Prospective employee may have criminal record

[zimple]

A prospective employee may have a criminal record. Alternatively it may be the local rumour mill.
As an employer clearly this may affect my decision to employ her, having asked her directly. She said she had only traffic offences.
Facebook alleges otherwise.
What is my legal position with a view to what I am able to find out, how do I go about this and what will it cost? I am all for giving new chances but would prefer to do this from an informed point of view. She will be dealing with the public and we have 2 young children which may be relevant.

 

[akirk]

A lot depends on a) whether she has and b) for what.
A criminal record for minor shoplifting 40 years ago might be less worrying than an axe-murderer conviction where someone came out on parole last week
There are CRB checks which some organisations can do, however I think (though with no concrete knowledge of this) that there is legaslation regarding this and discrimination?

just found this:
Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) any conviction for a criminal offence can be regarded as spent provided:

• the conviction did not carry a sentence excluded from the Act, such as a custodial sentence of over two and a half years
• no further convictions occurred within the rehabilitation period.

A conviction is not 'spent' until the rehabilitation period is complete. Once it is 'spent', the rehabilitated person does not have to reveal its existence in most circumstances and can answer 'no' to the question 'do you have a criminal record?' Certain occupations are excepted - these are listed in Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Orders. Custodial sentences of over two and a half years are never considered spent.

It is an offence under this law for anyone who has access to criminal records to disclose information about spent convictions unless officially authorised. It is also a serious offence to obtain information about spent convictions by means of fraud, dishonesty or bribe.

So - it is quite possible for someone to have a criminal record and to answer no!

http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/dvsequl/exoffenders/crimrec.htm
from the Chartered Instituve of Personnel and Development...
worth reading...

it also says that that 1 in 5 have a criminal record - the 4 in my company don't, so presumably the next person through the door will have

Alasdair

 

[LicensedToTrade]

it also says that that 1 in 5 have a criminal record - the 4 in my company don't, so presumably the next person through the door will have

Or...it could be you?

 

[zimple]

So nobody has a declarable criminal record unless sentenced to tow and half years or more?:|

 

[LicensedToTrade]

No in most cases there needs to be a 5 year gap after the end of the sentence. So for example if someone was given a 2 year suspended sentence with probation then 5 years after the two year period ended it would not appear on a CRB check. If however the crime was one of those exempt from this policy then it would still show on an enhanced crb e.g. child abuse.

 

[akirk]

Or...it could be you?

I was counting myself in the 4, and I have so many CRB checks for church and charities that I must be clean!

come on in No 5.

the 2.5 years custodial sentance is the break point - any thing below that, can under certain circumstances be wiped at some point (unless specifically excluded), 2.5 yrs+ will always be on your record.

Alasdair

 

[zimple]

My business is important to me. She would be in a position of trust.
S'pose you can guess what my decision will be.

 

[akirk]

You can ask prospective staff for a CRB check. You don't have to pay for it, though may wish to. Asking for it will tell you a lot in terms of their response.

I would guess though that you have to ensure that you treat all people / prospective employees the same...

Alasdair

 

[Be Known PR]

A lesson to would be employees (aside from the whole don't break the law thing)......beware what you put on Facebook!!!!

 

[kulture]

Quite frankly I would not want to work for an employer who listened to rumours, posted doubts like this on a public forum, and has clearly made up their mind.

The purpose of an interview is to determine if you want to employ the person. The purpose of taking up references (including where necessary CRB checks) is to ensure that the candidate is telling the truth and your decision after the interview was correct.

II can see NO PLACE in the decision process to ask questions on a forum where we only know a small part of any detail.

Personally I would have no problem employing a person with a criminal record, if the person was the RIGHT person for the JOB.

 

[googol]

Quite frankly I would not want to work for an employer who listened to rumours, posted doubts like this on a public forum, and has clearly made up their mind. The purpose of an interview is to determine if you want to employ the person. The purpose of taking up references (including where necessary CRB checks) is to ensure that the candidate is telling the truth and your decision after the interview was correct. II can see NO PLACE in the decision process to ask questions on a forum where we only know a small part of any detail. Personally I would have no problem employing a person with a criminal record, if the person was the RIGHT person for the JOB.

However, if they have committed offences which are not considered spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act and have deliberately not disclosed them, surely that suggests they cannot be trusted. The OP's enquiry was how he might go about obtaining a CRB check, to determine if the rumours were true or not. I believe there are companies which will allow you to submit a CRB check for a fee, however I cannot recall their details off the top of my head.

 

[akirk]

been doing some more digging...

it is worth reading this:
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/using_the_website/new_organisation.aspx
If you are an organisation that wishes to use CRB checks as part of your recruitment, licensing or appointment processes there two questions that you must ask yourself:

• Are you entitled to ask exempted questions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) 1974 Exceptions Order 1975?
• Are you able to comply with the CRB's Code of Practice?

If the answer to either question is NO then you are either not legally entitled to apply for or use CRB checks and therefore cannot register with the CRB. Organisations can only apply for a CRB check for a particular position if that position is included in the CRB's Disclosure Access Category List (Eligible Posts) (for more details on the Disclosure Access Category List (Eligible Posts) click here).

you don't (I think) have to meet the threshold limits such as the 100 applications as you can go through a portal company who will do it for you...


http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/guidance/rb_guidance/eligible_posts.aspx
lists the occupations / companies / roles /etc. who are able to check this kind of information...

I will apologise that I do not know the full legal situation, but have a feeling that you are not always allowed to do this kind of checking... I would be concerned that there might then be a possibility that you would be considered to be discriminating - not sure where that might end up... may be worth checking...

Alasdair

 

[Billmccallum]

A prospective employee may have a criminal record. Alternatively it may be the local rumour mill.
As an employer clearly this may affect my decision to employ her, having asked her directly. She said she had only traffic offences.
Facebook alleges otherwise.
What is my legal position with a view to what I am able to find out, how do I go about this and what will it cost? I am all for giving new chances but would prefer to do this from an informed point of view. She will be dealing with the public and we have 2 young children which may be relevant.

If the person will have contact with the children then its reasonable to ask for a CRB check, but this will only result in you being told that the person is not a risk to children, you won't be told if he/she has a criminal record.

In your efforts to ensure that you employ a trustworthy employee, you can ask if they have a criminal record and in some cases have the right to ask for a CRB check (see previous replies).

More importantly, someone with a "spent" conviction has the right to with hold that information, the reason for that is clearly expressed in you post, you are planning to victiimise someone who "might" have a criminal conviction.

Some people (myself included) have criminal convictions, but do go on to have productive working lives without committing a crime again, some of us even go on to become a chairman of a multi-million pound charitable company, even though the relevant government agency knew about the convictions (yes, me).

If you were thinking of employing this person and change your mind because you read something on facebook I feel sorry for you.

 

[zimple]

Of course my follow up changed the nature of this thread. As someone who has no criminal past, no experience of such and two young daughters I have a biased viewpoint.
I have no doubt that there is a place for openness by those with criminal records but to be matched by tolerance and understanding of others. I listened to her tell me about the drink driving conviction but denied having been tagged recently. Her manner led me to want to check her integrity. She mentioned repayment of fines but is this usual for someone unemplyed and guilty of drink driving?

Society ought to have a way for me as an employer to establish the truth of the matter without doubt or undue expense. Lord knows I could do with the extra help, but with doubt remaining we will move on and await the right candidate.
As for posting on the forum I do it anonymously for a reason. You are working on supposition from my post on the internet. This may or may not be a true representation of myself. I think it unlikely I would be interested in employing you, for a variety of reasons. All supposition incidentally!

 

[gemd89]

Drink driving - Not the worlds worst conviction really is it - I think if they were right for the job i would have employed them!

Gemma

 

[LicensedToTrade]

Drink driving - Not the worlds worst conviction really is it - I think if they were right for the job i would have employed them!

Gemma

Drink driving is up there with the worst crimes in my book. Someone who commits manslaughter by running over a child in the street who ran out in front of them could excuse themselves as it was unplanned, unintended and unexpected.

To drink enough alcohol that you are over the limit (which isn't a lot) and then to get into a car knowing that your ability to drive is impaired and could result in someones death is like saying...'Yes my actions could result in someone dying, but as I fancy having a drink I am prepared to take that risk'

So how can you trivialise it and not consider it when employing someone? Morality aside, think of the risk to your business. Even if they are employed in a desk based job, what if they were to drink drive again? What if they had a few pints in their lunch hour and ploughed into a house on the way back to work? The newspapers will pick up on the context and name your company. Your staff will know about it, your customers will know about.

 

[S-Marketing]

Drink driving - Not the worlds worst conviction really is it - I think if they were right for the job i would have employed them!

Gemma

What a bloody stupid thing to say.

 

[gemd89]

Do you enjoy following me around the forums?

Im not saying i agree with it, i certainly dont but i believe some people deserve a second chance if they have only done it once.

Theres worse crimes around isnt there!

Id rather employ a drink driver than someone who has been done for theft or assault.

What a bloody stupid thing to say.

 

[S-Marketing]

Do you enjoy following me around the forums?

Im not saying i agree with it, i certainly dont but i believe some people deserve a second chance if they have only done it once.

Theres worse crimes around isnt there!

Id rather employ a drink driver than someone who has been done for theft or assault.

Why would I be following you around the forums? Is that really the best you can come up with?

I made a comment based on you posting something that I thought was 'bloody stupid'.

 

[LicensedToTrade]

Do you enjoy following me around the forums?

Im not saying i agree with it, i certainly dont but i believe some people deserve a second chance if they have only done it once.

Theres worse crimes around isnt there!

Id rather employ a drink driver than someone who has been done for theft or assault.

So your rule of 'give people a second chance' only applies to drink drivers? Those who assault others or steal are exempt from this are they? That makes little or no sense.

Where do murderers sit on your wibbly wobbly scale?

 

[Beadons]

Drink driving - Not the worlds worst conviction really is it - I think if they were right for the job i would have employed them!

Gemma

As a retired police officer who attended too many fatal rta's, some as a result of drink driving - words fail me.

 

[gemd89]

Im not condoning it thats all i am saying! What im saying is if you kill someone and then get convicted you come out with a new identity, right? So why shouldnt other people who have done less serious convictions get a second chance? I wouldnt give her a driving job! As i deal in products i meant i would rather give her than a thief the job.

My last job was actually taking the phone calls of serious RTA and we had some mean people ring up, the first call i took - the woman stated the other person had bounced up and smashed her windscreen - no sadness for the woman she ran over and killed, just wanted her windscreen fixing...

Enough said - He hasnt employed her anyway!

 

[gemd89]

Murderers do get a second chance dont they though?

The law fails me!

Drink driving is difficult because for so long they had all this a tall person who has eaten can drink more than a small thin person as they wont be as over the limit or drunk...blah blah..

Drink driving is stupidity

Causing manslaughter by drink driving is different from having a pint and driving 2 mile home from the pub though isnt it?

Gemma

 

[S-Marketing]

Murderers do get a second chance dont they though?

The law fails me!

Drink driving is difficult because for so long they had all this a tall person who has eaten can drink more than a small thin person as they wont be as over the limit or drunk...blah blah..

Drink driving is stupidity

Causing manslaughter by drink driving is different from having a pint and driving 2 mile home from the pub though isnt it?

Gemma

The person who has a drink then drives a couple of miles home can quite easily become the person who kills someone through drink driving.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think i'm following you around the forum as well. Anyone on here can look on my profile and look at all of my posts to see this is not the case, so it seems a very strange thing to say. In fact, if you do look at my posts you will see i've given you a lot of good advice over the last couiple of days regarding leaflets etc, and only disagreed with you twice.

 

[gemd89]

The person who has a drink then drives a couple of miles home can quite easily become the person who kills someone through drink driving.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think i'm following you around the forum as well. Anyone on here can look on my profile and look at all of my posts to see this is not the case, so it seems a very strange thing to say. In fact, if you do look at my posts you will see i've given you a lot of good advice over the last couiple of days regarding leaflets etc, and only disagreed with you twice.

I was just joking, Yes you have given good advice and i thank you for that! I dont like to disagree with people though but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I understand about that with the 1/2 mile thing - there is a lot of people who do it and dont get caught though. Same as a CRB check - just because its clear doesnt mean they have never done anything wrong or intend to just that they havent been caught yet.

Gemma

 

[LicensedToTrade]

a tall person who has eaten can drink more than a small thin person as they wont be as over the limit or drunk...blah blah..

There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that weight or height has any impact on how much you can drink before becoming drunk.

I know a few 6'5" tall blokes who weigh 18 stone that can't manage more than a couple of pints. I also know 5' tall woman who can drink 10 pints and seem as sober as when they started.

I think to overcome the issues of the drink driving limit it should just be illegal drink and drive altogether. If you plan to drive, don't drink.

 

[gemd89]

I dont understand why the law hasnt been like this since driving started.... I mean after 9 months of pregnant just having half a lager can make me tipsy! But before i was pregnant it would take alot to get me tipsy!

So a ban on any drink driving would be a great idea and one i thought they were bringing in anyway?

Its not something i would do, i think the roads are dangerous enough as it is even without people drink driving.

Gemma

 

[akirk]

although this seems to have gone off topic slightly ...

there is a danger of having a zero ban as alcohol can be in food etc. so you could end up being over the limit without having had a drink...

Alasdair

 

[gemd89]

Yes but would there really be so much alcohol in a meal?

I dont eat anything with alcohol in and i dont drink so no worries for me.

Smoking is my vice - gotta love those menthols!
Gemma

 

[LicensedToTrade]

although this seems to have gone off topic slightly ...

there is a danger of having a zero ban as alcohol can be in food etc. so you could end up being over the limit without having had a drink...

Alasdair

Well the limit is 35 micrograms at the moment, so the limit would be changed to something like 5 micrograms. If you had just half a pint you would be over that, but it would allow for alcoholic truffles etc.

 

[akirk]

but once you open a box of truffles...

Alasdair

 

[Bri]

Back to topic:

Zimple: This thread started some two days ago, and by that time as your insticnt changed from this candidate being suitable to unemployable based on hearsay form plebs on facebook. Firstly how do you know this? Are you a friend of hers on facebook? or made friends of her friends ( I know nothing about the machinations of facebook and dont want to either but know enough that you have to be a friend to get access to info.)You couldve had your own CRB check done by now.

Secondly when I first started to recruit in my business in 2004 I went for advice and was asked about considering exoffenders as a source of employee. Most I was told had gone through rehabilitation or decided the error of their ways and wanted a new start.

Now if we all continue to have this nimby (my word of the day it seems)attitude these people are unlikely to reform and we will become their next victim/target out of spite.

Who knows you may be giving this person the lucky break theyve been looking for and become their mentor, have you thought about that.

Not everyone in the world are trying to rip us off, most are but not everyone.

I vote you give her another interview and dont probe too deep but probably give her a moral customer service test related to the so called gossip youve recieved and if the facebook crowd are so honest interview some of them.In fact scratch that and give her a couple of weeks trial on the understanding that if its not working you'll part company and let her know your taking a huge chance on her bercause you like her and see potential so dont let me down, see how she reacts.