/ Can I find details of my previous convictions?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
aln - on 05 Feb 2013
I'm thinking of applying for a job which requires full disclosure of previous convictions. There were a few, but over 20 years ago during a previous life ;) and I'm struggling to remember the details for the form I'm being asked to fill in. Is there a way I can find these details, preferably online?
coinneach - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:

I used this site for a personal alcohol license and also for a rugby coaching clearance.

http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/apply/

I live in Englandshire but it makes no difference


Talius Brute - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:

I don't think a basic disclosure will give you spent convictions. You'd need the standard disclosure and not sure one can get that one oneself.
colina - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:
who the hell has got the right to ask you to air your dirty linen in public.everyone has done things in the past they might like to remain in the past?

i wouldn't bother disclosing anything its got f****ll to do with anybody wot you did 20 years ago ,presumably you paid the price for your "sins" .you've served your time in one way or another ,forget it and move on...probably not showing on any system now anyway why jepordise your chances of a new start.
coinneach - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:

Because the OP may be applying to work with children / vulnerable people and his prospective employers may feel that offences against such people ( even if it was 20 years ago ) may have a bearing on offering him a job?
Dauphin - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:

good plan. there are plenty of occupations were fessing up to previous convictions is mandatory. even cautions from 20 years ago will most likely show up on a CRB check, so pretending it never happened may be a little foolhardy.

D
Milesy - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:
> I'm thinking of applying for a job which requires full disclosure of previous convictions. There were a few, but over 20 years ago during a previous life ;) and I'm struggling to remember the details for the form I'm being asked to fill in. Is there a way I can find these details, preferably online?

If you can't remember the full details then just provide as much details as you can and make sure you tell them that you know there are convictions and roughly what they were for and when. If they at least know you are not witholding information then they can find out the details through the disclosure itself. That is the point of it.
Sarah G on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:
Doesn't work that way. Even if the OP isn't subject to a CRB check as a part of his prospective job, if the employer requires disclosure, the job applicant fails to give this and then later on it is found that the person has a conviction they did not declare then they may be in breach of the conditions of their contract, and be dismissed. This sort of condition is often part of a job where a certain probity is required. By declaring previous stuff there is still a very good chance that a propective employee will still be interviewed, in which they will have the opportunity to explain their conviction (eg "I was only 13, stupid, and thought nicking a can of coke from Budgen's was a great idea at the time....").

Sadly, such youthful misguided actins can stay with you for a very, very long time and have an effect on all kinds of things.

On the other hand, would feel happy having a convicted thief, for example, doing unsupervised maintenance work in your accommodation?

Sx
Milesy - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:
> presumably you paid the price for your "sins" .you've served your time in one way or another

Doesnt work that way unfortunately. Standard and enhanced disclosures will discover spent convictions.
ANC on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:

As the police are a public body you have a right to see the information they hold on you under The freedom of information act. You will have to make application to receive this information from the police and are likely to be charged an admin fee for this.
Carolyn - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to ANC:

Personal information usually falls under the Data Protection Act, rather the the Freedom of Information Act, I think?
deepsoup - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sarah G:
> if the employer requires disclosure, the job applicant fails to give this and then later on it is found that the person has a conviction they did not declare then they may be in breach of the conditions of their contract

If the job is one of those exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act you may be right, otherwise a spent conviction effectively never happened and the employer can go whistle. They don't own their employees.

The exemptions cover a fairly broad range of jobs though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974#Exemptions
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to ANC: freedom of information means they tick the troublemaker box..
Kipper - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sarah G:
> (In reply to colina)
> Doesn't work that way. Even if the OP isn't subject to a CRB check

'CRB checks' no longer exists, DBS is what you need now - https://www.gov.uk/crb-criminal-records-bureau-check

You can get one on yourself (via Disclosure Scotland?) but it's only 'standard' and won't show spent convictions.
colina - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:
i agree ,any conviction to do with minors is a no-brainer.
I am assuming the posters criminal misdemeanors were somewhat digfferent,possibly stealing a car 20 years ago as a juvenile maybe. .
why volunteer this info to a prospective employer it wont be seen in good light.
the employer may find out or may not ,if he finds out its bye bye if they don't find out no ones the wiser
crustypunkuk - on 05 Feb 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974#Exemptions

As above. Depends on the nature of your conviction, and if you did time for it. Most 'small' offences will be spent and wont show on a disclosure. IIRC only sexual offences and murder/manslaughter have a lifetime notification, but i may be mistaken. It all depends on the nature of the job you are applying for.
Good luck fella.
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to ANC) freedom of information means they tick the troublemaker box..

LOLZ. You'll have to remind me what that marker is on the PNC.
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: they do it with data mining-do keep up..
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to off-duty) they do it with data mining-do keep up..

Please tell me how I'm data mining your freedom of information request?
It's hard enough just trying to update PNC.
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: not you but they (although you are partly complicit)
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to off-duty) not you but they (although you are partly complicit)

So a freedom of information request is flagging you up as a troublemaker to who exactly then?
As part of the enforcement arm of government I'd be interested to know what I should be watching for....
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: yeah, probably only an environmentalist, but better safe than sorry eh? data=money..
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to off-duty) yeah, probably only an environmentalist, but better safe than sorry eh? data=money..

So a freedom of information request is flagging you up as a troublemaker to who exactly then?
As part of the enforcement arm of government I'd be interested to know what I should be watching for....
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:
>
> As part of the enforcement arm of government I'd be interested to know what I should be watching for....

off-duty, my arse..
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> off-duty, my arse..

You are claiming that a freedom of information act request will flag you on some database to somebody.
Given that I regularly access police databases operationally and have no knowledge of that system - nor have I ever acted on information that someone is a "freedom of information" seeker then I am intrigued to know what you are talking about.
Unless it is entirely groundless paranoia...

And currently I am enjoying a nice glass of Argentinian Carmenere. As fun as my job is ;-) it has yet to allow me to drink wine whilst doing it.....
Milesy - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to ANC) freedom of information means they tick the troublemaker box..

On what exactly? I call troll.
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: plenty of ground for paranoia with the snooping bill etc..
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: or are my fears groundless?
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
You may disagree with the "snooping bill" but regardless of what you think it's purpose is to provide a mechanism for accessing data retained and the legal framework to allow that access.
It also isn't actually law yet.
I am familiar with various other bits of legislation in relation to allowing access to data, none of which includes any reference to a)making a record of all those making freedom of information requests, b)placing markers on any system to flag them up, c) takng any action as a result of them either appearing on any list or receiving any marker.

I think you need to publicise your evidence - it could be another scandal...
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to off-duty) or are my fears groundless?

I think you can submit as many freedom of information requests as you want (or can afford) without the risk of any reaction from the police or other agencies.
Other than bemusement.
ads.ukclimbing.com
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to on-duty: evidence for groundless snooping? try google or one of your above posts
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to on-duty) evidence for groundless snooping? try google or one of your above posts

Why not just provide a link, your syntax is a little cryptic.
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: a link to what exactly- what do you want to argue against?
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:

You are claiming that there is some sort of groundless snooping, and/or that my posts also indicate that it is occurring.

Since the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (and the effect of the Human Rights Act) then groundless snooping is one of the things we are protected against.
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: we are protected from groundless snooping yet groundless snooping is obviously going on. i guess you need to define groundless
off-duty - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to off-duty) we are protected from groundless snooping yet groundless snooping is obviously going on. i guess you need to define groundless

Obviously?
As for groundless - I'll take it as it's English meaning - without grounds.
IE - Not proportionate or necessary (let alone legal).
Jim C - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to subalpine)
> [...]
>
> Obviously?
> As for groundless - I'll take it as it's English meaning - without grounds.
> IE - Not proportionate or necessary (let alone legal).

I take it OD that , like my sister in the Health Service, your activities on these databases are heavily monitored, and you have to justify your enquiries( or get the sack)
I do know that my sister is questioned occasionally when she has accessed files, and has to be able to show that she needed to access it to do her job, rather than just poke around, in which case she could be suspended or sacked.

So , if this is the case, hen it is not quite as easy as some people seem to think, for just anyone to snoop around into your private information. Same applied to my BIL when he was doing your line of work some years back.
the real slim shady - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine: I think off-duty is asking you to show examples of this "groundless snooping" as he has no knowledge of it occurring.
andic - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to ANC) freedom of information means they tick the troublemaker box..

It is quite possible to use an assumed name when making an FOI, but it makes a successful appeal unlikely if the subject of your FOI refuses to service your request.

It is true that the political charity Common Purpose had (have?) a list of names under which people made FOI requests to public bodies regarding Common Purpose. People within those institutions were feeding the information back to CP. Is there any reason to think CP were the first to come up with this wheeze?
aln - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to aln: Thanks for the replies (well, the ones before the usual thread descent into argument), some useful info. The job requires a CRB check so I'm fairly sure my past misdemeanors will be revealed. Regardless of that, I think of them as fairly minor, I'm not ashamed of them, and I don't want to lie to a prospective employer.
Steve John B - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:
> (In reply to aln) Thanks for the replies (well, the ones before the usual thread descent into argument), some useful info. The job requires a CRB check so I'm fairly sure my past misdemeanors will be revealed. Regardless of that, I think of them as fairly minor, I'm not ashamed of them, and I don't want to lie to a prospective employer.

I think you've failed to take the advice which has been given. You should either:

(a) get really angry and tell them to f*ck off, or
(b) neglect to take your medication and construct an elaborate paranoid worldview featuring (amongst other things) bankers, CRB checks and shape-shifting lizards.

Good luck with the application! :)
aln - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Steve John B: Thanks. I think your point b might lead to point a, leading back to point b and so on in a kinda self fulfilling feedback loop!
New POD - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to coinneach:
> (In reply to aln)
>
> I used this site for a personal alcohol license and also for a rugby coaching clearance.
>
> http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/apply/
>
> I live in Englandshire but it makes no difference

I HAD to use this when I was offered a Freelance Job at the MOD in ENGLAND. Nothing came up. Not even a speeding ticket.

Remember though that under the rules of spent convictions most things that happened 5 years ago may not have to be declared.

Neil Williams - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to New POD:

...unless it's a job with children/vulnerable adults.

What type of CRB check are you having to undertake? A Standard or an Enhanced?

Neil
aln - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to New POD)
>
> ...unless it's a job with children/vulnerable adults.
>
> What type of CRB check are you having to undertake? A Standard or an Enhanced?
>
> Neil

Not sure, I'll have to check. I might be working with children on occasion, and the application asks me to declare spent convictions.

David Martin - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:

Interesting judgement made a week or so back:
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2013/crb-setting-the-record-straight.php

Potential for the whole CRB check system to be overhauled and no longer reveal some spent convictions of cautions. Very welcome news in my mind. It seems thousands of people have been talked in to accepting cautions as a "slap on the wrist" when in fact they are a constitute a life criminal record that will appear on the CRB check.
David Martin - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to New POD:
> (In reply to coinneach)
> [...]
>
> I HAD to use this when I was offered a Freelance Job at the MOD in ENGLAND. Nothing came up. Not even a speeding ticket.

That will be because you can only apply for the "basic" check. This only includes unspent convictions.

Employers on the other hand can apply for standard and enhanced checks. These pull up cautions, reprimands, warnings and convictions, and it doesn't matter how long ago they occurred. Further, they can bring up anything on the police national computer that relates to you. This means, I could go to the local filth, tell them I suspect you stole my wheely-bin, fiddled with kids or generally look a bit dodgy, and even if no criminal record resulted, your employer would end up with these details.

Such a wonderful system. If more people realised just how screwed they are by it I imagine there would be more of an outcry.

TryfAndy on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to aln:

I'm waiting for my Enhanced CRB to come back now, and from what I've seen of my business partner's which came yesterday, it's just a run-down of any previous convictions/cautions/reprimands, and then other boxes saying whether you're on any lists banning you from working with children or vulnerable adults.

I've only ever been nicked once, and that was over 10yrs ago, and I doubt a teenager getting a reprimand for cannabis possession will make anyone give a shit when it comes to seeing if I'm acceptable to work with.

As for a FOI's, as someone who's submitted a few in his carer, including to various police bodies, I think I'll agree with off-duty in that there isn't a 'trouble-maker' database. There may well be, however, a policy regarding 'being as bloody awkward as possible with the wording of requests you receive so you can send no useful information back whatsoever'
andy.smythe - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to aln: go into your local police station and say you want a copy of all the information that the police hold on you. They will give you a form to fill out/send off and under the freedom of info act they will provide copies of all cautions, convictions, dna/finger print file numbers etc. It cost about 10

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.