I would take a safe driving course if available. Your motoring fines though are way less serious than the assault conviction.
Read page 16
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... racter.pdf
Offences which cause serious harm
All applications where the person has committed a criminal offence, or offences,
which caused serious harm, will normally be refused.
It is at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether they consider an offence to
have caused serious harm.
An offence that has caused serious harm means an offence that has caused serious
physical or psychological harm to a victim or victims that remains ongoing, or that
has contributed to a widespread problem that causes serious harm to a community
or to society in general.
When considering whether the person falls to be refused because they have
committed an offence which has caused serious harm, you must take into account
any offender management reports and any sentencing remarks made by the judge
relating to the impact on the victim.
An offence may have caused serious harm even if the punishment imposed for the
offence would not normally lead to an application being refused.
Where a person has been convicted of one or more violent, drug-related, sexual
offences, hate crime, racially or religiously motivated offences, they will usually be
considered to have been convicted of an offence that has caused serious harm.
When considering whether the person has committed a criminal offence, or offences,
which have caused serious harm, you must balance these considerations with the
length of time passed since the offence or offences occurred. For example, where a
single offence of this nature was committed a long time ago, it may be also
appropriate to consider whether there are mitigating circumstances that might
support an exceptional grant.
Do you think your offence may fall under this decsription?
Your offence didn't get you a custodial sentence, which is good. Still you should also review the balance of probabilities on page 23 and following
Considering the balance of probabilities
Where a person has criminality that would not normally result in the refusal of their
application, you must decide whether they are of good character, on the balance of
probabilities.
An assessment of whether or not a person is of good character on the balance of
probabilities, must take account of all available information concerning the
applicant’s character, weighing any negative factors around criminality against
mitigating factors such as contributions a person has made to society or any
significant proportions of a person’s life spent not offending.
You must consider the individual circumstances of the case; what may be
appropriate for one case will not be appropriate for another. Each application must
be carefully considered on an individual basis on its own merits, giving consideration
to the (non-exhaustive) list of factors below:
Length of time since offences
You must consider how long ago the offences took place. The more recent the
offence, the more likely it is the applicant is not of good character.
Older offences may still indicate the person is not of good character, if the
circumstances of the conviction or disposal call the person’s character into question.
It is also more likely that a person will not be meet the good character requirement on
the sole basis of non-custodial offences or out of court disposals where the offences
took place recently.
Number of offences
You must consider the number of offences on the applicant’s record. There is no set
number of non-custodial sentences or out of court disposals that would mean a
person is not of good character; however, the higher the number the more likely it is
the person is not of good character.
A person who persistently shows a lack of respect for, or desire to comply with, the
law of the UK, through frequent criminal activity and adverse engagement with the
judicial system, can be considered to show a particular disregard for the law.
Where a person is identified as a persistent offender who has shown a particular
disregard for the law, they will normally not be considered to be of good character on
that basis alone.
Period over which offences were committed
You must consider the period over which offences were committed or other
disposals occurred. For example, a series of minor offences or disposals in a short
space of time may indicate a pattern of sustained anti-social behaviour or disregard
for the law which will be relevant to the assessment of the person’s character.
Older non-custodial sentences or out of court disposals may be relevant if there are
other serious factors.
Where a person is identified as a persistent offender who has shown a particular
disregard for the law, they will normally not be considered to be of good character on
that basis alone.
The seriousness of the offence
The sentence or disposal should be the primary indicator of the seriousness of the
offence. You must consider the nature of any offence(s) the person has been
convicted of and whether they are offences which have caused serious harm. If the
offences are sufficiently serious it may be appropriate to refuse on the basis of
causing serious harm.
Any escalation in the seriousness of offences
You must consider if there is a pattern of offending. A person may have committed a
number of offences which have escalated in seriousness. For example, a person
may have been involved in theft which then escalates to burglary, and then
aggravated robbery. If the more recent offences are sufficiently serious it may be
appropriate to refuse on the basis of causing serious harm.
Nature of the offences
You must consider the nature of the offences or the behaviour that led to other
disposals. Anti-social behaviour, drug use, or violence may indicate that a person’s
character is such that a refusal would be appropriate (particularly if there is a pattern
of such behaviour) on the basis of causing serious harm.
Applicant’s age at the date of conviction
You must consider the applicant’s age at the time non-custodial sentences were
imposed or out of court disposals took place. Isolated youthful indiscretions will not
generally indicate a person is of bad character if that individual has clearly been of
good character since that time.
Exceptional or other circumstances
You must consider the relevance of particular circumstances in a person’s life when
they committed the offence(s).
Other mitigating factors
You must also consider whether the applicant has demonstrated genuine,
meaningful attempts to change their behaviour and comply with the law that may
indicate, on a balance of probabilities, they are now considered to be of good
character despite earlier offending. A long period of time with no offending will be a
more positive factor than a short period of time.
An applicant may have also been involved in activities that indicate they may be of
good character. For example, they may have,
• engaged with programmes or activities aimed at addressing the cause of the
offending, such as (but not limited to) treatments aimed at reduction of alcohol
consumption, or drug dependency or anger management courses
• actively engaged with voluntary work, charity work, or actively promoted the
reduction of crime
The list of factors is indicative, not exhaustive.
I would want to wait a few years and take on some volunteering before applying.
All advice comes from personal research and experience and should not be regarded as professional opinion.
