gc88

Arrested nearly 10 years ago.

Recommended Posts

Hi, this is my first post.

When i was 16 a friend and i took a small rowing boat to fish from a pier without the owners permission. The police were called and we were arrested. As far as i remember we were charged but no criminal proceedings were brought against us, we received a letter from the procurator fiscal detailing this. I am now 26 and have secured a position within an investment bank who have only to conduct background checks before i commence employment. I am anxious to find out if this incident is regarded as a 'police caution' and whether i will have to disclose this in the background check application. The incident occurred in Scotland in 2004. Also, would the charges have been dropped as we did not go to court or receive any further communication? I cannot remember if i received a warning for the offense as it was such a long time ago and i was quite young. Does anybody have an idea of what, given the details i have provided, would be the normal course of action for this kind of offence?

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what you have described you can honestly say the following

1) you have never been convicted of a criminal offence

2) you have never been cautioned for a criminal offence

It seems like someone reviewed the case and decided that perhaps it lacked the public interest to proceed. As a result, despite being charged you never attended a trial.

as a result you can also honestly say you do not have a criminal record

So read the question on any form very carefully, as long as it only asked those three questions you do not have to disclose it and any background checks shouldn't reveal it if it is not required/asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happened in Scotland and I bet he has a SCRO number......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick responses, i was already pretty sure i had no criminal record but was unsure if i had received a warning from the fiscal or a caution from the police. I want to be as honest as i can on the application without having to disclose information that legally i don't need to. The question asked on my background check application is ' Have you ever been given a caution in relation to any criminal offence? '

Just for clarification, should i be answering no?

Thanks again

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

If I was you I would be following the link and doing a subject access check so that I can be sure how I stand.

If you were arrested for theft as you describe you will have been cautioned and charged by the Police who dealt with the incident and as you were 16 years old you will appear on the crime recording system as an accused. The relevant Crimefile will have resulted in the submission of an SPR (Scottish Police Report )to the PF who has decided to "no-pro" it from what you say. You will have an "S" number and probably a nominal record.

I would not take a chance on answering "no"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole subject is a minefield and came into its own when selecting for the Police and Crime Commissioners. As a result there was going to be certain changes so that people did not have to pay a continual price for earlier (and usually youthful) misdemeanours. I do not know what the situation is for Scotland and the best I can find by way of an update is on the Gov.uk site which states:

Question e55 asks the applicant ‘have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence or received a caution, reprimand or warning?’

Applicants should now ignore this question and treat this question as if they were being asked ‘do you have any unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands or warnings?’

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dbs-filter-certain-old-and-minor-cautions-and-convictions-reprimands-and-warnings-from-criminal-record-certificates

However, as serious decisions affecting careers are at stake I post this as way of information only and for you to explore further as to what applies in your case. The key word in the above appears to be 'unspent' - but bear in mind this may not apply to all jobs. The site listed above has links to further information and a telephone number - if I were in your position I would be reading/researching and then calling them for any clarification.

Edited by meditate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one may be a bit easier:

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/privacy/criminal-records/-1-disclosure-of-convictions.pdf

May be worth getting the leaflet

'Standard DBS checks’ and ‘Enhanced DBS checks' - alternatively there may be a resident expert on here who is conversant with the latest legislation and disclosure requirements.

Edited by meditate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I an tell if it is a basic DBS you 'should' be ok as spent cautions etc are not searched. Enhanced DBS they are and is a completely different ball game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a dangerous person meditate.

All you seem to do is google the topic asked about then post links and vague advice.

What on earth has a DBS check go to do with working for a bank in Scotland?

Edited by Reg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a dangerous person meditate.

All you seem to do is google the topic asked about then post links and vague advice.

What on earth has a DBS check go to do with working for a bank in Scotland?

Why dangerous? The op is asking a question on disclosure. The usual method is via DBS and the rules have changed on disclosure. My comments are arguably 'less dangerous' than the ones above that state disclose everything. The rules changed so that legally previous spent cautions that had to be disclosed now longer have to. Let me put it another way, would you rather the op listened to the disclose everything (when he legally does not have to) and risk losing his job or, as I have stated, explore the subject to see if he does not have to disclose and have a more reasonable chance of getting the job? I know what I would do and Ifail to see what I have said is in anyway dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dangerous? The op is asking a question on disclosure.

Read the question - the guy is in Scotland, and I don't see anywhere on the thread where he has been advised to disclose everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the op and Scotland has its equivalent north of the border called 'Disclosure Scotland'. I responded to the advice about the fishing boat (that is not everything) yet your response above states he should declare it. What I have pointed out is that it is worth finding out what level of disclosure is required for his job as that dictates what he legally has to declare and what he does not. There is now a filtering system applied to police searches dependent on the job and level of disclosure. Therefore why would you (he) not explore what level of disclosure he legally has to give? You have advised him to declare it and that may be the right answer. Equally a quick phone call and bit of exploring may mean he does not and is at less risk of being denied the job by disclosing something he did not have to - I personally would question at this stage whose advice is the more dangerous. It may be that he decides to declare it after exploring the issue but if he gets unequivocal advice that it will not be disclosed by the police because of the recent changes and he does declare it then he may have shot himself in the foot.

At the end of the day a short period looking into the matter may make a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the op and Scotland has its equivalent north of the border called 'Disclosure Scotland'.

Yep, that's where my link takes him

I responded to the advice about the fishing boat (that is not everything) yet your response above states he should declare it.

No it doesn't, it says that he should do a subject access check to see where he stands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post number 6 reads like he may have a nominal record and you would not risk answering no to the question - at least that is my interpretation of your post.

So the guy does a subject access check and it shows up the boat incident. The irony is that even though the subject access check showed this up it does not mean that it necessarily can legally be shown to the new employer because of the filtering process - which is why I think he needs to explore the issue a little more deeply than you are suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 27 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.