Obtaining Pecuniary Advantage (Theft Act 1968 Sec 16 (2)(c))
Discussion
I know it's nothing about cars, but need some advice.
Guy has been questioned about a theft at work, known to BiB some 20 years ago but kept his nose clean since. Offered job in Nov 87 and then in Jan '88 filled out application form "for records". Forgot to mention convictions.
Now BiB are sniffing round because of the theft, and are putting a bit of pressure on because they know about the application form.
Employers as far as I know don't know that he lied on application form, so havn't actually made any complaint.
Chaps obviously worried about his job, any lawyer type persons or BiB any helpfull advice, other than get a brief quick... but if he has done nothing wrong (other than a small matter of the above) should he ???
Thanks
(and if this is inapropriate mods, then feel free to delete)
Guy has been questioned about a theft at work, known to BiB some 20 years ago but kept his nose clean since. Offered job in Nov 87 and then in Jan '88 filled out application form "for records". Forgot to mention convictions.
Now BiB are sniffing round because of the theft, and are putting a bit of pressure on because they know about the application form.
Employers as far as I know don't know that he lied on application form, so havn't actually made any complaint.
Chaps obviously worried about his job, any lawyer type persons or BiB any helpfull advice, other than get a brief quick... but if he has done nothing wrong (other than a small matter of the above) should he ???
Thanks
(and if this is inapropriate mods, then feel free to delete)
R II said:
He's about to be questioned, informal interview as far as i know
Hmm,
Just so I understand this, he was only *questioned* for theft 20 years ago, not convicted?
If that is the case he has no convictions and done nothing wrong.
However, if the situation is that he was convicted and lied about it in order to get a job that is somewhat different, however I would have thought that he would only have gained an advantage if it were a qualification etc which enabled him to gain a higher paid job.
It could well be argued that the fact that he was convicted of an offence or not, has made no difference to his ability to fulfil the job, as proved by the fact that he has done it for 20 years!
insanojackson said:
A conviction for theft 20 years ago would now be "spent" anyway and he would not have to declare it. Rehabilitation of offencders act.
That would depend on the sentence given.
And just as a point of order for the OP, Sec 16 Theft Act 1968 was repealed in January by the Fraud Act 2006
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 20th March 23:09
I know it's late, but please keep up...
Lied about conviction at time of employment, 20 years ago.
Now, 20 years later, BiB have picked up on his previous that his employer of 20 years does not know about.
That is the point I think?
R II said:
Guy has been questioned about a theft at work, known to BiB some 20 years ago but kept his nose clean since. Offered job in Nov 87 and then in Jan '88 filled out application form "for records". Forgot to mention convictions.
Lied about conviction at time of employment, 20 years ago.
R II said:
Now BiB are sniffing round because of the theft, and are putting a bit of pressure on because they know about the application form.
Employers as far as I know don't know that he lied on application form, so havn't actually made any complaint.
Employers as far as I know don't know that he lied on application form, so havn't actually made any complaint.
Now, 20 years later, BiB have picked up on his previous that his employer of 20 years does not know about.
That is the point I think?
R II said:
I know it's nothing about cars, but need some advice.
Guy has been questioned about a theft at work, known to BiB some 20 years ago but kept his nose clean since. Offered job in Nov 87 and then in Jan '88 filled out application form "for records". Forgot to mention convictions.
Guy has been questioned about a theft at work, known to BiB some 20 years ago but kept his nose clean since. Offered job in Nov 87 and then in Jan '88 filled out application form "for records". Forgot to mention convictions.
He was offered job.. und filled in application form after his probation period was up.
I think he had perhaps proven some element of trustworthiness und may have thought to disclose might jeopardise his chance of just keeping the job at a basic starter lever perhaps?
What was he convicted of? Theft or something else?
My sister-in-law und the cousin who ist Headmistress of a secondary school tell me they know of a person in a very senior teaching role .. who when CREB checks were made compulsory for all those employed in job whereby such a check ist required . was found to have a conviction from his yoof .. for "possessing some spliffs "- sort of in the same way as Cameron.
He did not apparently disclose this on any one application for any one teaching post .. und it only came to light on a CREB check. He did not get reprimand or sack over it though. Was well in past und he never touch it since .. und has draconian anti-drug stance too.. but perhaps ist more able to deliver anti-drug message because he has "dabbled"
R II said:
Now BiB are sniffing round because of the theft, and are putting a bit of pressure on because they know about the application form.
I hope this does not mean they try to get him to confess under duress as this would be very unsound conviction in any case.
R II said:
Employers as far as I know don't know that he lied on application form, so havn't actually made any complaint.
Chaps obviously worried about his job, any lawyer type persons or BiB any helpfull advice, other than get a brief quick... but if he has done nothing wrong (other than a small matter of the above) should he ???
Thanks
(and if this is inapropriate mods, then feel free to delete)
Chap was known to BiB 20 years ago but not since. He has been known to his boss as trustworthy employee for 365 days of each of the past 20 years. If question by employers ist asked .. then he just honest about why he "chose to lie by omission" - which ist probaby quite simply und honestly that he afraid of reaction, ashamed of whatever he did .. und never intended to deceive over it..but that his work record over the past years surely count as truly rehabilitated "felon" with no criminal urges.
As for the police .. he just co-operate with their inquiries. They will have to prove more than "form as a youngster" to secure a conviction of whatever as would have to be well beyond reasoned doubt
Dibble said:
WildCat said:
...ist more able to deliver anti-drug message because he has "dabbled"
Phew. For a moment there, I thought you said he'd "Dibbled"...
But a good Dibble can deliver a pretty strong anti-drug message too
. (as liaison officer und I want more Officer Dibbles .. ist a feline thing 
) Was he specifically required to disclose the conviction - question asked, "other matters that might prejudice performance of role", relevance to employment, etc.?
If the conviction has now expired - and presumably it has, otherwise the time between conviction and original employment would likely have been spent in jail - then he should have nothing to worry about in respect of his continued employment.
The general rule under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is that you can treat such questions as not relating to spent convictions - provided that you are not within the Act's excepted professions, occupations or offices. Therefore if you decide not to disclose a spent conviction you cannot be denied employment or subsequently dismissed on the ground that you failed to disclose it. However, in exceptional circumstances, you may be prosecuted for the criminal offence of 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception'. Likewise, failing to disclose a spent conviction is not a lawful ground for excluding you from any office or profession. Nor can a spent conviction be a lawful ground for prejudicing you in the way you are treated in an occupation or employment.
In regard to the police investigation, the general rule is that police information - including information on convictions - should not be disclosed without the consent of the relevant person unless there are important considerations of public interest to justify departure from the general rule of confidentiality. Comments made in police interviews, for example, are in principle confidential and remain so even if not used in criminal proceedings. Exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality are made where there is a need:
• To protect vulnerable members of society.
• To ensure good and honest administration of the law.
• To protect national security.
WRT the time limits, the rehabilitation period per Sentence is:
Prison for more than two and a half years - never
Prison for more than six months but less than two and a half years - 10 years
Prison for six months or less - 7 years
Fine - 5 years
Dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service - 10 years
Dismissal from Her Majesty's service - 7 years
Detention in respect of conviction in service disciplinary proceedings - 5 years
Borstal - 7 years
Detention for over six months but less than two and a half years - 5 years
Detention for six months or less - 3 years
Probation - 5 years
Hospital order under Mental Health Act 1983 - 5 years
or 2 years after order ceases to have effect, whichever is the longer
Absolute discharge - 6 months
Conditional discharge, probation order, binding over, care order, supervision order - 1 year after conviction of the order or 1 year after the order ends, whichever is the longer
Disqualification - The period of disqualification
These periods are reduced by half if the offender was under eighteen at the date of conviction.
The following sentences can never become spent:
• A sentence of imprisonment, youth custody detention in a young offender institution or corrective training, for a term of more than two and a half years. [I don't understand this one, it marks the young offender for life - S]
• A sentence of imprisonment for life.
• A sentence of preventive detention.
• Detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life.
Hope this helps - Streaky
If the conviction has now expired - and presumably it has, otherwise the time between conviction and original employment would likely have been spent in jail - then he should have nothing to worry about in respect of his continued employment.
The general rule under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is that you can treat such questions as not relating to spent convictions - provided that you are not within the Act's excepted professions, occupations or offices. Therefore if you decide not to disclose a spent conviction you cannot be denied employment or subsequently dismissed on the ground that you failed to disclose it. However, in exceptional circumstances, you may be prosecuted for the criminal offence of 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception'. Likewise, failing to disclose a spent conviction is not a lawful ground for excluding you from any office or profession. Nor can a spent conviction be a lawful ground for prejudicing you in the way you are treated in an occupation or employment.
In regard to the police investigation, the general rule is that police information - including information on convictions - should not be disclosed without the consent of the relevant person unless there are important considerations of public interest to justify departure from the general rule of confidentiality. Comments made in police interviews, for example, are in principle confidential and remain so even if not used in criminal proceedings. Exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality are made where there is a need:
• To protect vulnerable members of society.
• To ensure good and honest administration of the law.
• To protect national security.
WRT the time limits, the rehabilitation period per Sentence is:
Prison for more than two and a half years - never
Prison for more than six months but less than two and a half years - 10 years
Prison for six months or less - 7 years
Fine - 5 years
Dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service - 10 years
Dismissal from Her Majesty's service - 7 years
Detention in respect of conviction in service disciplinary proceedings - 5 years
Borstal - 7 years
Detention for over six months but less than two and a half years - 5 years
Detention for six months or less - 3 years
Probation - 5 years
Hospital order under Mental Health Act 1983 - 5 years
or 2 years after order ceases to have effect, whichever is the longer
Absolute discharge - 6 months
Conditional discharge, probation order, binding over, care order, supervision order - 1 year after conviction of the order or 1 year after the order ends, whichever is the longer
Disqualification - The period of disqualification
These periods are reduced by half if the offender was under eighteen at the date of conviction.
The following sentences can never become spent:
• A sentence of imprisonment, youth custody detention in a young offender institution or corrective training, for a term of more than two and a half years. [I don't understand this one, it marks the young offender for life - S]
• A sentence of imprisonment for life.
• A sentence of preventive detention.
• Detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life.
Hope this helps - Streaky
Hemibum said:
Thought that the "Pecuniary Advantage" related to profiting in some way from something dodgy, not a case of omitting some previous.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 provides in exceptional circumstances for prosecution for the criminal offence of 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' - Streaky Hemibum said:
Thought that the "Pecuniary Advantage" related to profiting in some way from something dodgy, not a case of omitting some previous.
If you got a job that you otherwise wouldn't have got & received remuneration, you have profited.
As I say the offence is not pecuniary advantage anymore, it's an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, not the Theft Act 1968.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 21st March 06:54
Hang on - let's not get too carried away with what offence he may or may not have committed 20 years ago and under what act and section.
As I've read it, the Police are investigating a recent theft from his place of work. As they're carrying out interviews, I'd suspect that it's a quite high value theft. Thefts such as that often involve someone on the inside, and so I'd expect the Police to get a list of employees from the management, and check them on the PNC. Having a conviction for theft wouldn't necessarily mean someone is involved, but it would show a predilection towards stealing, albeit 20 years ago. Therefore, it's only natural that they would want to interview your mate. If he genuinely wasn't involved in the theft, and he's got an alibi, then he's nothing whatsoever to worry about as far as the theft goes.
As for the matter of whether he's committed a fraud or not, do you really think the Police would be interested in a conviction he "forgot" to declare 20 years ago, when they're actually investigating a high value theft? I don't think they would be.
If they know about his previous conviction, they might bring it up when he's interviewed and use it to apply a bit of pressure on him, but I can't believe for one minute that, if he's innocent of any involvement in the theft, they'd be of a mind to bring up the undeclared conviction, and possibly get him sacked.
As I've read it, the Police are investigating a recent theft from his place of work. As they're carrying out interviews, I'd suspect that it's a quite high value theft. Thefts such as that often involve someone on the inside, and so I'd expect the Police to get a list of employees from the management, and check them on the PNC. Having a conviction for theft wouldn't necessarily mean someone is involved, but it would show a predilection towards stealing, albeit 20 years ago. Therefore, it's only natural that they would want to interview your mate. If he genuinely wasn't involved in the theft, and he's got an alibi, then he's nothing whatsoever to worry about as far as the theft goes.
As for the matter of whether he's committed a fraud or not, do you really think the Police would be interested in a conviction he "forgot" to declare 20 years ago, when they're actually investigating a high value theft? I don't think they would be.
If they know about his previous conviction, they might bring it up when he's interviewed and use it to apply a bit of pressure on him, but I can't believe for one minute that, if he's innocent of any involvement in the theft, they'd be of a mind to bring up the undeclared conviction, and possibly get him sacked.
streaky said:
The following sentences can never become spent:
• A sentence of imprisonment, youth custody detention in a young offender institution or corrective training, for a term of more than two and a half years. [I don't understand this one, it marks the young offender for life - S]
• A sentence of imprisonment for life.
• A sentence of preventive detention.
• Detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life.
Hope this helps - Streaky
• Receiving a police caution having been arrested
Although I think that's a bit odd too (I'm not talking about a caution for questioning...if you see what I mean)
tigger1 said:
streaky said:
The following sentences can never become spent:
• A sentence of imprisonment, youth custody detention in a young offender institution or corrective training, for a term of more than two and a half years. [I don't understand this one, it marks the young offender for life - S]
• A sentence of imprisonment for life.
• A sentence of preventive detention.
• Detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life.
Hope this helps - Streaky
• Receiving a police caution having been arrested
Although I think that's a bit odd too (I'm not talking about a caution for questioning...if you see what I mean)
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff