|
dedalus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 63,
Visits: 1.4K
|
+x+x+x+xdoes anyone actually know what the questions will be on the form? I have a fraud conviction which will be spent in January 2023 (I was fined). I am assuming the UK spent convictions regs will not apply? According to the rules document, the question will effectively be "Have you been convicted of an offence in Annex 10 in the last fifteen years?", or words to that effect. It will also refer to terrorist offences, with a longer time period, but I can't remember the exact period, as they changed the rules just before they were passed. It won't matter whether it is spent, and it does mean that at some point, someone with an unspent conviction won't have to disclose it. do you have a link to annex 10? You can find the whole ETIAS document here. My mistake about Annex 10, as it's actually "the Annex in the last 10 years", but I've since read that it was changed to the last 15 years. The Annex is right at the end of the document. the problem with these things is that as usual they group offences together regardless of severity. fraud which is my case, i defrauded the council by using an expired blue badge yet someone who may have defrauded vulnerable individuals of their life savings would have the same treatment when being assessed for eligibility. Shouldn't the sentence be more relevant?
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 7.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xdoes anyone actually know what the questions will be on the form? I have a fraud conviction which will be spent in January 2023 (I was fined). I am assuming the UK spent convictions regs will not apply? According to the rules document, the question will effectively be "Have you been convicted of an offence in Annex 10 in the last fifteen years?", or words to that effect. It will also refer to terrorist offences, with a longer time period, but I can't remember the exact period, as they changed the rules just before they were passed. It won't matter whether it is spent, and it does mean that at some point, someone with an unspent conviction won't have to disclose it. do you have a link to annex 10? You can find the whole ETIAS document here. My mistake about Annex 10, as it's actually "the Annex in the last 10 years", but I've since read that it was changed to the last 15 years. The Annex is right at the end of the document. the problem with these things is that as usual they group offences together regardless of severity. fraud which is my case, i defrauded the council by using an expired blue badge yet someone who may have defrauded vulnerable individuals of their life savings would have the same treatment when being assessed for eligibility. Shouldn't the sentence be more relevant? I agree with you, but the consideration should also include the details of the offence. I suspect your case didn't involve the Fraud Act but was done under some sort of traffic law. On that basis, as motoring offences don't seem to be on the list, you can make your own disclosure decision accordingly....
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 7.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xdoes anyone actually know what the questions will be on the form? I have a fraud conviction which will be spent in January 2023 (I was fined). I am assuming the UK spent convictions regs will not apply? According to the rules document, the question will effectively be "Have you been convicted of an offence in Annex 10 in the last fifteen years?", or words to that effect. It will also refer to terrorist offences, with a longer time period, but I can't remember the exact period, as they changed the rules just before they were passed. It won't matter whether it is spent, and it does mean that at some point, someone with an unspent conviction won't have to disclose it. do you have a link to annex 10? You can find the whole ETIAS document here. My mistake about Annex 10, as it's actually "the Annex in the last 10 years", but I've since read that it was changed to the last 15 years. The Annex is right at the end of the document. the problem with these things is that as usual they group offences together regardless of severity. fraud which is my case, i defrauded the council by using an expired blue badge yet someone who may have defrauded vulnerable individuals of their life savings would have the same treatment when being assessed for eligibility. Shouldn't the sentence be more relevant? I agree with you, but the consideration should also include the details of the offence. I suspect your case didn't involve the Fraud Act but was done under some sort of traffic law. On that basis, as motoring offences don't seem to be on the list, you can make your own disclosure decision accordingly.... I can't remember if it was on this thread or another one, but somebody said they had read that the period for the disclosure question had been extended to fifteen years when the regulation was passed. I've just been trawling the EU website, and I can't find anything that says they will ask about the previous fifteen years. Everything I've found still says ten years. However, I did find on this site, which is not an official EU site, that the markers put on someone's file for criminal convictions must be removed after fifteen years. So, you only have to disclose for ten years from the date of conviction, but if you disclose during that period, they will keep that information for up to fifteen years from the date they first process it. Food for thought.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
tedstriker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 55,
Visits: 3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xdoes anyone actually know what the questions will be on the form? I have a fraud conviction which will be spent in January 2023 (I was fined). I am assuming the UK spent convictions regs will not apply? According to the rules document, the question will effectively be "Have you been convicted of an offence in Annex 10 in the last fifteen years?", or words to that effect. It will also refer to terrorist offences, with a longer time period, but I can't remember the exact period, as they changed the rules just before they were passed. It won't matter whether it is spent, and it does mean that at some point, someone with an unspent conviction won't have to disclose it. do you have a link to annex 10? You can find the whole ETIAS document here. My mistake about Annex 10, as it's actually "the Annex in the last 10 years", but I've since read that it was changed to the last 15 years. The Annex is right at the end of the document. the problem with these things is that as usual they group offences together regardless of severity. fraud which is my case, i defrauded the council by using an expired blue badge yet someone who may have defrauded vulnerable individuals of their life savings would have the same treatment when being assessed for eligibility. Shouldn't the sentence be more relevant? I agree with you, but the consideration should also include the details of the offence. I suspect your case didn't involve the Fraud Act but was done under some sort of traffic law. On that basis, as motoring offences don't seem to be on the list, you can make your own disclosure decision accordingly.... I can't remember if it was on this thread or another one, but somebody said they had read that the period for the disclosure question had been extended to fifteen years when the regulation was passed. I've just been trawling the EU website, and I can't find anything that says they will ask about the previous fifteen years. Everything I've found still says ten years. However, I did find on this site, which is not an official EU site, that the markers put on someone's file for criminal convictions must be removed after fifteen years. So, you only have to disclose for ten years from the date of conviction, but if you disclose during that period, they will keep that information for up to fifteen years from the date they first process it. Food for thought. It was me. It's been done through an amendment. I can't figure out how to multiquote so I'll put it below. I think the reason given for it was to tie in with those data retention things you mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
tedstriker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 55,
Visits: 3K
|
+xNow the forum appears to be working I can finally post this: The question about convictions on the ETIAS was changed just before the document was passed into EU law. They will now ask for previous 15 years for offences rather than the original 10 years. I believe terrorism offences used to be 20 years and are now 25. It's pretty crappy news for a lot of us I would imagine. (a) whether he or she has been convicted in the previous 25 years of a terrorist offence or in the previous 15 years of any other criminal offence listed in the Annex, and if so when and in which country;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018R1240-20210803 - Amendment M2 here This post.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 7.7K
|
+x+xNow the forum appears to be working I can finally post this: The question about convictions on the ETIAS was changed just before the document was passed into EU law. They will now ask for previous 15 years for offences rather than the original 10 years. I believe terrorism offences used to be 20 years and are now 25. It's pretty crappy news for a lot of us I would imagine. (a) whether he or she has been convicted in the previous 25 years of a terrorist offence or in the previous 15 years of any other criminal offence listed in the Annex, and if so when and in which country;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02018R1240-20210803 - Amendment M2 here This post. I've had a look through the amendment, and you are right. The way the document is set out is confusing, but it does say that under Article 17, applicants will be asked if they have had any convictions for offences listed in the Annex in the previous fifteen years (or twenty-five for terrorism offences). They can also query the Interpol databases for the same period, but I'm not sure Interpol would have anything beyond alerts and notices. They are normally a communication channel between countries and don't hold each member country's entire criminal records database. The short version then, unfortunately, is that the question is about the previous fifteen years. Well done tedstriker for spotting that amendment!
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
dedalus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 63,
Visits: 1.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xdoes anyone actually know what the questions will be on the form? I have a fraud conviction which will be spent in January 2023 (I was fined). I am assuming the UK spent convictions regs will not apply? According to the rules document, the question will effectively be "Have you been convicted of an offence in Annex 10 in the last fifteen years?", or words to that effect. It will also refer to terrorist offences, with a longer time period, but I can't remember the exact period, as they changed the rules just before they were passed. It won't matter whether it is spent, and it does mean that at some point, someone with an unspent conviction won't have to disclose it. do you have a link to annex 10? You can find the whole ETIAS document here. My mistake about Annex 10, as it's actually "the Annex in the last 10 years", but I've since read that it was changed to the last 15 years. The Annex is right at the end of the document. the problem with these things is that as usual they group offences together regardless of severity. fraud which is my case, i defrauded the council by using an expired blue badge yet someone who may have defrauded vulnerable individuals of their life savings would have the same treatment when being assessed for eligibility. Shouldn't the sentence be more relevant? I agree with you, but the consideration should also include the details of the offence. I suspect your case didn't involve the Fraud Act but was done under some sort of traffic law. On that basis, as motoring offences don't seem to be on the list, you can make your own disclosure decision accordingly.... I had been using a deceased person's bb so i was convicted of fraud rather than motoring offence. Having said this, the actual entry in the pcn does not mention the word "fraud".
|
|
|
|
|
dedalus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 63,
Visits: 1.4K
|
+x+xFrom what I’ve read the etias system will be linked to the ecris database which is linked to any uk convictions meaning they are going to have access to a lot more information than a country like the us would when granting a esta. It seems to me like it’s going to make travel to Europe very difficult for lots of people with a criminal record. ETIAS may well be linked to ECRIS, but ECRIS isn't linked to the PNC in the UK, so there will be no automatic access to criminal record information. According to this article, information can be shared on request, but will take up to 20 working days. I can't see them routinely making people wait 4 weeks for their ETIAS approval. Unless you are someone on an international watch list or the subject of an Interpol notice, they will have to accept what you tell them and rely on that. Peters & Peters successfully secures deletion of cross-border criminal conviction from the Police National Computer and European Criminal Records Information System - Peters & Peters (petersandpeters.com)the link above would imply that the pnc is linked to ECRIS
|
|
|
|
|
Zack
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 59,
Visits: 4.6K
|
If a national from one country commits a crime and resides in another, then ECRIS can be used to share that information to the relevant country. At least it could when we were in the EU. It may be that this is a French guy living in the UK, or a British guy living in France. Once the data is shared, then it can be added to the PNC. I would think that as Brexit has happened, that they cannot share that information anymore though. Unless they have agreed to some sort of deal and ECJ oversight. There should be rights in theory to ensure that data is updated and removed if no longer accurate. Maybe they are not allowed to hold this info any longer, since the UK has not agreed to comply with ECJ. I don't know, but as far as I'm aware data is not shared automatically, but EU countries are supposed to share data regarding nationals who live or are from other EU countries.
|
|
|
|
|
dedalus
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 63,
Visits: 1.4K
|
+xIf a national from one country commits a crime and resides in another, then ECRIS can be used to share that information to the relevant country. At least it could when we were in the EU. It may be that this is a French guy living in the UK, or a British guy living in France. Once the data is shared, then it can be added to the PNC. I would think that as Brexit has happened, that they cannot share that information anymore though. Unless they have agreed to some sort of deal and ECJ oversight. There should be rights in theory to ensure that data is updated and removed if no longer accurate. Maybe they are not allowed to hold this info any longer, since the UK has not agreed to comply with ECJ. I don't know, but as far as I'm aware data is not shared automatically, but EU countries are supposed to share data regarding nationals who live or are from other EU countries. thanks
|
|
|
|