A quick one for the Talkingballs legal team

[Lako42]

My cousin is currently in the advanced stages of applying for a role where you may only apply if the candidate has no unspent convictions on her record, she has a minor conviction which resulted in a fine and as a result came with a period of 5 years until the conviction became spent. The conviction will become spent in October next year, my question to you learned people is as follows, as it was a fine is there any way in which the conviction can become 'spent' earlier, taking into consideration that she has had no interaction with the law since that one conviction 4 years ago, any route of appeal or some other legal process that can be pursued.



I thank you in advance.

 

[homer]

The rehabilitation period is set by law, and is dependent on the punishment given

For a fine it's five years (unless your cousin was under 18 at the time)

As far as I'm aware there is nothing that can be done to change it

 

[bocadillo]

'Tis as homer suggests. Your cousin should not be tempted to pretend that she has no unspent convictions. If it were discovered that she had done so, she would almost certainly be dismissed immediately and could face a prosecution for fraud.

 

[Lako42]

'Tis as homer suggests. Your cousin should not be tempted to pretend that she has no unspent convictions. If it were discovered that she had done so, she would almost certainly be dismissed immediately and could face a prosecution for fraud.

I know for a fact she will not proceed with the application until the conviction is spent, I did wonder however If a court would consider classing the conviction as spent if the person was obviously looking to better themselves and create a better life for themselves, especially when the conviction resulted in a fine (not sure what the amount was)

 

[homer]

I know for a fact she will not proceed with the application until the conviction is spent, I did wonder however If a court would consider classing the conviction as spent if the person was obviously looking to better themselves and create a better life for themselves, especially when the conviction resulted in a fine (not sure what the amount was)

'tis a nice thought, but there's not a chance of that happening

 

[bocadillo]

I know for a fact she will not proceed with the application until the conviction is spent, I did wonder however If a court would consider classing the conviction as spent if the person was obviously looking to better themselves and create a better life for themselves, especially when the conviction resulted in a fine (not sure what the amount was)

The "especially when the conviction resulted in a fine" bit is why the period is only 5 years; if there had been a term of imprisonment it would have been even longer.

Did you see where homer said that the rehabilitation period is shorter for those who are under 18 at the time of conviction? If she was under 18, the conviction would already now be regarded as 'spent'.

 

[Lako42]

The "especially when the conviction resulted in a fine" bit is why the period is only 5 years; if there had been a term of imprisonment it would have been even longer.

Did you see where homer said that the rehabilitation period is shorter for those who are under 18 at the time of conviction? If she was under 18, the conviction would already now be regarded as 'spent'.

Thanks for the advice, I will pass it on, She must have been over 18 when it occurred, I'll double check with her anyway, It's a shame a fine results in the same length of time as detention and such like.

 

[bocadillo]

It's a shame a fine results in the same length of time as detention

It doesn't. As I said above, in a case where a term of imprisonment is incurred the period would be longer; six months or less is 7 years, then up to two and a half years it's 10 years, longer than that and the conviction can never be regarded as spent.

 

[SJN-Fox]

If undergoing a full CRB check, even spent convictions are disclosed. Some motoring offences are also classed as criminal convictions and will show up on a CRB check.

I failed to include a motoring offence from well over 20 years ago in the 'do you have any criminal convictions' bit of my application form. When this came back on my CRB disclosure I was accused of falsifying information in order to get the job and had to undergo a disciplinary investigation.

 

[Lako42]

If undergoing a full CRB check, even spent convictions are disclosed. Some motoring offences are also classed as criminal convictions and will show up on a CRB check.

I failed to include a motoring offence from well over 20 years ago in the 'do you have any criminal convictions' bit of my application form. When this came back on my CRB disclosure I was accused of falsifying information in order to get the job and had to undergo a disciplinary investigation.

Yes I understand this however Im sure It's only certain lines of work that require a full disclosure, ie working with children and vulnerable people, I don't think the role she was looking at falls into a category where a full check would be requested.

 

[Cate Fox]

Yes I understand this however Im sure It's only certain lines of work that require a full disclosure, ie working with children and vulnerable people, I don't think the role she was looking at falls into a category where a full check would be requested.

I had to have a full CRB check.... actually scrap that, it was a counter terrorism check :icon_eek:

 

[Matt_B]

Yes I understand this however Im sure It's only certain lines of work that require a full disclosure, ie working with children and vulnerable people, I don't think the role she was looking at falls into a category where a full check would be requested.

I don't think my CRB for working in a school was full disclosure even, but I may be wrong. I don't think they bothered with the driving bit or working with vulnerable adults bit. I could be wrong though.

 

[Matt_B]

I had to have a full CRB check.... actually scrap that, it was a counter terrorism check :icon_eek:

That's because your sexiness is threat to the national dick-tatorship.

I just wanted to make a joke, sorry.

 

[Cate Fox]

That's because your sexiness is threat to the national dick-tatorship.

I just wanted to make a joke, sorry.

And so you should be :icon_lol:

 

[Dour]

I don't think my CRB for working in a school was full disclosure even, but I may be wrong. I don't think they bothered with the driving bit or working with vulnerable adults bit. I could be wrong though.

Schools must demand enhanced CRB - full disclosure plus pertinent information that the police hold. They are then meant to ignore stuff that isn't relevant.

 

[Matt_B]

Schools must demand enhanced CRB - full disclosure plus pertinent information that the police hold. They are then meant to ignore stuff that isn't relevant.

That may have been it then. All I know is, I'm clean as a whistle.