He would then produce his licence to the Garda would would examine it and thus be satisfied to ask the judge to strike out the 2nd offence "driving without a driving licence" saving court time.

However outforlunch has admitted to not producing and excepted this on the day and the judge would have asked the Garda if he was guilty and would have prosecuted him for failing to produce within ten days.

Therefore I have to presume that he was prosecuted. It would illogical to assume he wan't. The garda are fickle to be sure... I could factor that in and factor in that the judge was half asleep. I could also assume the entire Irish court system is in shambles and almost anything goes... not so presumptious now am I.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

Yes.

If you presume that outforlunch was convicted of that (or any offence).

And if you presume that the question asked of e.g. the job applicant is 'have you ever been convicted of any criminal offence'.

In most situations the question is phrased to exclude convictions under the Road Traffic Acts excepting s. 53 RTA for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury and Section 112 RTA (unauthorised taking).

For completeness the relevant (i.e. modern/up to date) section for failing to produce a driving licence on demand or within 10 days is Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

The 1933 Act allowed me to show the level of conviction for such an offence.

Well, without sounding cynical but this entire discussion has been because of the wording of the job application ..."Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence".. If your allowing for a universal discussion on the job application question." Have you ever committed any offence".. would therefore encompass all offences including FNP and certainly traffic offences.

I do not know of what act or rule of law allows you to circumnavigate lisitng all offences to such a universal question. You say on rare occasions some phrase the question differently but many jobs involve the use of machinary and the use of car or van or truck. I find it hard to believe that someone is trying to get a certain job vacany because they might get a decent question on criminal convictions that suits their situation. I also feel your being unintentionally naive if not rude by suggesting that someone who likely has a criminal conviction does not need to disclose it to an employer. It is in fact a criminal with a spent conviction who does not need to disclose it to an employer.See 1973 rehab act below...

Hence I think the relevance of my post above which deals more knowledgeably on the subject and uses by example the laws in other countries such as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 that deal with universal expectations on people and what they are entitled too.

I found it very interesting that people don't understand these laws. They form a virtual lower working class usually reffered to as scum on boards.ie... I disagree with this term and it does exemplify the ignorance amongst irish professionals ( not that they all are in any way professional) that obviously feel scum have no place in Ireland.

Factor in that 40% ( my estimate) of all convictions in ireland are unsafe than you have potentially volatile situation where employers and i would imagine employees abuse many innocent people because there is no fundamental law dealing with criminal records and in fact the only law as such in ireland did forbid convicts from entering into any contracts.

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/rehabact.htm

Benefits Of The Act

Applying For Jobs

Applicants with a criminal record who are asked on an application form or at an interview whether they have any previous convictions can answer 'no' if the convictions are spent and the job applied for is not excepted from the Act. Under the terms of the Act, a spent conviction shall not be proper grounds for not employing - or for sacking - someone. (If on the other hand, job applicants do not disclose unspent convictions, if asked to do so, they may be found out, dismissed on the grounds of having deceived the employer - and possibly prosecuted.)
The Act does not provide any means of enforcing a person's right not to be refused employment (or entry into a profession) on the grounds of a spent conviction. If, however, an employee can prove that they have been dismissed for a spent conviction and they have been in employment a year or more, they may be able to claim unfair dismissal under employment legislation.

Reloc8

Eh...*yawnstretch*...sorry what ?

Oh sorry I should have said earlier you're dead right you should be a barrister you should. It might at the least result in their being less than a 40% (your estimate and I resist the temptation to enquire as to how you calculate this) rate of unsafe convictions.

Anyway,

Reloc8 wrote: »

We don't have any system by which criminal records are expunged on passage of time - should we shouldn't we etc. (yes) is a very good question.

I'm an advocate for a system expunging/spending conviction on passage of time since conviction. Don't see how you could have thought otherwise.

I don't know what the "Rehab Act 1973 is". If this is a typo and you mean the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which you linked to then I don't understand why you say this :

"I also feel your being unintentionally naive if not rude by suggesting that someone who likely has a criminal conviction does not need to disclose it to an employer. It is in fact a criminal with a spent conviction who does not need to disclose it to an employer.See 1973 rehab act below..."

...as the Act does not apply to us over here. It is a United Kingdom Statute. There are no 'spent convictions' in Irish law.

My posts speak for themselves as regards whether I've been rude or naive. I don't know why you appear to feel the need to characterise me as being either but that's a matter for yourself.

*yawnstretchyawn*

Carry on.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

Eh...*yawnstretch*...sorry what ?

Oh sorry I should have said earlier you're dead right you should be a barrister you should. It might at the least result in their being less than a 40% (your estimate and I resist the temptation to enquire as to how you calculate this) rate of unsafe convictions.

Anyway,



I'm an advocate for a system expunging/spending conviction on passage of time since conviction. Don't see how you could have thought otherwise.

I don't know what the "Rehab Act 1973 is". If this is a typo and you mean the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which you linked to then I don't understand why you say this :

"I also feel your being unintentionally naive if not rude by suggesting that someone who likely has a criminal conviction does not need to disclose it to an employer. It is in fact a criminal with a spent conviction who does not need to disclose it to an employer.See 1973 rehab act below..."

...as the Act does not apply to us over here. It is a United Kingdom Statute. There are no 'spent convictions' in Irish law.

My posts speak for themselves as regards whether I've been rude or naive. I don't know why you appear to feel the need to characterise me as being either but that's a matter for yourself.

*yawnstretchyawn*

Carry on.

Your being sadly facetious; and was it not your idea to challenge me on the wording of the application and the presumption of whether the OP was convicted.

I am not sure if you were addressing the OP scenario and you might have been addressing Eoghans situation , in which case I am willling to offer you a chance ( lol) and withdraw calling you rude and naive because while had you bothered to read Eoghans post rather than yawning and holding your hand in front of your face you would notice that in that situation the FPN was enforced in a court and thus a conviction recorded. So there really is no olive branches to be handed out. You created your own hypothetical situation where someone gets FPN in the post and then is given a carefully worded job application. The rest of us were still on topic.

It is my opinion that FPN are spent after 3 years based on modern law however as you have said reloc if they are recorded in court they are not spent as there is no such legislation to spend convictions. The need for regulation to highlight this is neccessary. Simply because the Garda are so incompetent and issue summons to wrong addresses, names and also not at all etc and some people will be forced to pay through the court and would be unfair they carry this for the rest of their life whilst rich toffs and respectably rich people pay it off with their credit cards and yet boards.ie call these people scum bags and they in turn call you toff scumbags and the judges want us to rip out the blocks from the buildings banks are in. WTF and your yawning!

When you were addressing the OP's situation then you have to admit you can not presume he was not convicted when he has admitted he failed to produce. You would have to work on the basis he was convicted. Do you not see the logic in that.

Therefore on that basis You would be wrong to suggest that Op or Eoghan does not have to disclose the conviction. As you have said there are no spent convictions in irish law and yet you spend peoples convictions ( no pun intended ) in a cheaply manner, occasionally lifting your olive to pardon certain offenders.

Just so you have an olive branch to chew through .. I referenced the 1974 rehabilitations act which is how you understand a situation when your country doesn't have a law on the subject even the law reform commission do this and you are spot on with one thing Reloc..it is how they form the question in the application that decides imo whether pending FPN are included or not.

outforlunch

Hi,

Thanks to all you posters for your forthright opinions regarding my situation.

Just to clarify, at the time of the incident I was insured and had a licence which is probably how I justified my less than respectful adherence to the law at the time in relation to producing my documentation.

I applied yesterday to the Gardai for a copy of my record to put me out of my misery so I will post the results, good or bad.

Admittedly, I am half way through my degree but as I am sure most appreciate most law degrees it seems are far removed from arming a person with the knowledge to grasp court procedure in the application of the law on a day to day basis in the District Court, so more than likely I will be back for more info.

Thanks!

pirelli

outforlunch wrote: »

Hi,

Thanks to all you posters for your forthright opinions regarding my situation.

Just to clarify, at the time of the incident I was insured and had a licence which is probably how I justified my less than respectful adherence to the law at the time in relation to producing my documentation.

I applied yesterday to the Gardai for a copy of my record to put me out of my misery so I will post the results, good or bad.

Admittedly, I am half way through my degree but as I am sure most appreciate most law degrees it seems are far removed from arming a person with the knowledge to grasp court procedure in the application of the law on a day to day basis in the District Court, so more than likely I will be back for more info.

Thanks!

No problem outforlunch... but i always wondered why do you Law scholars always write in that brown ass kissing way.

" I justified my less than respectful adherence "

I know, I know you probably have no idea why you do and likely follow the rest of the flock but let me say we the members of the public look forward to being represented by yourself and many more young scholars in the courts.

outforlunch

I know somewhere buried deep in your post there was a compliment pirelli so thank you!

outforlunch

Hi,

All is good in the world again, the check made by the Gardai has revealed no blotches on my record.

Thanks to all the posters for your imput.

lifeistooshort

Many congrats

Black Beard

Slightly off topic :

I have recently accepted a job from an international company which is not based in Ireland. They've asked me for an "Extract from my Police record". As far as I'm aware I have no sort of criminal record.

I don't need to go through the Garda vetting procedure, such as teachers do.

Can I simply ask in my local Garda station for a copy of my criminal record? If so how long does it normally take to get it?

I'm abroad at the moment, so I can't go into a Garda station until I return home in a few weeks. Any information would be appreciated.

Thanks

outforlunch

Hi Black Beard,

For myself, I downloaded an application form to apply for a check to be made by the Gardai to determine whether I had any any criminal convictions.

I found this option to download on the Garda website under the vetting section (don't know how to attach a link sorry).

The process costs €6 approx. and the Gardai are required to respond within a period of forty days from when your application is recieved.

I can't remember exactly how long I waited for my results but it was near that upper limit.

ihavequestions

Reloc8 wrote: »

A criminal conviction can be imposed only by a court.

Hey , sorry this is different to the thread title but I'm looking for some advice/info.

When I was 15(i'm 19 now) , Myself and a friend did something very stupid, we took some items from Primark. I know its no excuse but I was like a different person that week, I was going through exams , it was my birthday and my Nan was dying, I was depressed and grieving. We thought someome saw us, left the items in a carpark and ran. Later that evening we went to our garda station and explained what we had done.

We were both interviewed seperately with our mothers and what we said was taken down. We weren't convicted, we were told we were given Jail-o's (?) and were not taken to court(it was never mentioned). A few months later the childrens liasion officer came and visited us to see how we were doing.

I am wondering will this still be on my record? I am applying to England for physiotherapy and they say a Criminal Check may happen. Or should I just ask at my local Garda station?

McCrack

No a JLO (as it then was known) is not a criminal conviction. It is a formal Garda caution for children. You do not disclose it and it will not show up on vetting etc.

ihavequestions

McCrack wrote: »

No a JLO (as it then was known) is not a criminal conviction. It is a formal Garda caution for children. You do not disclose it and it will not show up on vetting etc.

Oh wow thanks a lot thats a relief