View Full Version : Driving Conviction
Hi there
I have a question about a speeding offence and whether or not it means getting a Visa. My wife has a conviction for speeding obtained a year or so ago. For lots of complicated and frustrating reasons, she didn't have the option to pay a fixed penalty and take the points, it went to court,she was fined and got three points on her licence.
I suppose I've got a couple of queries here:
1. She wasn't arrested, so that looks good re the visa waiver scheme?
2. I don't know whether a speeding conviction is classed as a criminal conviction or not. (Probably just wishful thinking on my part). If it is, then it looks like she will need to apply for a Visa, which leads to another couple of questions:
3. How long does it take?
4. Does she have to go for an interview?
5. Has anyone been declined a Visa on the basis of a speeding conviction?
6. Will it affect cost of car hire?
It's all complicated by the fact that she actually had a Visa about 10 years ago, which has now expired although we've been to the States many times since then on the waiver scheme.
I daresay these questions have been answered many times on this forum before, but I'd really appreciate it if you can help.
Tonish
Nostromo
17-01-2005, 23:37
I had 6 points on my licence for speeding (a professional hazard, I'm afraid[V]) when I went to Florida last year. I rang the American Embassy well in advance to check if I could use the VW scheme and they told me that I could do so as long as there was no arrest - which there was not. The guy at the Dollar also looked at it but said nothing. So, I guess speeding points got through the usual 'fixed penalty' scheme are all right.
Tonish,
My husband got a speeding conviction a couple of years ago and it went to Court because the Policeman was unable to issue an on the spot fine. No arrest was made.
As it went to Court he now has a conviction (points and fine) and requires a US Visa.
I phoned up the US embassy and they advised us as it went to Court he has a criminal conviction. Best to call the Embassy 09055-444-546 (£1.30 per minute).
Every person (unless 80 or over or under 14) needs to attend either London or Belfast for an interview before a Visa will be issued. The timings will depend on where you want to go. When you phone them they will advise you when the next available appointment is. They will also advise that it can take up to 16 weeks to process a Visa application.
When you are at the appointment the Embassy will let you know how long it will take for you to receive your Visa, if successful. Ours took 3 weeks all together, 2 weeks until appointment, 1 week to get the Visa.
Before you make the appointment make sure you have all the paperwork for the application.
Embassy website - www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/apply.htm and www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/interview.htm
Robert5988
18-01-2005, 01:15
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Tonish,
My husband got a speeding conviction a couple of years ago and it went to Court because the Policeman was unable to issue an on the spot fine. No arrest was made.
As it went to Court he now has a conviction (points and fine) and requires a US Visa.
I phoned up the US embassy and they advised us as it went to Court he has a criminal conviction. Best to call the Embassy 09055-444-546 (£1.30 per minute).
Every person (unless 80 or over or under 14) needs to attend either London or Belfast for an interview before a Visa will be issued. The timings will depend on where you want to go. When you phone them they will advise you when the next available appointment is. They will also advise that it can take up to 16 weeks to process a Visa application.
When you are at the appointment the Embassy will let you know how long it will take for you to receive your Visa, if successful. Ours took 3 weeks all together, 2 weeks until appointment, 1 week to get the Visa.
Before you make the appointment make sure you have all the paperwork for the application.
Embassy website - www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/apply.htm and www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/interview.htm
[/quote]
Gail,
I am sorry that is wrong.
The regulations on the Visa Waiver scheme specifically exempt minor traffic convictions such as speeding etc. You require to have been arrested.
For a speeding offence, it makes no difference if you receive a on-the-spot fine, or are sent a notice of intent to prosecute in the post, and plead guilty by letter or attend court. You are still convicted but that does not mean you have to obtain a Visa. You can still use the Visa Waiver scheme.
So many people read these threads and get themselves worried sick about the mis-information that is posted.
If that indeed is what you were told by the Embassy they are wrong. Could not there have been a mis-understanding on either side?
Robert5988
18-01-2005, 01:54
In amplification of the above post about minor traffic offences NOT preventing travel under the Visa Waiver scheme the relevant US Embassy website is:
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_web/visa/niv/vwp.htm
To save you looking it up the relevant wording is:
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified.
[/quote]
Nostromo
18-01-2005, 11:03
Robert, I wonder if there is an additional clause here. Tonish says that his wife "did not have the option of a fixed penalty fine" and so had to go to court to settle the matter. I don't know what her "complicated and frustrating reasons" were, but am trying to read between the lines. If, say, a person was sent the option of a fixed penalty but was unable to pay it within the stipulated 28 days because of an uninformed address change or being on holiday, would that count as an additional offence (so become more than just a 'minor' one) and compromise eligibilty for VWS? Just asking.
Robert5988
18-01-2005, 13:50
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote: Robert, I wonder if there is an additional clause here. Tonish says that his wife "did not have the option of a fixed penalty fine" and so had to go to court to settle the matter. I don't know what her "complicated and frustrating reasons" were, but am trying to read between the lines. If, say, a person was sent the option of a fixed penalty but was unable to pay it within the stipulated 28 days because of an uninformed address change or being on holiday, would that count as an additional offence (so become more than just a 'minor' one) and compromise eligibilty for VWS? Just asking.[/quote]
Hi Nostromo,
My reply was directed at Gail(Brazie) and her flat statement that:
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:As it went to Court he now has a conviction (points and fine) and requires a US Visa.[/quote]
Both Gail and Tonish stated that no arrest had been made, the offence was speeding, and the penalty was a fine and deduction of points. (only 3 points in Tonish’s case)
Now you and I have had a conviction for speeding; I use the term ‘conviction’ advisedly. Neither of us went to court, but it was our right to do so if we had so wished. Had we attended court and been found guilty we would still have the same conviction for a minor traffic offence(albeit the fine is often larger). This is no different to the convictions for the spouses of Gail and Tonish.
The regulations are absolutely clear and, unless an arrest was made, a conviction for a minor traffic offence does [u]not</u> disqualify you from using the Visa Waiver scheme and you do not need a Visa.
Robert
Nostromo is spot on - the problem was she had a Northern Ireland driving licence which she had not changed to an English one since moving house. Apparently the police can't put penalty points on a NI licence. She had to renew her driving licence with the new address, cancel it, get an English one and submit that for the points. Unfortunately, her proof of ID needed to get the driving licence in England was her passport, which was out of date, so....what with all the complications, she couldn't sort it out in time to avoid a court case. (All for doing 56 in a 50 zone).
I had agreed with Robert, wasn't entirely sure that a speeding conviction actually counted as a criminal conviction, hence my query.
However, thanks everyone for the comments. I've spoken to the embassy and they were adamant - got to get a Visa. "Yes, but she wasn't arrested" I said, "It says arrested OR convicted" I was told, "and as she's got a conviction, you need a Visa".
When I tried to make an appointment for the interview, I was told my wife had to get a Memorandum of Conviction from the court the case was heard in before she could make an appointment.
I don't know. It's enough to make you think twice about speeding. Fines, penalty points, criminal record, visa problems, hassle all round. Now I'm completing the Visa application form (thank you Gail)and it wants the date of her Visa friom 10 years ago or so. Of course we can't find her old passport and they have told me they can't take the form without the date! I suppose I'll be charged extra for the car insurance when we get there as well.
Tonish
To clarify, all speeding offrnces cannot ne dealt with by means of the fixed penalty scheme, ie; if you where doing 55mph in a 30 mph zone,or had more than 9 penalty points on the licence you would be outside the scope of the scheme and would have to be reported for summons to attend at court(or plead via letter).
Which ever way you where dealt with you are still eligable for the visa waiver.
There are very few cases when speeding alone would lead to an arrest.
Nostromo
18-01-2005, 17:09
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Tonish
However, thanks everyone for the comments. I've spoken to the embassy and they were adamant - got to get a Visa. "Yes, but she wasn't arrested" I said, "It says arrested OR convicted" I was told, "and as she's got a conviction, you need a Visa".
When I tried to make an appointment for the interview, I was told my wife had to get a Memorandum of Conviction from the court the case was heard in before she could make an appointment.
Tonish
Now you and I have had a conviction for speeding; I use the term ‘conviction’ advisedly. Neither of us went to court, but it was our right to do so if we had so wished. Had we attended court and been found guilty we would still have the same conviction for a minor traffic offence(albeit the fine is often larger). This is no different to the convictions for the spouses of Gail and Tonish.
Robert
[/quote]
Robert, the highlighted part of Tonish's statement seems fairly definite. At the same time, I believe you are quoting correctly about the difference between 'arrest' and 'conviction'. Therefore, I read the overall situation like this. Please comment.
You (I assume) and I accepted the offer of a fixed penalty, paid it and got the penalty points on our licences. But we did NOT challenge the police statement and go to court (even though we had that choice). Now I know that people who have done that in the past have actually had their penalty increased by the court. Therefore, can it be that we, having paid the fixed penalty, were not considered as having been convicted but would have been had we gone to court? But Tonish's wife had to go to court for the reasons described by him and so is now in a position where she cannot use the WVS unlike you and I.
What do you think?
Robert5988
18-01-2005, 17:15
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:However, thanks everyone for the comments. I've spoken to the embassy and they were adamant - got to get a Visa. "Yes, but she wasn't arrested" I said, "It says arrested OR convicted" I was told, "and as she's got a conviction, you need a Visa".
[/quote]
Tonish,
Your profile shows you to be from the USA?
Many people have clarified with the Embassy in London that a minor motoring conviction does not prevent you using the Visa Waiver scheme. The regulations are absolutely clear on this matter.
I can only assume that the clerk you spoke to has misunderstood you. Either that or he/she is plain mistaken.
Rather than go to the expense and trouble of getting a Visa and more importantly disseminating incorrect information on this forum(however well intentioned), why don’t you write to the Embassy and get it in writing.
At the risk of repeating myself you are Convicted regardless of attending court or not.
So if being convicted disqualifies you from the Visa Waiver Scheme, what category of minor traffic offence allows you to use the Visa Waiver Scheme?
Robert
Thanks Robert
My profile was wrong, I'm from the UK. I've changed it now. I hope you're right and I will investigate further and come back on it. I agree, don't want to post misleading information, but I must say, the embassy expressed no surprise when I talked about a speeding conviction, they seemed to have had the same conversation many times.
Tonish
Robert5988
18-01-2005, 17:55
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Therefore, can it be that we, having paid the fixed penalty, were not considered as having been convicted but would have been had we gone to court?
What do you think?[/quote]
Nostromo,
If you look at the small print in your car insurance policy and proposal forms it refers to convictions and asks if you have been convicted of any driving offence.
Similarly if you look at the DVLC site and your driving licence it refers to ‘date of conviction’ The booklet on the various offence codes, SP30 etc, refers to convictions.
Nowhere does it indicate that you are only convicted if you attend a court.
You can challenge a parking ticket and go to court – many do in London. If their challenge is unsuccessful they are convicted in Court of a parking offence.
Lastly fixed penalty tickets and speed cameras are a modern(well relatively!!) innovation. Before then all motoring offences were dealt with by court. My elder brother was fined 5 shillings and convicted in a court of the heinous crime of riding his bicycle without a rear lamp. (I would add the local copper had warned him several times!)
So is my brother banned from using the Visa Waiver scheme because he was convicted in a court? Of course not.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I phoned up the US embassy and they advised us as it went to Court he has a criminal conviction. Best to call the Embassy 09055-444-546 (£1.30 per minute).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert,
US Embassy website - "Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified".
If it goes to court it is a Conviction based on the information from the US Embassy. We are not going to challenge the Embassy rules because we want to get into their Country.
Surely my comments of "best to call the Embassy" would allow Tonish to make his own decision of what he wants to do and possible call them for piece of mind.
The US Embassy website also states "Some travelers may not be eligible to enter the United States visa free under the VWP. These include people who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), certain serious communicable illnesses, those who have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed on the visa waiver program. Such travelers must apply for special restricted visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the United States."
Only by calling the US Embassy would you be able to give you clarification. I did e-mail the Embassy before calling them and they advised that he could go on the VWP if the offence was for speeding but only if he was not arrested/or convicted. The US Embassy was quite adamant that as it went to Court and given a sentence (4 points and fine) that he has a conviction. He also has a Memorandum of Conviction which you can only get if it went to Court and the was a penalty/sentence given to you.
I don't feel that I gave Tonish the wrong advice as the information he gave us to start with was similar to the experience we had with a motoring conviction.
steph_goodrum
21-01-2005, 12:20
Perhaps this misconceptions come about because the US and UK legal systems may differ in what offences would be taken to court in the US. I don't know how their system works but maybe if you are only arrested or convicted if the "misdemeanour" is more severe than in the UK, so they make the assumption if you have been to court then they want to find out why.
The minor traffic offenses could relate to parking tickets rather than actual driving misdemeneanours.
Nostromo
21-01-2005, 13:31
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by steph_goodrum
Perhaps this misconceptions come about because the US and UK legal systems may differ in what offences would be taken to court in the US. I don't know how their system works but maybe if you are only arrested or convicted if the "misdemeanour" is more severe than in the UK, so they make the assumption if you have been to court then they want to find out why.
The minor traffic offenses could relate to parking tickets rather than actual driving misdemeneanours.
[/quote]
But I had 3+3 penalty points on my licence for speeding when I went to Orlando last spring. By your definition, that would count as a "Driving Misdemeanour" and even though both were settled by the Fixed Penalty system without involvement of a court, Robert advises that it could still count as a 'conviction'. Mindful of potential problems, I checked with the US Embassy beforehand and they clearly told me that I was eligible for VWS and did not have to worry. Needless to say, everything went fine.
Please note that I am merely quoting my own experience and there is no intention to ruffle any feathers on this rather heated subject.
Robert5988
21-01-2005, 13:59
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:US Embassy website - "Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified".
If it goes to court it is a Conviction based on the information from the US Embassy. We are not going to challenge the Embassy rules because we want to get into their Country.
Surely my comments of "best to call the Embassy" would allow Tonish to make his own decision of what he wants to do and possible call them for piece of mind.
The US Embassy website also states "Some travelers may not be eligible to enter the United States visa free under the VWP. These include people who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), certain serious communicable illnesses, those who have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed on the visa waiver program. Such travelers must apply for special restricted visas. If they attempt to travel without a visa, they may be refused entry into the United States."
Only by calling the US Embassy would you be able to give you clarification. I did e-mail the Embassy before calling them and they advised that he could go on the VWP if the offence was for speeding but only if he was not arrested/or convicted. The US Embassy was quite adamant that as it went to Court and given a sentence (4 points and fine) that he has a conviction. He also has a Memorandum of Conviction which you can only get if it went to Court and the was a penalty/sentence given to you.
I don't feel that I gave Tonish the wrong advice as the information he gave us to start with was similar to the experience we had with a motoring conviction.
[/quote]
Gail,
The only reason I am pursuing this matter is that people reading your post will go to a lot of unnecessary trouble and expense obtaining a Visa when it is not necessary.
Firstly the quotes from the US Embassy site in both our posts are absolutely clear and I suggest there is absolutely nothing in them that supports your contention that Tonish and your spouses require a Visa.
As stated in my last post I have a conviction for speeding, Nostromo has a conviction for speeding, millions of UK citizens have convictions for minor traffic offences which include speeding. It does not matter if you went to court or not you are convicted! The regulations specifically exempt these offences.
There is a record of all these convictions and(if not time expired) they will be taken into account if we are prosecuted for a further offence.
Now this is the important part!
You ,without any regulation to support your assumption, appear to claim that going to court somehow makes the offence more serious and only then does that count as a conviction.
Where in the regulations is that written down?
Where in the regulations does it say that going to court makes a difference?
If you produce any written statement that supports your contention that appearing in court and being convicted for a minor traffic offence(provided you were not arrested) necessitates getting a Visa, I will eat my hat.
As I said in my earlier post it wasn’t that long ago that UK citizens had no option but to go to court.(and in cases like Tonish they still attend court) My brother riding a bike with no rear light was convicted in court. Are you seriously suggesting that he needs a Visa?
If you do not believe the US embassy’s very clear regulations, I suggest that there is absolutely no point in telephoning the US embassy on this matter – instead you should get them to put in writing that their regulations are wrong. As Babblin Boo states it is quite possible that the person you spoke to on the phone at
Perhaps it would be best if I updated you on events of the last couple of days. I called the embassy helpline number and spoke to a representative there. He was of the opinion that as there was a conviction and a fine she would need to go for an interview. He said it was likely that given the nature of the offense, they most likely would allow her to use the Visa waiver rather than have to get one, but the only person who could make that decision would be the staff at the embassy and she would definitely need an interview.
The decisive factors appeared to be:
1. There was a court case with a conviction.
2. The fine (£100) was more than the normal £60.
What he did say was that in the usual circumstances where there had been a fixed penalty ticket paid and the standard number of points issued, the Visa waiver form was fine, but as ours appeared to be a little different we would at least have to have an interview.
The good news is that there doesn't appear to be a long wait for interviews - we phoned on the 18th and were offered an appointment for 27th. This didn't suit so she's got one on the 1st Feb.
I'll let you know the outcome. Many thanks to everyone for the advice and concern.
Tonish
I am following this thread with interest. I recieved a fixed penaly notice for a minor motoring offence. The offence was a joke. I passed a parked car on a road with a single solid white line. I mentioned this to a solicitor friend who was already representing 2 people for the same offence on the same day. Anyway to cut a short story shorter he took it to court and we were convicted with 3pts and £40 fine.
I have been to the US under the VWS a couple of times since not even thinking this could be a problem. After reading this thread it has got me worried so I have just rang my solicitor. He said even though it went to court it would have no additional paperwork raised than if we had accepted it and paid up. No memorandum of conviction and no criminal record incurred.
I will watch this thread to see what happens to other people as I dont want to jeopardise my hols in the summer, but dont want to spend £100 quid or so getting the train to London for an interview if I dont have to.
E. Cosgrove
31-01-2005, 14:39
There have been loads of threads re ciminal conviction, and if I've followed them correctly you have certainly nothing to worry about as you were never arrested. Iam sure someone will correct me if I am wrong!!
thanks, lets hope not[msnsmile]
If I or anyone else had been coming towards you on the opposite side of the road, I don't think I would have seen the funny side of your 'JOKE'......[V]I for one have seen to many people who unfortunatly for no fault of there own will not be able to visit Florida, and it not because they can't get a Visa.
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by ste1010
I am following this thread with interest. I recieved a fixed penaly notice for a minor motoring offence. The offence was a joke. I passed a parked car on a road with a single solid white line. [/quote]
Nostromo
01-02-2005, 02:35
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by amy
If I or anyone else had been coming towards you on the opposite side of the road, I don't think I would have seen the funny side of your 'JOKE'......[V]I for one have seen to many people who unfortunatly for no fault of there own will not be able to visit Florida, and it not because they can't get a Visa.
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by ste1010
I am following this thread with interest. I recieved a fixed penalty notice for a minor motoring offence. The offence was a joke. I passed a parked car on a road with a single solid white line. [/quote]
[/quote]
Amy, I cannot understand what you are upset about. If the other car was parked on the road, what was Ste1010 supposed to do? Stop behind it all day because there was a solid white line on the road? I am sure that he took adequate precautions to check if another vehicle was approaching from the opposite side before going past the stationary car.
ste1010, if it indeed happened that way, I agree with you entirely that the penalty was a joke - and a stupid one at that.
amy, give you head a shake. Joke is the correct word. How can you comment. Do you know the road , the circumstances. No you dont. Have you read the highway code. Obviously not!
Well I will quote to you
"Solid white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"
I overtook a stationary car to access a side road. As it was on the approach to a railway crossing and the barriers were down I overtook one car in front of me to access a side road which was before the railway crossing. It was clearly visiable no other vehicles were coming the other way.
The magistrate even admitted to performing the same maneovre herself. The police's argument was that the highway code is only advisory and not law and that apparently I broke a law in the RTA sect 36. A law even the magistrate didnot know about. She admitted she had to find us guilty but also insisted the police arranged with the highways agency to put signs up and paint a second solid white line. these signs/Lines appeared 2 weeks after the hearing.
So next time please do not come the high and mighty and lecture me about road safety because I know what a dangerous place roads are through personal experience.
Thank You
So much passion! I never dreamed I'd stir up such a hornets' nest.
To update you on my current situation. Today my wife went to the embassy and got her Visa application approved. The experience was exactly as described by Bezza in his post on 27 Jan. The only thing she would add is that it appeared to be a waste of time to arrive early. (All that would accomplish would be an extra wait out in the cold). She arrived at the allotted time but still had a wait outside for 45 mins. Her total time took from 11.a.m to 3.15 p.m. By the way, you're not allowed to use your mobile in the embassy, so if you want to warn people you're running late or whatever, you can't.
No-one batted an eyelid at her applying as a result of a minor driving conviction; no-one suggested she didn't need a Visa for such a trivial offence and she got the impression they were doing Visas wll the time for this specific problem. The overall issue was "there was a conviction so we want the details". Unfortunately, despite clear instruction from me she didn't specifically ask the major question, which was "do I really need a Visa for this or could I have used the waiver?"
Tchah! If you want a thing done properly.... All I can say is that she very much got the impression that the Visa was needed. Sorry if that upsets Robert, or sends the 400 odd people who have read this into a stampede to the embassy for Visas, but there you have it.
Tonish
Robert5988
02-02-2005, 08:29
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Unfortunately, despite clear instruction from me she didn't specifically ask the major question, which was "do I really need a Visa for this or could I have used the waiver?"
Tchah! If you want a thing done properly.... All I can say is that she very much got the impression that the Visa was needed. Sorry if that upsets Robert, or sends the 400 odd people who have read this into a stampede to the embassy for Visas, but there you have it.
[/quote]
Tonish,
Thanks for the update. As you say it is a pity your wife did not ask the $64,000 question as it has not moved the ‘debate’ forward.
My stance is absolutely clear and I have stated it clearly enough in previous posts. The regulations and the relevant question on the I-94W are absolutely clear, and have been explained in many posts by a number of contributors.
However if anyone wishes to examine those regulations to see if there is an obscure way that the regulations can be interpreted such that a minor traffic offence might disqualify you from the Visa Waiver Scheme; that is their prerogative. If they wish to spend the money for a Visa, visit London and spend hours hanging about the US Embassy that is also their choice.
For the many people who visit this forum for advice it would be helpful to give them a single piece of substantive evidence why they need a Visa for a minor traffic offence.
Robert
Steve and Dawn
07-02-2005, 21:14
To save you looking it up the relevant wording is:
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Robert, I think I see what you are saying but correct me if I am wrong. It was an "and/or" If it resulted in a conviction then they may not travel visa free? It is a very grey area I think. Maybe it would be easier if our American friends amended it to read criminal and ignore Civil cases. Would that be better?
Steve
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/quote]
Robert, I think I see what you are saying but correct me if I am wrong. It was an "and/or" If it resulted in a conviction then they may not travel visa free? It is a very grey area I think. Maybe it would be easier if our American friends amended it to read criminal and ignore Civil cases. Would that be better?
Steve
.................................................. ..................................
Steve, I'm in agreement with you on this. The "and/or" is all important here when referring to a conviction. Like Robert, I believe it is absolutely not the intention of the authorities to include people with minor driving offences, but unfortunately the wording immediately following that phrase means that any conviction will lead to the necessity of a Visa application.
I believe a wording which would better satisfy their intent would be : Travellers with minor traffic CONVICTIONS which were not as the result of an arrest may travel Visa free. Or, as you suggest, differentiate between criminal and civil offences, although I'm not certain of the difference myself. The fact is that in my wife's case, it DID result in a conviction so, following the wording, we felt we had no choice but to apply for a Visa.
I'm certain that the US embassy is putting itself to an awful lot of trouble and expense interviewing people like my wife and it would surely be better to reallocate that resource to concentrate on those people where there may be genuine cause for concern. I don't mind in the least being inconvenienced if I felt there was a useful reason for it and it was reducing a terrorist threat, but for the life of me, I can't see the need to interview everyone with a speeding conviction.
Tonish
Nostromo
09-02-2005, 15:15
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Tonish
quote:
Steve, I'm in agreement with you on this. The "and/or" is all important here when referring to a conviction. Like Robert, I believe it is absolutely not the intention of the authorities to include people with minor driving offences, but unfortunately the wording immediately following that phrase means that any conviction will lead to the necessity of a Visa application.
I believe a wording which would better satisfy their intent would be : Travellers with minor traffic CONVICTIONS which were not as the result of an arrest may travel Visa free. Or, as you suggest, differentiate between criminal and civil offences, although I'm not certain of the difference myself. The fact is that in my wife's case, it DID result in a conviction so, following the wording, we felt we had no choice but to apply for a Visa.
I'm certain that the US embassy is putting itself to an awful lot of trouble and expense interviewing people like my wife and it would surely be better to reallocate that resource to concentrate on those people where there may be genuine cause for concern. I don't mind in the least being inconvenienced if I felt there was a useful reason for it and it was reducing a terrorist threat, but for the life of me, I can't see the need to interview everyone with a speeding conviction.
Tonish
[/quote]
My own deduction from this is that all the confusion revolves around interpretation of the word "conviction" in relation to fixed penalty offences. There is no doubt that drivers who received fixed penalty fines and paid those promptly (like I have done twice), do NOT require a visa and can use the VWS. Yet, the US Embassy wording seems to suggest that a driver with any traffic conviction, however minor, needs to apply for a visa. This can only mean that the US Immos (some of them at least) do not consider the offer of a fixed penalty fine as a conviction as long as it is undisputed and a prompt payment made.
Succinctly put, Nostromo.
That was definitely the impression I got when talking to the embassy helpline staff - normal fixed penalty notices and points weren't an issue, but once it had gone to court it was a different ball game.
Tonish
Robert5988
09-02-2005, 17:12
This really is developing into a discussion on semantics.
Some observations:
Firstly I do not believe any moving traffic offence is a “civil offence”. If guilty your conviction is recorded and this record may be used if you offend again – provided it is not spent. There are 5 categories of traffic offence ranging up to 'causing death by dangerous driving'
By your definitions, had Nostromo challenged his speeding fixed tickets and lost in court, he would still be convicted but now ineligible for a Visa Waiver. I disagree.
As stated earlier, before the introduction of fixed penalty notices(20 years ago??) all offences were dealt with in court. You could plead guilty by letter or appear in person. Again by your definitions all these people are ineligible for a Visa Waiver – this includes my(then) teenage brother fined 5 shillings for riding his bike without a light. I disagree.
The I-94W only asks if you have been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime of moral turpitude. The regulations, for those of us who delve into them, also refer to being arrested and in any case specifically exempts minor traffic offences.
It seems to me crystal clear that those with convictions for minor traffic offences(which are not offenses(sic) of moral turpitude in any case) that did not result in an arrest are intended by US immigration to use the Visa Waiver scheme.
I have known people who employ lawyers and go to inordinate lengths to examine the minutiae of laws and regulations in order to get themselves ‘off the hook’.
Despite the absolutely clear spirit and intent of the US regulations; this discussion is unique in my experience in that we have those going to great length to see if there is any way they can (mis)interpret the wording of regulations to enable themselves to get ‘on the hook!!’.
Top Post Robert
You have said exactly the same as what my solicitor advised. Even though I went to court over a fixed penalty offence the court would view it the same as if I didn't i.e no memorandum of conviction will be made against me and it would not appear a a criminal record.