Unsure as to what classifies as an offence... (Citizenship question)

bluebluegreen · 16-03-2019 3:07pm #1

Hi all,

I'm probably going to apply for Irish citizenship, but I am a bit unsure about one question in the application: "Have you ever committed any offences against the laws of Ireland or any overseas country?" I really don't know.

So, for context, I currently 18, and when I was 17 I used a 4-15 leap card on Irish Rail, for which I received a 100-and-something euro Fixed Payment Notice, which I paid.

I know that the Irish Rail site says: "Fare evasion is a criminal offence" and "If you do not have a valid ticket or validated Leap/Smart card when asked to produce your ticket, you can be prosecuted in the District Court under the Railway Safety Act 2005. A passenger who travels without a valid ticket faces a fine of up to €1,000 on conviction in the District Court as well as legal costs."

But from what I gather off the internet, what I did wasn't fare evasion?? I'm unsure though, if someone knows, pls tell me.
So there's also this, which definitely applies to me:

"If you cannot produce a valid ticket when requested to do so by an authorised officer, you may be issued with a Fixed Payment Notice. This means that if you wish to avoid a court appearance and the possibility of receiving a criminal conviction, you may pay a fine of €100 plus your unpaid fare. The Fixed Payment option is only available for a period of 21 days as set out in the Railway Safety Act. If the fine is not paid within that period, a summons will issue and legal costs will be incurred."

So, have I committed an offence against the laws of Ireland?
Also, why/why not?

Sorry if this is trivial or posted in the wrong place, I've never posted on boards before.
And thanks for any help!

Suzie

Marcusm · 16-03-2019 5:56pm

bluebluegreen wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm probably going to apply for Irish citizenship, but I am a bit unsure about one question in the application: "Have you ever committed any offences against the laws of Ireland or any overseas country?" I really don't know.

So, for context, I currently 18, and when I was 17 I used a 4-15 leap card on Irish Rail, for which I received a 100-and-something euro Fixed Payment Notice, which I paid.

I know that the Irish Rail site says: "Fare evasion is a criminal offence" and "If you do not have a valid ticket or validated Leap/Smart card when asked to produce your ticket, you can be prosecuted in the District Court under the Railway Safety Act 2005. A passenger who travels without a valid ticket faces a fine of up to €1,000 on conviction in the District Court as well as legal costs."

But from what I gather off the internet, what I did wasn't fare evasion?? I'm unsure though, if someone knows, pls tell me.
So there's also this, which definitely applies to me:

"If you cannot produce a valid ticket when requested to do so by an authorised officer, you may be issued with a Fixed Payment Notice. This means that if you wish to avoid a court appearance and the possibility of receiving a criminal conviction, you may pay a fine of €100 plus your unpaid fare. The Fixed Payment option is only available for a period of 21 days as set out in the Railway Safety Act. If the fine is not paid within that period, a summons will issue and legal costs will be incurred."

So, have I committed an offence against the laws of Ireland?
Also, why/why not?

Sorry if this is trivial or posted in the wrong place, I've never posted on boards before.
And thanks for any help!

Suzie

You did commit a criminal offence but you accepted a diversion (FCPN) so you were not charged and do not have a conviction. Is the question really committed and not convicted? Any pedestrian who crosses the road against a red man commits an offence.

bluebluegreen · 16-03-2019 9:25pm

Marcusm wrote: »

You did commit a criminal offence but you accepted a diversion (FCPN) so you were not charged and do not have a conviction. Is the question really committed and not convicted? Any pedestrian who crosses the road against a red man commits an offence.

Thanks for the reply. That's what it says, maybe I'm better off calling or emailing the Naturalisation Service to see what exactly they mean. I was thinking it wasn't an offence so thanks so much for the help!

4ensic15 · 17-03-2019 12:19am

bluebluegreen wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. That's what it says, maybe I'm better off calling or emailing the Naturalisation Service to see what exactly they mean. I was thinking it wasn't an offence so thanks so much for the help!

it would not be wise to do that.

JCX BXC · 17-03-2019 12:21am

Marcusm wrote: »

Any pedestrian who crosses the road against a red man commits an offence.

I know it's unrelated, however I find some traffic light men won't turn green late at night unless several buttons are pressed at various points on the road. Is the case not then that a pedestrian cannot legally cross that road?

goldenhoarde · 17-03-2019 12:29am

bluebluegreen wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm probably going to apply for Irish citizenship, but I am a bit unsure about one question in the application: "Have you ever committed any offences against the laws of Ireland or any overseas country?" I really don't know.

So, for context, I currently 18, and when I was 17 I used a 4-15 leap card on Irish Rail, for which I received a 100-and-something euro Fixed Payment Notice, which I paid.

I know that the Irish Rail site says: "Fare evasion is a criminal offence" and "If you do not have a valid ticket or validated Leap/Smart card when asked to produce your ticket, you can be prosecuted in the District Court under the Railway Safety Act 2005. A passenger who travels without a valid ticket faces a fine of up to €1,000 on conviction in the District Court as well as legal costs."

But from what I gather off the internet, what I did wasn't fare evasion?? I'm unsure though, if someone knows, pls tell me.
So there's also this, which definitely applies to me:

"If you cannot produce a valid ticket when requested to do so by an authorised officer, you may be issued with a Fixed Payment Notice. This means that if you wish to avoid a court appearance and the possibility of receiving a criminal conviction, you may pay a fine of €100 plus your unpaid fare. The Fixed Payment option is only available for a period of 21 days as set out in the Railway Safety Act. If the fine is not paid within that period, a summons will issue and legal costs will be incurred."

So, have I committed an offence against the laws of Ireland?
Also, why/why not?

Sorry if this is trivial or posted in the wrong place, I've never posted on boards before.
And thanks for any help!

Suzie

No court no conviction.

The fine was in lieu of a conviction, if you didn't pay that then maybe you'd end up in court and end up with a conviction.

No to the question and avoid breaking any laws until you get through the process and after. Us Irish are fierce law abiding

o1s1n · 17-03-2019 12:36am

bluebluegreen wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. That's what it says, maybe I'm better off calling or emailing the Naturalisation Service to see what exactly they mean. I was thinking it wasn't an offence so thanks so much for the help!

The very definition of shooting yourself in the foot!

bluebluegreen · 17-03-2019 12:54am

4ensic15 wrote: »

it would not be wise to do that.

Makes me wanna do it soooo much more though lmao

But seriously, is this actually the kind of offence that makes people go "nope" to an application?

bluebluegreen · 17-03-2019 12:57am

JCX BXC wrote: »

I know it's unrelated, however I find some traffic light men won't turn green late at night unless several buttons are pressed at various points on the road. Is the case not then that a pedestrian cannot legally cross that road?

Sometimes in town it's unavoidable to cross the entirety of the road while there's a green light unless you sprint!

bluebluegreen · 17-03-2019 1:06am

goldenhoarde wrote: »

No court no conviction. The fine was in lieu of a conviction, if you didn't pay that then maybe you'd end up in court and end up with a conviction.

No to the question and avoid breaking any laws until you get through the process and after. Us Irish are fierce law abiding

That's what I thought!
Everyone's saying different though, I'm not discounting your response, but are you sure? Where are you getting this from?
I really hope it is, don't want to be throwing close to 200 quid in the trash. But I don't want to lie to get citizenship either.

Thanks for the positive response

bluebluegreen · 17-03-2019 1:12am

o1s1n wrote: »

The very definition of shooting yourself in the foot!

At least I'm EU so ye can't kick me out haha

Clive · 17-03-2019 3:56am

Section 132 of the Railway Safety Act states:

"A passenger who—

(a) travels or attempts to travel on a railway of a railway undertaking without having previously paid his or her fare, and with intent to avoid such payment,
...
is guilty of an offence."

which covers someone availing of a discount they are not entitled to. As to whether you committed an offence, perhaps you didn't think there was any difference in fare as long as you were under 18, perhaps you thought you could pay any difference on arrival, perhaps any number of other things - your intent is within your own mind unless a court rules on it.

That's why the fixed payment notice states that you are alleged to have committed an offence, rather than that you did, and that once the payment is made, no prosecution of the alleged offence will take place.

What you put on the form is up to you.

Victor · 17-03-2019 4:35am

Clive wrote: »

Section 132 of the Railway Safety Act states:

"A passenger who—

(a) travels or attempts to travel on a railway of a railway undertaking without having previously paid his or her fare, and with intent to avoid such payment,
...
is guilty of an offence."

One can also be fined under other transport legislation. It would depend on what legislation was used at the time.

4ensic15 · 17-03-2019 11:45am

There is a presumption of innocence. No conviction means no offence committed.

4ensic15 · 17-03-2019 11:46am

bluebluegreen wrote: »

Makes me wanna do it soooo much more though lmao

But seriously, is this actually the kind of offence that makes people go "nope" to an application?

I have read of one applicant who was refused over a conviction for driving through a red light.

Alun · 17-03-2019 11:55am

4ensic15 wrote: »

I have read of one applicant who was refused over a conviction for driving through a red light.

:eek: That seems seriously OTT, but then I also recall a recent story about someone who was refused because they took a holiday in the UK that was considered "too long", 5 weeks IIRC.

I'm thinking of applying too, but had penalty points for speeding a few years ago. Surely that doesn't have to be declared does it?

JCX BXC · 17-03-2019 12:00pm

Alun wrote: »

:eek: That seems seriously OTT, but then I also recall a recent story about someone who was refused because they took a holiday in the UK that was considered "too long", 5 weeks IIRC.

I may have read that too, and if it's the one I'm thinking about, they had actually spent so much time out of the state they did not meet the criteria for citizenship, it wasn't just the one holiday.

Marcusm · 17-03-2019 5:53pm

JCX BXC wrote: »

I know it's unrelated, however I find some traffic light men won't turn green late at night unless several buttons are pressed at various points on the road. Is the case not then that a pedestrian cannot legally cross that road?

You need to walk 25m away from the crossing and cross there. &#55357;&#56860;

ED E · 17-03-2019 5:56pm

Is the €100 not a "Standard Fare" vs a fine with IR anyways? Or is that specific to Luas.

trashcan · 17-03-2019 6:06pm

bluebluegreen wrote: »

At least I'm EU so ye can't kick me out haha

Hope you're not from the UK :P

Peregrinus · 18-03-2019 9:24am

Alun wrote: »

:eek: That seems seriously OTT, but then I also recall a recent story about someone who was refused because they took a holiday in the UK that was considered "too long", 5 weeks IIRC.

I'm thinking of applying too, but had penalty points for speeding a few years ago. Surely that doesn't have to be declared does it?

Yes, it does. But it won't generally be a bar to citizenship.

Peregrinus · 18-03-2019 9:28am

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is a presumption of innocence. No conviction means no offence committed.

No, it doesn't. If that were so then nobody could ever been convicted of anything, since the fact that they haven't already been convicted would mean that no offence had been committed, so any prosecution must fail.

The presumption of innocence doesn't mean that no offence has been committed. It means that the state cannot penalise you for an offence unless and until they prove, beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of a court, that you committed an offence.

In the OP's case, using the juvenile card would be an offence if the OP did it with intent to avoid paying the correct fare. But using it because, e.g., he mistakenly picked up his younger brother's card and didn't notice, would not be. The mere fact that he paid an adminstrative fine for not paying the correct fare does not prove that he committed an offence, one element of which is intending to avoid paying the correct fare. He may have committed that offence, but at this point only he knows whether he did or not.

Pkiernan · 18-03-2019 9:30am

Considering that this country doesn't deport foreign nationals with rape and multiple assault convictions, I don't think you have too much to worry about.

7znbd9xmoiupye · 18-03-2019 6:29pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it doesn't. If that were so then nobody could ever been convicted of anything, since the fact that they haven't already been convicted would mean that no offence had been committed, so any prosecution must fail.

The presumption of innocence doesn't mean that no offence has been committed. It means that the state cannot penalise you for an offence unless and until they prove, beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of a court, that you committed an offence.

In the OP's case, using the juvenile card would be an offence if the OP did it with intent to avoid paying the correct fare. But using it because, e.g., he mistakenly picked up his younger brother's card and didn't notice, would not be. The mere fact that he paid an adminstrative fine for not paying the correct fare does not prove that he committed an offence, one element of which is intending to avoid paying the correct fare. He may have committed that offence, but at this point only he knows whether he did or not.

How would intent be proven in such case? If someone deliberately did it and then said "i made a mistake and picked up my brothers card by mistake" how could the state prove intent?"

This is a hypothetical question . Not suggesting the op did anything wrong

Peregrinus · 19-03-2019 2:01am

Madison Polite Leaf wrote: »

How would intent be proven in such case? If someone deliberately did it and then said "i made a mistake and picked up my brothers card by mistake" how could the state prove intent?"

This is a hypothetical question . Not suggesting the op did anything wrong

Hypothetically, if he failed to pay the penalty fare and then got prosecuted for the offence, it would be a matter of evidence. His assertion that he picked up his younger brother's ticket by mistake might be disproven by, e.g., evidence that he didn't have a younger brother, or evidence that the ticket he used did not belong to his younger brother, or evidnce that when challenged by the inspectors he insisted that he was his younger brother.

In the present circumstances, if he applies for citizenship and denies committing any offence, but the highly-trained investigators of the INS discover that he incurred a penalty fare for using the wrong ticket (yeah, right, I know, but pretend, for the sake of the hypothetical) the Minister might conclude that he committed an offence and lied about it on his form, and then reject his application not only because of the offence but because of the subsequent lie. His remedy, if he wished to take the matter further, would be to challenge in court the reasonableness of the Minister's decision, arguing that no reasonable Minister could conclude, merely because he incurred the penalty fair, that he had committed the offence and lied about it. The issue in those proceedings would not be whether he had committed the offence but whether the Minister could reasonably conclude that he had and, again, it would come down to the information and evidence available to the Minister when he made his decision. If the only information that the Minister had was that he had incurred the penalty fair, I don't think a conclusion that he had committed an offence would be found to be reasonable.

Monife · 19-03-2019 2:38pm

bluebluegreen wrote: »

Makes me wanna do it soooo much more though lmao

But seriously, is this actually the kind of offence that makes people go "nope" to an application?

I think they take a much more holistic view of the application.

My ex-husband was a failed asylum seeker, had been convicted of failing to produce a passport (although got that conviction quashed following a legal precedent) and had 2 penalty points, which he declared in the application. He was also unemployed for 5 months during the citizenship application time period. His application was approved in less than 6 months. Apart from the above, he had a strong application (strong career prospects, undergoing a degree at the time, many character references etc.). So one or two minor mistakes does not mean you will be immediately denied.

4ensic15 · 22-03-2019 10:58pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it doesn't. If that were so then nobody could ever been convicted of anything, since the fact that they haven't already been convicted would mean that no offence had been committed, so any prosecution must fail.

.

Presumptions can be rebutted but in a situation where there has been no attempt to rebut the presumption, it must prevail.

Peregrinus · 23-03-2019 4:37am

4ensic15 wrote: »

Presumptions can be rebutted but in a situation where there has been no attempt to rebut the presumption, it must prevail.

Only within the criminal process itself. If your working-with-children check shows that you were never convicted of the many child-related offences that you have been charged with, your prospective employer - even if it's the state - is not required to proceed on the basis that you never committed an offence. If you make a sworn declaration that "I have never committed an offence" when in fact you have, the fact that you weren't convicted of the offence won't be a defence to a charge of perjury in relation to the declaration. Committing an offence and being convicted of an offence are not the same thing, and a question which asks about one is not a question about the other.

4ensic15 · 23-03-2019 9:30am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only within the criminal process itself. If your working-with-children check shows that you were never convicted of the many child-related offences that you have been charged with, your prospective employer - even if it's the state - is not required to proceed on the basis that you never committed an offence. If you make a sworn declaration that "I have never committed an offence" when in fact you have, the fact that you weren't convicted of the offence won't be a defence to a charge of perjury in relation to the declaration. Committing an offence and being convicted of an offence are not the same thing, and a question which asks about one is not a question about the other.

The only way it can be established that you committed perjury and committed an offence is by charging and convicting you of the offence. In child vetting the state proceeds on the assumption that previous suspicion of having committed an offence is a bar to certain activities. The state does not deem a person who was not convicted, guilty.

Peregrinus · 25-03-2019 2:08am

4ensic15 wrote: »

The only way it can be established that you committed perjury and committed an offence is by charging and convicting you of the offence. In child vetting the state proceeds on the assumption that previous suspicion of having committed an offence is a bar to certain activities. The state does not deem a person who was not convicted, guilty.

Yes, I know. But nor do they say that "there is no offence".

As for not being held accountable fory lying about having committed an offence that you haven't been convicted of, the whole point of asking you about this on immigration forms, etc, is to open up the possiblity of taking action against you without having to charge and convict you. If the Minister acts on the belief that you lied, he doesn't have to charge you and have you convicted; he just has to show that, on the balance of probabalities, he is reasonable in forming the view that you lied. That doesn't allow him to send you to prison, but it does allow him to, e.g, cancel your visa.

Unsure as to what classifies as an offence... (Citizenship question)

Comments