Employers To Move Jobs Abroad...who'd...
News1 min ago
Employment After Prison Sentence
My partners son spent six months in prison for perverting he course of justice five years ago.
Since then he has been unemployed saying no-one will employ him because of this, as he is forced to divulge this information at each interview.
Does anyone know exactly if this is true, obviously if asked one must tell the truth, but is it regular procedure for an employer to ask the question.
We would be very grateful if someone could give us some information on this subject.
Thank you
Since then he has been unemployed saying no-one will employ him because of this, as he is forced to divulge this information at each interview.
Does anyone know exactly if this is true, obviously if asked one must tell the truth, but is it regular procedure for an employer to ask the question.
We would be very grateful if someone could give us some information on this subject.
Thank you
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by glenbar. 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.
I have talked about this before on AB. I actually worked as a tutor in a Prison education department. It is VERY hard to get employment after even a very short sentence. We were told that 75% of those who have EVER been sent to prison NEVER work again.
But a sentence of 6 months 5 years ago is now 'spent' so does not need to be disclosed. However he still has to explain why he has not been working to a potential employer. I would suggest he joins a temping agency and takes any job offered even washing up, once he has done that for a year or so he can give them as a reference for his last job.
But a sentence of 6 months 5 years ago is now 'spent' so does not need to be disclosed. However he still has to explain why he has not been working to a potential employer. I would suggest he joins a temping agency and takes any job offered even washing up, once he has done that for a year or so he can give them as a reference for his last job.
my eldest step-son,now 38,has also been in jail,thankfully he's not been out of work,apart from a few weeks just after his release.I suppose it depends what your line of work is.S-S's offence was prob worse,can't say on here. he is a truck driver,was in the RAF.need to keep trying.has your partners son got any time limit after which he need not state about jail?I'm sure he can get some help from employment office
What job did he have before he went to prison? What was the type of criminal case in which he was Involved?
I think that Timpsons, the shoe etc repairers that have small outlets attached to supermarkets have a reputation for giving ex-offenders a second chance.
But it must surely depend upon the nature of the crime in the first place - that would eliminate quite a few options and allow him to focus on getting just any job as a starter and then let him build up credibility.
I think that Timpsons, the shoe etc repairers that have small outlets attached to supermarkets have a reputation for giving ex-offenders a second chance.
But it must surely depend upon the nature of the crime in the first place - that would eliminate quite a few options and allow him to focus on getting just any job as a starter and then let him build up credibility.
MissLead the person in question was charged with 'Perverting the course of Justice' This is a very serious offence that has a maximum sentence of life in prisonment. It is not going to look good on anybodys history!
http://
http://
Impossible to say without knowing details of the case.
But the questioner says the son 'spent six months in prison' NOT 'sentenced to six months'
Assuming he got the mandatory 1/3 reduction for a guilty plea and was released at the 1/2 way point the actual sentence would have been 18 months. Presuming again that this was a first offence, 18 months means was a fairly serious case. Very few of these cases get near the maximum.
But the questioner says the son 'spent six months in prison' NOT 'sentenced to six months'
Assuming he got the mandatory 1/3 reduction for a guilty plea and was released at the 1/2 way point the actual sentence would have been 18 months. Presuming again that this was a first offence, 18 months means was a fairly serious case. Very few of these cases get near the maximum.
The law changed on 10th March 2014. Any conviction resulting in a prison sentence of 6 months or less now becomes 'spent' two years after the end of the sentence. If the sentence your partner's son received was one of 12 months (resulting in him actually spending 6 months in prison), the conviction will have become 'spent' four years after the end of his sentence.
Therefore if he's asked (either on an application form or in an interview) whether he's ever been convicted of a criminal offence he can lawfully answer 'No'.
The law also relates to 'ancillary' matters. If, for example, your partner's son had been refused some kind of insurance (before his conviction became 'spent') solely because of his criminal conviction, then he can now lawfully answer 'No' to a question asking "Have you ever been refused insurance?".
There are just a couple of important exceptions to the basic rules:
1. No conviction can ever become 'spent' while the offender has another 'unspent' conviction. So if your partner's son had another conviction (which was still 'unspent' at the time that his first one would normally have become 'spent') then his original conviction wouldn't become 'spent' until the same time as the second one did.
2. Certain occupations and activities (such as working with children, vulnerable adults or 'in the administration of justice) are exempt from the rules and, when applying for such posts, convictions are never regarded as 'spent'. [There's a small exception to that statement but it's probably not relevant here anyway].
So, unless your partner's son is applying to work in one of the few 'exempted' sectors (such as working with children), and assuming that he's not got another 'unspent' conviction (which is delaying the first one from becoming spent) he can lawfully answer 'No' to any question about whether he's ever been convicted of a criminal offence (or to 'ancillary' questions, such as "Have you ever been to prison?").
http://
Therefore if he's asked (either on an application form or in an interview) whether he's ever been convicted of a criminal offence he can lawfully answer 'No'.
The law also relates to 'ancillary' matters. If, for example, your partner's son had been refused some kind of insurance (before his conviction became 'spent') solely because of his criminal conviction, then he can now lawfully answer 'No' to a question asking "Have you ever been refused insurance?".
There are just a couple of important exceptions to the basic rules:
1. No conviction can ever become 'spent' while the offender has another 'unspent' conviction. So if your partner's son had another conviction (which was still 'unspent' at the time that his first one would normally have become 'spent') then his original conviction wouldn't become 'spent' until the same time as the second one did.
2. Certain occupations and activities (such as working with children, vulnerable adults or 'in the administration of justice) are exempt from the rules and, when applying for such posts, convictions are never regarded as 'spent'. [There's a small exception to that statement but it's probably not relevant here anyway].
So, unless your partner's son is applying to work in one of the few 'exempted' sectors (such as working with children), and assuming that he's not got another 'unspent' conviction (which is delaying the first one from becoming spent) he can lawfully answer 'No' to any question about whether he's ever been convicted of a criminal offence (or to 'ancillary' questions, such as "Have you ever been to prison?").
http://
Many employers now ask if you have EVER had a criminal conviction.
If the conviction is spent then you don't have to tell them, but that means saying 'No' when asked which is a lie or refusing to answer. If found out you are going to be sacked. This is a problem, employers should only ask if you have any unspent convictions but most don't follow this.
In this case the son has been unemployed for 5 years so he is always going to be asked why that is. He has a difficult choice to make up a story or admit the truth and hope they give him a chance. Employers are going to want references so it is hard to make up a believable story.
If the conviction is spent then you don't have to tell them, but that means saying 'No' when asked which is a lie or refusing to answer. If found out you are going to be sacked. This is a problem, employers should only ask if you have any unspent convictions but most don't follow this.
In this case the son has been unemployed for 5 years so he is always going to be asked why that is. He has a difficult choice to make up a story or admit the truth and hope they give him a chance. Employers are going to want references so it is hard to make up a believable story.
>>> Many employers now ask if you have EVER had a criminal conviction
The lawful answer is still 'NO' (if such convictions are now spent). An employer CAN'T sack someone for 'lying' about the matter as the law states that such an answer is to be regarded as TRUTHFUL.
Further, nobody can be convicted under the Fraud Act 2006 (for making false statements on an employment application) or disciplined for 'lying' if some 'subtle wording' is simply used when applying for a job.
e.g:
Q: "I see that you worked for Bloggs and Son up until May 2011. Why did you leave that employment?
A: "There were personal circumstances which, at the time, made it impossible for me to continue in my post. However those circumstances are now a thing of the past and I'm fit and able to take up the post which you've advertised".
The 'fit and able' bit might suggest that the applicant left his previous employment due to a medical problem, which he'd rather not disclose, which - although untrue - isn't actually lying. Further, it's likely to stop the interviewer prying deeper into the applicant's past.
(BTW: "Why did you leave your last post?" is regarded by many people as an unacceptable question in interviews anyway but some employers might still ask it).
The lawful answer is still 'NO' (if such convictions are now spent). An employer CAN'T sack someone for 'lying' about the matter as the law states that such an answer is to be regarded as TRUTHFUL.
Further, nobody can be convicted under the Fraud Act 2006 (for making false statements on an employment application) or disciplined for 'lying' if some 'subtle wording' is simply used when applying for a job.
e.g:
Q: "I see that you worked for Bloggs and Son up until May 2011. Why did you leave that employment?
A: "There were personal circumstances which, at the time, made it impossible for me to continue in my post. However those circumstances are now a thing of the past and I'm fit and able to take up the post which you've advertised".
The 'fit and able' bit might suggest that the applicant left his previous employment due to a medical problem, which he'd rather not disclose, which - although untrue - isn't actually lying. Further, it's likely to stop the interviewer prying deeper into the applicant's past.
(BTW: "Why did you leave your last post?" is regarded by many people as an unacceptable question in interviews anyway but some employers might still ask it).
Thank you so much to you all for so many answers. I am truly grateful.
From what I can gather I think he was withholding information about some people who were well known to the police. We were unaware of the details at the time as my partner was in hospital seriously ill and remained there for six months.
First of all he began applying for jobs in finance which I thought were unsuitable then mainly administrative and clerical work. Before this he was working for his Father doing mainly accounts work.
From what I can gather I think he was withholding information about some people who were well known to the police. We were unaware of the details at the time as my partner was in hospital seriously ill and remained there for six months.
First of all he began applying for jobs in finance which I thought were unsuitable then mainly administrative and clerical work. Before this he was working for his Father doing mainly accounts work.
Financial services including accountancy is one of the few job categories where a conviction is NEVER 'spent' so he will always have to declare his conviction.
He needs to apply for other jobs that do not require handling cash / credit /finance accounts.
Yes they will probably be lower paid but better than the 'dole'.
He needs to apply for other jobs that do not require handling cash / credit /finance accounts.
Yes they will probably be lower paid but better than the 'dole'.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Society & Culture3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago