News0 min ago
A Question Regarding Disclosing Convictions
I just had a call from a friend who is filling out an application form and he has a handful of convictions from 20 years ago which were all spent years ago and according to him his application form states "Subject to the provisions of the rehabilitation act 1974 [6],all applicants are required to declare any cautions or convictions for criminal convictions for criminal offences.This includes motoring,but excludes parking offences"
Does he have to declare his convictions or not?
Thanks in advance.
Does he have to declare his convictions or not?
Thanks in advance.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Broseph. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That seems to be an old form because it ought to read 'Subject to the provisions of Section 6 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, as amended by Section 139 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012'.
However, since the section referred to is simply the one outlining the concept of convictions becoming spent (rather than referring to exemptions from the provisions of the relevant Acts, as would be the case if the employment was with children or vulnerable adults) he can lawfully answer 'NONE' to the question about convictions.
However, since the section referred to is simply the one outlining the concept of convictions becoming spent (rather than referring to exemptions from the provisions of the relevant Acts, as would be the case if the employment was with children or vulnerable adults) he can lawfully answer 'NONE' to the question about convictions.
>>>I suppose it depends on what sort of convictions he has had
No it doesn't.
Unless the type of employment is exempted from the provisions of the Act (as would be the case when working with children or vulnerable adults, or within the administration of justice), once a conviction has become spent that's an end of it. It doesn't matter whether the conviction was for violent assault, theft, sexual assault, or anything else. If it's spent it doesn't have to be declared.
Conversely, where the type of employment is exempted from the provisions of the Act, all convictions have to be declared, irrespective of their nature. (So, for example, a 55yo teacher who was convicted of not having a TV licence when he was a student 35 years earlier must still declare that fact when applying for another teaching post).
Since nothing in Broseph's post suggests that his friend's employment application is for a job within an 'exempted' sector, he definitely does NOT have to declare his spent convictions.
No it doesn't.
Unless the type of employment is exempted from the provisions of the Act (as would be the case when working with children or vulnerable adults, or within the administration of justice), once a conviction has become spent that's an end of it. It doesn't matter whether the conviction was for violent assault, theft, sexual assault, or anything else. If it's spent it doesn't have to be declared.
Conversely, where the type of employment is exempted from the provisions of the Act, all convictions have to be declared, irrespective of their nature. (So, for example, a 55yo teacher who was convicted of not having a TV licence when he was a student 35 years earlier must still declare that fact when applying for another teaching post).
Since nothing in Broseph's post suggests that his friend's employment application is for a job within an 'exempted' sector, he definitely does NOT have to declare his spent convictions.
Thanks for the answers. Sorry for not giving out more info earlier. His convictions were robbery,offensive weapon,theft,burglary non dwelling,criminal damage,assault with intent to rob and using threatening or abusive behaviour to cause fear or provocation of violence all did between the ages of 16-20 yrs old.He's now 45 with a family,settled down and doesn't drink or take drugs so completely not the person he was a teen.
The position he's applying for is cctv operative or operator and he's been okayed and licenced by the s.i.a authority so if they think he's okay to protect and keep the public safe then I don't see why anyone else wouldn't give him a chance but then again i'm not his potential employer.
The position he's applying for is cctv operative or operator and he's been okayed and licenced by the s.i.a authority so if they think he's okay to protect and keep the public safe then I don't see why anyone else wouldn't give him a chance but then again i'm not his potential employer.
There are 61 categories of employment (or voluntary work, etc) which are exempted from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. They are listed on pages 3 to 7 of this document:
https:/
No 59 on the list ('For licences issued under Section 8 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001') is the one that means that your friend was required to disclose his convictions when applying for his SIA licence.
However, as you will see, employment as a CCTV operative is NOT included on that list, so the employment is NOT covered by the exemptions to the Act and, accordingly, he does NOT have to disclose his convictions on his application form.
https:/
No 59 on the list ('For licences issued under Section 8 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001') is the one that means that your friend was required to disclose his convictions when applying for his SIA licence.
However, as you will see, employment as a CCTV operative is NOT included on that list, so the employment is NOT covered by the exemptions to the Act and, accordingly, he does NOT have to disclose his convictions on his application form.
BC is right and the rest are wrong
sorry ( not THAT sorry to be judgmental )
everyone is entitled to their views but we are not talking about views but a valid interpretation of English Law
"subject to the provisions...."
your fren' IS subject to the provisions and those provisions mean he DOESNT declare spent convictions
[ I think it is put in deliberately to confuse as there are certain jobs ( NHS fr'instance ) where you have to declare spent convictions and the wording is ALMOST the same - a few more NOTs sprinkied around with otherwise the same wording ]
sorry ( not THAT sorry to be judgmental )
everyone is entitled to their views but we are not talking about views but a valid interpretation of English Law
"subject to the provisions...."
your fren' IS subject to the provisions and those provisions mean he DOESNT declare spent convictions
[ I think it is put in deliberately to confuse as there are certain jobs ( NHS fr'instance ) where you have to declare spent convictions and the wording is ALMOST the same - a few more NOTs sprinkied around with otherwise the same wording ]
" I think it's ludicrous that something you've did in your teens or a long time ago should then dictate your future..."
But it doesn't, Broseph. Unless, that is, you are applying for a position that is exempt from the provisions of the R of O Act (and even then it is doubtful that a minor offence many years ago would jeopardise your application). That's precisely what the R of O Act was designed for.
A bit late now I know (I was asleep last night!) but one thing that your friend does have to be sure of (and that has not been mentioned) is whether his convictions are "spent" or not. Whether a conviction is "spent" depends on the sentence imposed, not the offence. Any offence which resulted in a sentence of 4 years custody or more is never spent. Some of the offences you mention that your friend committed seem quite serious and it may be a consideration.
But it doesn't, Broseph. Unless, that is, you are applying for a position that is exempt from the provisions of the R of O Act (and even then it is doubtful that a minor offence many years ago would jeopardise your application). That's precisely what the R of O Act was designed for.
A bit late now I know (I was asleep last night!) but one thing that your friend does have to be sure of (and that has not been mentioned) is whether his convictions are "spent" or not. Whether a conviction is "spent" depends on the sentence imposed, not the offence. Any offence which resulted in a sentence of 4 years custody or more is never spent. Some of the offences you mention that your friend committed seem quite serious and it may be a consideration.
1 to 12 of 12
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.