eTA system and criminal conviction in the UK from 1989

[verbboy]

Hello

I've travelled to Canada a number of times and never before needed to declare my criminal conviction as it was the old paper systems.

The conviction is spent in the UK and I've not been in trouble since, the conviction was for theft and arson (of a motorbike, I was drunk and did a stupid one off thing!). I didn't receive a jail sentence just a fine.

I appreciate at the time it was a very bad thing to have done, but surely something that is near 30 years old at somepoint has to be irrelevant.

Do I need to mention this on the eTA?

I want to see my friends soon and want to make sure I don't get refused entry. I don't want to lie but equally if I don't need to say YES on the form I'd prefer not too, afterall the conviction is spent in the UK.

Thanks

 

[zardoz]

Hello

I've travelled to Canada a number of times and never before needed to declare my criminal conviction as it was the old paper systems.

The conviction is spent in the UK and I've not been in trouble since, the conviction was for theft and arson (of a motorbike, I was drunk and did a stupid one off thing!). I didn't receive a jail sentence just a fine.

I appreciate at the time it was a very bad thing to have done, but surely something that is near 30 years old at somepoint has to be irrelevant.

Do I need to mention this on the eTA?

I want to see my friends soon and want to make sure I don't get refused entry. I don't want to lie but equally if I don't need to say YES on the form I'd prefer not too, afterall the conviction is spent in the UK.

Thanks

It doesn't matter if it is considered "spent" in the UK. You will still need to declare it and allow CIC to perform the assessment against Canadian law. This is the standard against which inadmissibility is determined. For example: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-434.html

Arson (damage to property):

434. Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property that is not wholly owned by that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

 

[verbboy]

Thank you for the reply.

I suppose it is pointless saying No, honesty the best policy and all that.

Due to the time since the incident what are the chances of me getting permission?

 

[zardoz]

Thank you for the reply.

I suppose it is pointless saying No, honesty the best policy and all that.

Due to the time since the incident what are the chances of me getting permission?

Probably reasonably good eventually, but you will have to go through the process.

 

[scylla]

Thank you for the reply.

I suppose it is pointless saying No, honesty the best policy and all that.

Not so much pointless as dangerous. If you say no when the answer is yes, CIC may slap you with a five year ban from Canada for misrepresentation.

 

[verbboy]

Thank you for the responce's, very useful.

I will of course answer the all the questions honestly.

I love the country and the last thing I want is a ban. I'm sure with a bit of leg work I can prove I'm very much reformed!