Security Clearance and Motoring Conviction

[sparkle009]

Hi all,

I am due to apply for SC clearance and got a question related to motoring conviction.

I was stupidly speeding on motor way when variable speed limit was in action, i was doing 76 on 50 area. I received a letter from force that my case will be heard at magistrate court. I will plead guilty. I have a clean license for last 10 years and this is my first offence.


Reading some the requirements on good character i came across this on Mandatory Rejection of SC

'More than 3 endorsable traffic convictions (including fixed penalties) and/or 6 penalty points, within the last 5 years (for offences on different dates)'


I will get 6 points and fine as my speed limit falls under Band C.

The above line says 6 penalty points within the last 5 years (for offences on different dates) what does it actually mean. Does it mean if i get 6 point on a single date I am good and doesnt fall under mandatory rejection.

[Zigenare]

Tell them before they tell you.

[malvolio]

Tell them before they tell you.

And what makes you think they don't already know?

[sparkle009]

Yes i will tell them ofcourse, my question is on the guideline i asked

'More than 3 endorsable traffic convictions (including fixed penalties) and/or 6 penalty points, within the last 5 years (for offences on different dates)'

The above line says 6 penalty points within the last 5 years (for offences on different dates) what does it actually mean. Does it mean if i get 6 point on a single date I am good and doesnt fall under mandatory rejection.

[malvolio]

Yes i will tell them ofcourse, my question is on the guideline i asked

'More than 3 endorsable traffic convictions (including fixed penalties) and/or 6 penalty points, within the last 5 years (for offences on different dates)'

The above line says 6 penalty points within the last 5 years (for offences on different dates) what does it actually mean. Does it mean if i get 6 point on a single date I am good and doesnt fall under mandatory rejection.

As has been said many, many times on here, it's a risk assessment against varying criteria depending on the role. They are not that interested in your criminal record (with a few notable exceptions), they are interested in finding out if you can tell the truth or can be blackmailed or coerced into giving away information. If you don't tell them about something you have done and they find out (assuming they don't already know, after all they have access to the PNC among other sources) then you will fail.

A motoring offence is too trivial to fail that test. Not telling them is not. There is no such thing as a mandatory rejection, not least because this all done by regulations and good practice, not laws, but also because if it were then people would be able to game the system which is deliberately kept opaque by those who have been through it.

As an aside, if you gain clearance and then get pinged for speeding again, or anything else, tell your local security team, for exactly the same reasons.

[Zigenare]

And what makes you think they don't already know?

That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

[ladymuck]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

You have to forgive Mal, he's getting on a bit and doesn't pick up on subtlety

[Lance]

'More than 3 endorsable traffic convictions (including fixed penalties) and/or 6 penalty points, within the last 5 years (for offences on different dates)'

I've never had a problem. And I've had loooots of points..

[sparkle009]

I've never had a problem. And I've had loooots of points..

Thanks for reply Lance.

I am going to get points from court, will that be a problem.

[malvolio]

You have to forgive Mal, he's getting on a bit and doesn't pick up on subtlety

What the OP asked was, does the bit he quoted apply if he gets 6 points in one hit rather than 6 points accumulated over any five year period. The former is simply being a bad driver once, the latter possibly exposes to the vet that he is a habitual ignorer of the law by having a pattern of repeat offences. Which, to their mind, means he presents a greater security risk than someone who made a single mistake.

The reality is that it all depends on what the vetting people see as a risk for the particular role they are trying to fill. So you simply cannot make general assumptions about any one aspect of our past behaviour.

And, FWIW, I thought the "tell them" answer was possibly less than helpful to someone who clearly did not really understand the process.