Lawyers and criminal records
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
I'm not saying it has any bearing on his ability to practice law, neither am I suggesting it SHOULD have any effect on his chances of qualifying as a solicitor. I'm just somewhat surprised that a criminal record isn't a barrier to becoming a solicitor, and the link to the Solicitors Regulation Authority would imply that it is, even if not an impassable one.
Anyway, what's the point of maintaining criminal records if not to be relevant for the rest of someone's life?
Rehabilitation of offenders Act, 1974. Spent convictions are eventually disregarded, except for certain serious offences and occupations. The idea was to prevent one moment of stupidity blighting an entire life.Anyway, what's the point of maintaining criminal records if not to be relevant for the rest of someone's life?
IanA2 said:
I'm not sure you are you being serious? If you are, try getting your head around the thinking behind the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act.
The rehabilitation of offenders act doesn't mean the records are wiped, just that they don't usually have to be disclosed. They are kept for life, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority certainly wants to know about all convictions.Dr Jekyll said:
The rehabilitation of offenders act doesn't mean the records are wiped, just that they don't usually have to be disclosed. They are kept for life, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority certainly wants to know about all convictions.
They may want to know, but does the law require them to be disclosed to that specific third party? eldar said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The rehabilitation of offenders act doesn't mean the records are wiped, just that they don't usually have to be disclosed. They are kept for life, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority certainly wants to know about all convictions.
They may want to know, but does the law require them to be disclosed to that specific third party? The provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 will be taken into account by us in considering any application you make.
(ii)
This means that if you fall within the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, the fact that the conviction is spent, and the time that has passed since the conviction was given, together with any other material circumstances will be taken into account by us when determining any application made by you.
Have a look at this: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/suitabil...
I really don't think I'd be too bothered if my solicitor had been convicted of DD when he was 19 years old. I'd be more concerned about his/her competence.
My guess is you've a beef with this guy, improve your karma, get over it.
I really don't think I'd be too bothered if my solicitor had been convicted of DD when he was 19 years old. I'd be more concerned about his/her competence.
My guess is you've a beef with this guy, improve your karma, get over it.
Dr Jekyll said:
IanA2 said:
I'm not sure you are you being serious? If you are, try getting your head around the thinking behind the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act.
The rehabilitation of offenders act doesn't mean the records are wiped, just that they don't usually have to be disclosed. They are kept for life, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority certainly wants to know about all convictions.IanA2 said:
Which is why I specifically asked that you; "try getting your head around the thinking" Not what the letter of the law says.
I do have my head around the thinking of the rehabilitation of offenders act. As I have already said several times, I am not saying that having a criminal record for dangerous driving should stand in the way of someone becoming a lawyer. I am merely pointing out that according to the relevant authorities it does, and this is why I am dubious about someone with just such a record who claims to have qualified, and got a job, as a solicitor. 
Dr Jekyll said:
I'm just somewhat surprised that a criminal record isn't a barrier to becoming a solicitor, and the link to the Solicitors Regulation Authority would imply that it is, even if not an impassible one.
Does it?SRA said:
Unless there are exceptional circumstances, we will refuse your application if you have been convicted by a court of a criminal offence:
(a)for which you received a custodial or suspended sentence;
(b)involving dishonesty, fraud, perjury and/or bribery;
(c)specifically in relation to which you have been included on the Violent and Sex Offender Register;
(d)associated with obstructing the course of justice;
(e)which demonstrated behaviour showing signs of discrimination towards others;
(f)associated with terrorism;
(g)which was racially aggravated;
(h)which was motivated by any of the 'protected' characteristics defined within the Equality Act 2010;
(i)which in our judgment is so serious as to prevent your student enrolment, admission as a solicitor, or approval as an authorised role holder; and/or
(j)you have been convicted by a court of more than one criminal offence.
Which category do you think dangerous driving falls into?(a)for which you received a custodial or suspended sentence;
(b)involving dishonesty, fraud, perjury and/or bribery;
(c)specifically in relation to which you have been included on the Violent and Sex Offender Register;
(d)associated with obstructing the course of justice;
(e)which demonstrated behaviour showing signs of discrimination towards others;
(f)associated with terrorism;
(g)which was racially aggravated;
(h)which was motivated by any of the 'protected' characteristics defined within the Equality Act 2010;
(i)which in our judgment is so serious as to prevent your student enrolment, admission as a solicitor, or approval as an authorised role holder; and/or
(j)you have been convicted by a court of more than one criminal offence.
IanA2 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
IanA2 said:
Dr J. You seem to have a specific person in mind. Do you have more information?
Why on earth should you think it: " Seems odd to me, in fact it's pretty unusual for someone to have one dangerous driving conviction but no other convictions at all. Not even motoring offences." What possible basis could you have for that statement?
Surely one conviction for DD at the tender age of 19yrs, should not blight his life forever.
I was convicted of DWDC when I was 16. I allegedly went through a red light, I swore it was just changing as I went through. The court thought otherwise. Shortly afterwards there was a fatal crash at the same junction. It transpired that the lights were out of sync. Was my conviction quashed, like hell it was. Could I have pursued it through the courts, probably, but at that age you have other things on your mind. Should that disqualify me from being a lawyer if that's what I wanted to be?
I do have someone in mind, but I don't want to identify them.Why on earth should you think it: " Seems odd to me, in fact it's pretty unusual for someone to have one dangerous driving conviction but no other convictions at all. Not even motoring offences." What possible basis could you have for that statement?
Surely one conviction for DD at the tender age of 19yrs, should not blight his life forever.
I was convicted of DWDC when I was 16. I allegedly went through a red light, I swore it was just changing as I went through. The court thought otherwise. Shortly afterwards there was a fatal crash at the same junction. It transpired that the lights were out of sync. Was my conviction quashed, like hell it was. Could I have pursued it through the courts, probably, but at that age you have other things on your mind. Should that disqualify me from being a lawyer if that's what I wanted to be?
I certainly wasn't suggesting that the conviction SHOULD prevent him being a solicitor, I was just a bit surprised that having a criminal record didn't prevent him becoming one. DWDC doesn't involve a criminal record so is rather different. I knew someone who looked into becoming a magistrate and was told no chance on the basis of a drink driving conviction from several years before.
As for saying it's unusual for someone to have a dangerous driving conviction but no other offences, I read something to this effect years ago but I can't remember the figures. Something like 80% have either additional recordable offences or additional motoring offences.
SRA said:
We are more likely than not to refuse your application if you have:
(a)
been convicted by a court of a criminal offence not falling within 1.1 above but which has an impact on your character and suitability;
(b)
been included on the Violent and Sex Offender Register but in relation to your inclusion on the Register, you have not been convicted by a court of a criminal offence; and/or
(c)
accepted a caution for an offence involving dishonesty.
(a)
been convicted by a court of a criminal offence not falling within 1.1 above but which has an impact on your character and suitability;
(b)
been included on the Violent and Sex Offender Register but in relation to your inclusion on the Register, you have not been convicted by a court of a criminal offence; and/or
(c)
accepted a caution for an offence involving dishonesty.
t. Wow, that could never happen. He must be a real scumbag.
Dr Jekyll said:
SRA said:
We are more likely than not to refuse your application if you have:
(a)
been convicted by a court of a criminal offence not falling within 1.1 above but which has an impact on your character and suitability;
(b)
been included on the Violent and Sex Offender Register but in relation to your inclusion on the Register, you have not been convicted by a court of a criminal offence; and/or
(c)
accepted a caution for an offence involving dishonesty.
(a)
been convicted by a court of a criminal offence not falling within 1.1 above but which has an impact on your character and suitability;
(b)
been included on the Violent and Sex Offender Register but in relation to your inclusion on the Register, you have not been convicted by a court of a criminal offence; and/or
(c)
accepted a caution for an offence involving dishonesty.
One possible reason could be that they doubt the person is a solicitor due to that conviction. That's one possible reason. They could just check that the person is a solicitor and leave it at that rather than using some previous infraction to smear them or butt into their life.
It's no different from checking qualifications or ensuring certifications are still in date. Photo ID Card licences aren't in date forever are they?
It's no different from checking qualifications or ensuring certifications are still in date. Photo ID Card licences aren't in date forever are they?
Edited by carinaman on Monday 21st April 19:23
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff