Crosswords28 mins ago
Disclosure Of Driving Offence.
I am helping my wife apply for various jobs.
She was convicted of drinking and driving in November 1997.
When asked on an application whether you have a criminal record is the answer yes for the above offence?
She was convicted of drinking and driving in November 1997.
When asked on an application whether you have a criminal record is the answer yes for the above offence?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by catsrcool. 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.
various opinions here
I like chelle's....
you have said some applications will involve care of old people
and on the form for that if they are gonna to an enhanced check
the form should say that the Rehabilitation of Offenders act does NOT apply
so .... dont declare it if she is second secretary at Sprottsz Ltd
and do declare it if it involves car of old and young ....
and like chelle we employed people with convictions
( such as myself ) and you can face it with answers like
I have addressed my drinking behaviour since that time
( line from ER that I used to re-use )
I like chelle's....
you have said some applications will involve care of old people
and on the form for that if they are gonna to an enhanced check
the form should say that the Rehabilitation of Offenders act does NOT apply
so .... dont declare it if she is second secretary at Sprottsz Ltd
and do declare it if it involves car of old and young ....
and like chelle we employed people with convictions
( such as myself ) and you can face it with answers like
I have addressed my drinking behaviour since that time
( line from ER that I used to re-use )
I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings about this, Khandro.
“Why tell them? She isn't under oath,..”
Mainly because making a false statement on a job application can lead to, at best dismissal and at worst to prosecution. There is often a penalty to be paid for lying, even if it is not “under oath”.
//if they find out later about it you will probably be looking at losing the job.//
“Not if you had proved yourself to be a good employee, it would be irrelevant.”
Being a good employee may not trump the fact that you lied to secure the position. Many employers are very touchy about people who tell lies, good employees or not.
“But the conviction was 19 years ago! So no need to mention it at all. It's the question which is wrong, it should be, "..... within the last x years?"”
No the question is not “wrong”! Catrcool told us the offence was in 1997. Her question was about whether such an old offence needs to be disclosed.
But back to the real world. The Rehabilitation of Offenders’ Act is quite clear on motoring convictions:
“Penalty points and a driving disqualification imposed by the court on conviction may become spent when they cease to have effect… “
A drink driving disqualification has an "effect” for ten years from the date of the offence. During that period a second or subsequent conviction for a similar offence attracts an enhanced sentence (most notably a minimum disqualification period of three years). So the answer "No" (unless the job is exempt from the ROA) as after ten years from the date of the offence the conviction is "spent". Strangely this is considerably more than the period for an offence for which the sentence would be 30 months custody. The rehabilitation period for such an offence is six and a half years from the date of conviction.
“Why tell them? She isn't under oath,..”
Mainly because making a false statement on a job application can lead to, at best dismissal and at worst to prosecution. There is often a penalty to be paid for lying, even if it is not “under oath”.
//if they find out later about it you will probably be looking at losing the job.//
“Not if you had proved yourself to be a good employee, it would be irrelevant.”
Being a good employee may not trump the fact that you lied to secure the position. Many employers are very touchy about people who tell lies, good employees or not.
“But the conviction was 19 years ago! So no need to mention it at all. It's the question which is wrong, it should be, "..... within the last x years?"”
No the question is not “wrong”! Catrcool told us the offence was in 1997. Her question was about whether such an old offence needs to be disclosed.
But back to the real world. The Rehabilitation of Offenders’ Act is quite clear on motoring convictions:
“Penalty points and a driving disqualification imposed by the court on conviction may become spent when they cease to have effect… “
A drink driving disqualification has an "effect” for ten years from the date of the offence. During that period a second or subsequent conviction for a similar offence attracts an enhanced sentence (most notably a minimum disqualification period of three years). So the answer "No" (unless the job is exempt from the ROA) as after ten years from the date of the offence the conviction is "spent". Strangely this is considerably more than the period for an offence for which the sentence would be 30 months custody. The rehabilitation period for such an offence is six and a half years from the date of conviction.
// I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings about this, Khandro.//
if you seek to correct khandro's misunderstandings then you would up all night. Funniest was when K asked a math post grad if he could add ( I s'pose the answer cd have been 'no' - he could in fact ( add ) phew ! )
The lucky AB poster has to work out which opinions are good and which arent. Ihave never seen a poster repost that he had followed advice and it had been a disaster [ implying that we are but one of many opinions canvassed ]
I was under the impression that if one misled on an application form ( "I have a degree when in fact I havent" ) it allowed the employer to unwind the contract and claim back wages.... but here is a statutory exception and when it is engaged
Rehab act is excluded for certain jobs with children at least
if you seek to correct khandro's misunderstandings then you would up all night. Funniest was when K asked a math post grad if he could add ( I s'pose the answer cd have been 'no' - he could in fact ( add ) phew ! )
The lucky AB poster has to work out which opinions are good and which arent. Ihave never seen a poster repost that he had followed advice and it had been a disaster [ implying that we are but one of many opinions canvassed ]
I was under the impression that if one misled on an application form ( "I have a degree when in fact I havent" ) it allowed the employer to unwind the contract and claim back wages.... but here is a statutory exception and when it is engaged
Rehab act is excluded for certain jobs with children at least
Actually I also have a dd conviction and always answered no to that question about criminal convictions and it never reared it's head again in any criminal record check. I worked with children so it was in depth check too. That was 1990 and I had quite a few crb checks after that ( really not my finest hour and I have never driven since)
NJ // “Why tell them [the truth] – she isn’t under oath?” //
You insert "the truth" but I insert "because it's 19 years ago and has long expired"
I think if you look around the 'real world' you will find most people's CVs (though not yours of course) contain small exaggerations, distortions, and omissions.
You insert "the truth" but I insert "because it's 19 years ago and has long expired"
I think if you look around the 'real world' you will find most people's CVs (though not yours of course) contain small exaggerations, distortions, and omissions.
I don’t know how simply I can put this Khandro. The question: “Does she have to declare a 19 year old conviction?” Your answer: “Why tell them, she isn’t under oath”. Not “Why tell them, it’s too old”. Being under oath indicates a need to tell the truth. Your answer suggested to me that you believed it was acceptable to conceal the conviction not because it was too old, but because no oath was involved. However, let’s move on.
My earlier answer was based on the 2014 revision, Arrods. Page 6 of this guidance document was the source:
https:/
Drink driving convictions have an “effect” for ten years (for the reason I’ve outlined).
However, further investigations lead me to believe that the five year period you quote may well be correct for all driving offences. I cannot find it definitively anywhere but what I have read suggests you are correct. Five or ten years of course makes no difference to the question here as the offence is 19 years old, but thanks for encouraging me to look deeper.
My earlier answer was based on the 2014 revision, Arrods. Page 6 of this guidance document was the source:
https:/
Drink driving convictions have an “effect” for ten years (for the reason I’ve outlined).
However, further investigations lead me to believe that the five year period you quote may well be correct for all driving offences. I cannot find it definitively anywhere but what I have read suggests you are correct. Five or ten years of course makes no difference to the question here as the offence is 19 years old, but thanks for encouraging me to look deeper.
Khandro
where did you ask a post grad math whether he could add: oops !
here
// jomifl; Perhaps you should talk to a real mathematician now you are bandying numbers around (I don't think Jim's a pure mathematician but he's pretty good). //
in a origin of DNA threaded posted by .... a certain Khandro, Oct 15
J is a mathematician, teaches at post-grad level and is pretty good
I would say 0/3 is pretty good too
where did you ask a post grad math whether he could add: oops !
here
// jomifl; Perhaps you should talk to a real mathematician now you are bandying numbers around (I don't think Jim's a pure mathematician but he's pretty good). //
in a origin of DNA threaded posted by .... a certain Khandro, Oct 15
J is a mathematician, teaches at post-grad level and is pretty good
I would say 0/3 is pretty good too
PP //J is a mathematician, teaches at post-grad level and is pretty good//
Who is "J" in your garbled post; jomifl or jim? Neither of whom have I ever asked in relation to statistics (or anything else) "if he could add".
Whether either's speciality is 'pure' or 'applied' mathematics I don't know, jim I have respected and sought his knowledge in the past, and the former I know quite well and I think he could verify that I have never said or suggested that he can't add.
So I request you withdraw that cheap remark.
Who is "J" in your garbled post; jomifl or jim? Neither of whom have I ever asked in relation to statistics (or anything else) "if he could add".
Whether either's speciality is 'pure' or 'applied' mathematics I don't know, jim I have respected and sought his knowledge in the past, and the former I know quite well and I think he could verify that I have never said or suggested that he can't add.
So I request you withdraw that cheap remark.
