Spent Convictions Bill Query

dakid

Hello,

In 2008 I was convicted of Drink Driving and disqualified for 3 years and a fine. On appeal my licence was reinstated in 2010. I also got an endorsement for 3 years from this date.

My query is with the Spent Convictions Bill if any insurance company asks me if I have ever had any motoring convictions do I have to tell them about this conviction even though by my understanding it is now spent (>7 years since conviction date).

I appreciate any replies and I hope I have not broken any rules with this post.

usernamegoes

Based on what you say above, it is spent and therefore does not require disclosure to insurance companies. If you have any other convictions then it won't be spent.

boardsuser1

it won't be disclosed. I was convicted of dangerous driving in 2006, reduced to careless on appeal in 2008 (serious backlog).

When I was vetted last year it never showed up.

cml387

If your insurance company asks a question like "Have you ever been disqualified from driving?" what will you answer?

Peregrinus

Under the spent convictions legislation, you don't have to disclose a spend conviction "or the circumstances ancillary thereto". The disqualification would be an ancillary circumstance. And you are entitled to regard questions seeking information about previous convictions or their circumstances as not applying to spent convictions.

There are some exceptions in the legislation - cases where you do have to disclose spent convictions. But so far as insurance applications go, the only exception relates to convictions for offences of fraud, deceit or dishonesty in relation to insurance claims - you do have to disclose convictions of that kind, even if they are spent convictions. But if you have a spent conviction for an ordinary motoring offence, you don't have to disclose that to an insurance company.

boardsuser1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Under the spent convictions legislation, you don't have to disclose a spend conviction "or the circumstances ancillary thereto". The disqualification would be an ancillary circumstance. And you are entitled to regard questions seeking information about previous convictions or their circumstances as not applying to spent convictions.

There are some exceptions in the legislation - cases where you do have to disclose spent convictions. But so far as insurance applications go, the only exception relates to convictions for offences of fraud, deceit or dishonesty in relation to insurance claims - you do have to disclose convictions of that kind, even if they are spent convictions. But if you have a spent conviction for an ordinary motoring offence, you don't have to disclose that to an insurance company.

If it is spent, then it is to be treated as if it never existed. but take into consideration that were you to end up in court again and found guilty, then the court would be informed regardless. The whole point of that legislation is from an employment perspective.

dakid

Thanks all for your reply. Your answers correspond with my own research plus legal advise i have sought elsewhere.

Padraig1990

does a spent conviction bill start from the day you were handed your conviction or when you won your appeal?

boardsuser1

Padraig1990 wrote: »

does a spent conviction bill start from the day you were handed your conviction or when you won your appeal?

If you won your appeal there is no conviction

Padraig1990

sorry i meant if you were given 3 yrs and appealed and only had to serve 2...so in this case does it apply from the coviction date or the end of your 2 yr conviction

boardsuser1

Padraig1990 wrote: »

sorry i meant if you were given 3 yrs and appealed and only had to serve 2...so in this case does it apply from the coviction date or the end of your 2 yr conviction

The date the conviction was affirmed, i.e the date of the appeal, if the case was appealed.

Does your conviction qualify do you know?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/4/section/5/enacted/en/html#sec5

Padraig1990

from what i have read drink driving is...as this year would of been 5 years since i was summoned and convicted but only 3 yrs since i got my licence back so thats why i am curious as to when a spent conviction bill would come into effect...with regards car insurance it would make a massive difference

boardsuser1

Padraig1990 wrote: »

from what i have read drink driving is...as this year would of been 5 years since i was summoned and convicted but only 3 yrs since i got my licence back so thats why i am curious as to when a spent conviction bill would come into effect...with regards car insurance it would make a massive difference

Whatever year the conviction or the appeal was,whichever was most recent, 7 years from then.

Padraig1990

Thanks

please helpThank YOU

When Going To America Should I Tell Emigration I Have a Spent Conviction ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because no Act of the Oireachtas can alter the terms or operation of US law? Whether you are obliged to declare something when applying for a US visa or visa waiver depends on what US law requires, not what Irish law requires.

So far as I know, US law has no concept of "spent convictions", and the question asked in the context of visa applications is directed at all convictions (and indeed all arrests).

And, to add to that, there's s. 9(b) of the Irish Act; the legislation doesn't allow you to treat a conviction as spent where information is sought in relation to a matter being dealt with under the law of a state other than Ireland. So if you're applying for a visa under US law, the Irish legislation explicitly says that you can't treat your Irish convictions as spent.

usernamegoes

The US border agents will not have access to Irish criminal database. If you are going to tell them then you will need to go to the embassy before you travel if you tell them at the border you will be sent home.

readytosnap

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

When Going To America Should I Tell Emigration I Have a Spent Conviction ?

I have a relative who was in prison for 3 years back in the 90's. He went to USA 3 years ago (first time) and never mentioned his conviction, he got his esta and was allowed into the States with no issues.

Really Interested

readytosnap wrote: »

I have a relative who was in prison for 3 years back in the 90's. He went to USA 3 years ago (first time) and never mentioned his conviction, he got his esta and was allowed into the States with no issues.

So your cousin lied on a ESTA application and broke US immigration law.

slovakchick

Why would you do such a silly thing?

Really Interested wrote: »

So your cousin lied on a ESTA application and broke US immigration law.

readytosnap

Really Interested wrote: »

So your cousin lied on a ESTA application and broke US immigration law.

Maybe he did, I didn't fill out the ESTA for him, do you want his address so you can call up and ask him?

Really Interested

readytosnap wrote: »

Maybe he did, I didn't fill out the ESTA for him, do you want his address so you can call up and ask him?

Did I ask for it, I simply made an observation, did I make any comment good bad or indeferent. It's not my problem if any person has issues with immigration in another state.

But it's not advisable to lie to immigration as coming clean will often lead to a visa.

slovakchick

Have u anything you can post here to back this up in regards to US immigration?

Really Interested wrote: »

Did I ask for it, I simply made an observation, did I make any comment good bad or indeferent. It's not my problem if any person has issues with immigration in another state.

But it's not advisable to lie to immigration as coming clean will often lead to a visa.

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Have u anything you can post here to back this up in regards to US immigration?

What do you want to be backed up.

But in relation to coming clean

"If you have ever been arrested, cautioned and/or convicted of an offense anywhere in the world, you are required to declare it when applying for a visa. In cases where an arrest resulted in a conviction, you may be permanently ineligible to receive a visa and will require a waiver ineligibility to travel to the United States."

https://ie.usembassy.gov/visas/ineligibilities-and-waivers/arrest-caution-conviction/

As you see it says may.

slovakchick

Im talking about people you know or have read about who were allowed into the USA after declaring a criminal record

Really Interested wrote: »

What do you want to be backed up.

But in relation to coming clean

"If you have ever been arrested, cautioned and/or convicted of an offense anywhere in the world, you are required to declare it when applying for a visa. In cases where an arrest resulted in a conviction, you may be permanently ineligible to receive a visa and will require a waiver ineligibility to travel to the United States."

https://ie.usembassy.gov/visas/ineligibilities-and-waivers/arrest-caution-conviction/

As you see it says may.

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Im talking about people you know or have read about who were allowed into the USA after declaring a criminal record

I know of people with minor convictions who got visa.

I am not aware of any person with convictions getting long term visas.

slovakchick

They declared a criminal history and still got a visa? What sort of visa?

Really Interested wrote: »

I know of people with minor convictions who got visa.

I am not aware of any person with convictions getting long term visas.

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

They declared a criminal history and still got a visa? What sort of visa?

Travel visa as I said not long term.

slovakchick

Really Interested wrote: »

Travel visa as I said not long term.

Speeding convictions?

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Speeding convictions?

A speeding conviction is not one of moral terpitude so in the opinion of the US Supreme Court does not need to be disclosed and a ESTA can be applied for.

slovakchick

Really Interested wrote: »

A speeding conviction is not one of moral terpitude so in the opinion of the US Supreme Court does not need to be disclosed and a ESTA can be applied for.

Can you define moral terpitude?

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Can you define moral terpitude?

It would require a lot to define it a google search will answer your question but in general Road traffic offences including multiple convictions for Drink Driving do not invoke moral terpitude.

slovakchick

Exactly- its has no real defintion and is spelled 'moral turpitude'

Really Interested wrote: »

It would require a lot to define it a google search will answer your question but in general Road traffic offences including multiple convictions for Drink Driving do not invoke moral terpitude.

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Exactly- its has no real defintion and is spelled 'moral turpitude'

It has been defined by the US Supreme Court. Thanks for the correct spelling.

Just because something can't be described in a sentence does not mean a lawyer can not give advice on a specific question.

If a person is not sure then best advised to disclose, do you disagree.

slovakchick

An irish solictor couldnt because it has no definition in ireland or Europe in fact so.....if you cant get the ear of a US lawyer and your trip is immnient and you have a minor conviction prob best to just say nothing

Really Interested wrote: »

It has been defined by the US Supreme Court. Thanks for the correct spelling.

Just because something can't be described in a sentence does not mean a lawyer can not give advice on a specific question.

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

An irish solictor couldnt because it has no definition in ireland or Europe in fact so.....if you cant get the ear of a US lawyer and your trip is immnient and you have a minor conviction prob best to just say nothing

Hence why I used the term Lawyer, which is the common term in ISA.

If someone is traveling to USA on a ESTA from Ireland then because of pre clearance there is no real risk, if traveling without out preclearance then there may be an issue.

I am aware of one ISA immigration lawyer who practices in Ireland.

slovakchick

Really Interested wrote: »

Hence why I used the term Lawyer, which is the common term in ISA.

If someone is traveling to USA on a ESTA from Ireland then because of pre clearance there is no real risk, if traveling without out preclearance then there may be an issue.

I am aware of one ISA immigration lawyer who practices in Ireland.

What do you mean by 'travelling without preclearance'?

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

What do you mean by 'travelling without preclearance'?

Shannon and Dublin provide pre clearance so a person if going to be turned back because of a immigration issue it is in Ireland.

I never said travelling without preclearance.

slovakchick

Really Interested wrote: »

Shannon and Dublin provide pre clearance so a person if going to be turned back because of a immigration issue it is in Ireland.

I never said travelling without preclearance.

Ye u did
Quote: slovakchick
An irish solictor couldnt because it has no definition in ireland or Europe in fact so.....if you cant get the ear of a US lawyer and your trip is immnient and you have a minor conviction prob best to just say nothing


Hence why I used the term Lawyer, which is the common term in ISA.

If someone is traveling to USA on a ESTA from Ireland then because of pre clearance there is no real risk, if traveling without out preclearance then there may be an issue.

I am aware of one ISA immigration lawyer who practices in Ireland.

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Ye u did
Quote: slovakchick
An irish solictor couldnt because it has no definition in ireland or Europe in fact so.....if you cant get the ear of a US lawyer and your trip is immnient and you have a minor conviction prob best to just say nothing


Hence why I used the term Lawyer, which is the common term in ISA.

If someone is traveling to USA on a ESTA from Ireland then because of pre clearance there is no real risk, if traveling without out preclearance then there may be an issue.

I am aware of one ISA immigration lawyer who practices in Ireland.

Read what I sai "because of pre clearance" as in they go through immigration in Dublin or Shannon not because they have been pre cleared only that they go through immigration while in Ireland not a difficult concept really

slovakchick

Really Interested wrote: »

Read what I sai "because of pre clearance" as in they go through immigration in Dublin or Shannon not because they have been pre cleared only that they go through immigration while in Ireland not a difficult concept really

Lets try this again- you said
"
if traveling without out preclearance then there may be an issue"

How can you travel to the usa without preclearance from ireland?

HeidiHeidi

slovakchick wrote: »

Lets try this again- you said
"
if traveling without out preclearance then there may be an issue"

How can you travel to the usa without preclearance from ireland?

You fly into the States from an airport other than Dublin or Shannon

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Lets try this again- you said
"
if traveling without out preclearance then there may be an issue"

How can you travel to the usa without preclearance from ireland?

To answer your second question travel cork connect in London

What I actually said "f someone is traveling to USA on a ESTA from Ireland then because of pre clearance"

Read what I said

slovakchick

Really Interested wrote: »

To answer your second question travel cork connect in London

What I actually said "f someone is traveling to USA on a ESTA from Ireland then because of pre clearance"

Read what I said

Ok i see what u mean now, so if travelling to the USA from a country that doesnt do preclearance you run a larger risk? but.....if you go from cork to london to NY and still dont declare your minor conviction i fail to see how that is more risky than not declaring it at a preclearance port, im fact in my paranoid 'minorly convicted' mind i would have thought a preclearance port a little more risky as some sneaky US official may have a garda friend who will contravene the normal rules and pre warn the US offical if they see a traveller they know is a criminal or some similar scenario like that

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Ok i see what u mean now, so if travelling to the USA from a country that doesnt do preclearance you run a larger risk? but.....if you go from cork to london to NY and still dont declare your minor conviction i fail to see how that is more risky than not declaring it at a preclearance port, im fact in my paranoid 'minorly convicted' mind i would have thought a preclearance port a little more risky as some sneaky US official may have a garda friend who will contravene the normal rules and pre warn the US offical if they see a traveller they know is a criminal or some similar scenario like that

The problem is if a issue arises the person is not detained for deportation once past immigration in say Dublin then in NY the person is a domestic passanager.

slovakchick

Really Interested wrote: »

The problem is if a issue arises the person is not detained for deportation once past immigration in say Dublin then in NY the person is a domestic passanager.

But the rules say
' When travelers from a preclearance port arrive in the U.S. they do so as domestic travellers but are still subject to reinspection at the discretion of Customs and Border Protection.'
So the risk is still there and in my view its the same or less risk as arriving seeking clearance in the US they still cant look up your criminal record unless youve been really bad and are in the papers for what u did and if that were the case its your own fault.and you've no one to blame but yourself so enjoy your stay in detention but if you stay as quiet as you would have in the preclearance port the risks are equal

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

But the rules say
' When travelers from a preclearance port arrive in the U.S. they do so as domestic travellers but are still subject to reinspection at the discretion of Customs and Border Protection.'
So the risk is still there and in my view its the same or less risk as arriving seeking clearance in the US they still cant look up your criminal record unless youve been really bad and are in the papers for what u did and if that were the case its your own fault.and you've no one to blame but yourself so enjoy your stay in detention but if you stay as quiet as you would have in the preclearance port the risks are equal

The risk is there but I am unaware of any such person being detained. Can you link to an example?

slovakchick

Really Interested wrote: »

The risk is there but I am unaware of any such person being detained. Can you link to an example?

Nope i dont know any case of someone getting turned back after not declaring minor or spent convictions

Ive read about plenty of people getting turned back after declaring minor spent convictions or in some cases just arrests

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

slovakchick wrote: »

Nope i dont know any case of someone getting turned back after not declaring minor or spent convictions

Ive read about plenty of people getting turned back after declaring minor spent convictions or in some cases just arrests

A conviction is not spent for immigration purposes check the act.