UKC

A friend (honestly) has been given one today, for a mistake essentially, and given a small amount of money to pay back in small amounts a fortnight.

On the assumption they won't do it again, that is - during the time the conditional discharge has been given for, and after that, can they definitely apply to have their record wiped clean so there's no convictions on it?

Google seems to say this is true, but there's legal peeps on here, so I thought I'd ask on here too.

Many thanks.

In reply to Timmd:

Depends on the crime and the rehabilitation period.

If the rehabilitation period has no buffer then once the sentence is completed then the record can be cleared. If the rehabilitation period has a buffer then the record can be cleared after the buffer period.

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/detailedguideroa/#Understanding%20th...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

The 'buffer period' only applies to prison sentences and community orders. A conditional discharge is neither and the conviction becomes spent at the end of the discharge - which is usually one or two years in length.

Your friend (ha!) doesn't have to apply and nothing is actually wiped from any record. Its just that he or she is allowed to say that they have no conviction if they are applying for most jobs or for insurance cover. In effect, they can legally lie about the conviction. Obviously there are some jobs in sensitive areas where the employer is allowed to ask about spent convictions also, and they must then be declared, but that has to be made clear on the application.

In reply to redpointillist:



Your cynicism is very misplaced - it honestly isn't me. Cool, my friend will be sorted after a year in that case then. Excellent, great. Thanks to both.

In reply to redpointillist:

It's not lying. Employers fall into 2 categories, those who work with the vulnerable for example are allowed to ask about all convictions. Most employers are only allowed to ask about unspent convictions.

Having a spent conviction doesn't necessarily rule out working with vulnerable people in the future provided it's for something unrelated and it's clear that it's not likely to happen again.

In reply to Timmd:

Rehabilitation of offenders act 1974.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974

In reply to marsbar:
She ought to be okay for most things then, and possibly everything. The sentence was given apologetically by the judge, in him saying that he had to think about what other people might do too, other less honest people. I won't go into details in case anybody googles.

In reply to redpointillist:


This isn't strictly true any more. Since 2013 when a court case decided that disclosing these records was disproportionate punishment it is the question that is wrong, not the answer. Technically an employer should ask if you have any convictions other than those which are spent or that are protected, which if they are protected means you don't need to lie.


There are almost no jobs where you have to disclose, those jobs would involve a security service vetting etc.

Offences are now filtered before being placed on a DBS certificate, so if your offence is on the list of protected offences then you never have to disclose, regardless of the employer or position.

Some offences will never be protected in that sense, for example: Statute: Criminal Code 1872, s3. Offence: Violating female heir to Crown.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-filtering-guidance/dbs-filte...

In reply to winhill:
Thanks for posting this, that's really useful. I'll pass on the link.