CRB Checks

[Bitty]

Can anyone tell me if a criminal record from 'juvenile years' would show up on a CRB check for a job?

I've always understood that if you were taken to court etc as a juvenile that this would be considered spent once you were an adult, but today I was told by somebody who employs people to work in Care Homes that juvenile crimes are listed on CRB check results. Is this so?

[sebo]

Bitty said:

Can anyone tell me if a criminal record from 'juvenile years' would show up on a CRB check for a job?

I've always understood that if you were taken to court etc as a juvenile that this would be considered spent once you were an adult, but today I was told by somebody who employs people to work in Care Homes that juvenile crimes are listed on CRB check results. Is this so?

Were you in Bootle in 1993?

[Rob.]

Are you having just a CRB or the enhanced CRB? I think the enhanced may show this offence up.

http://www.crb.gov.uk/

[Orb the Impaler]

Depends - are you on full or limited disclosure?

If limited then you don't need to disclose offences that are spent under the rehab of offenders act (5 years).

[f13ldy]

Mine is there from when I was 20. I got a copy of mine through recently (only took 3 months).

Don't know if that is still classified as Juvenile though.

[Brian_M]

CRB report listed an offence committed by a new staff member 30 years ago when he was 17. He listed it on his application so he has kept his job.
I don't know age limit of "juvenile" offences.

[ianash]

I believe a juvenile is under 18, this does not apply to a juvenile charged as an adult.

[C C]

I have had CRBs back for employees that have shown up incidents from 'sealed' military records, I have also had them back showing cautions and warnings given to 15 or 16 year olds. In all of those cases the person had been told those convictions were sealed and/or spent.
Providing they declared these to me prior to sending the paperwork off I am allowed to still employ them - if they kept it quiet and hoped it wouldn't show up then this would definately count against them. If any of the offences are related in anyway to child protection then I wouldn't be able to employ them at all (most things I have dealt with have been assault, breach of the peace type)

[Chris_w666]

An enhanced check will show up everything, there are ways round this but they are very bad idea to try, and I certainly won't tell anyone how to bend the system on a public forum.

The best thing to do is be 100% honest with a potential employer at interview, this shows more balls than someone that doen't disclose.

We had a person apply for work with us that had a 12 year old DD conviction with a driving ban show up, he was dismissed for not mentioning this at interview. Another person had a list of drug offences and assaults dating from his youth, told us about them at interview and we kept him as there was nothing current enough or in his character to suggest he was a risk.

[ianash]

If a person is told that their conviction is spent then under the rehabilitation of the offender act shouldn't they now be able to get on with their lives, without fear of exposure. I can understand that you can't have a "reformed" child molester dealing with children, but I fail to see why a spent DD should have to be disclosed if it has no relevence to the job applied for.

There are some real sanctimonious people out there, with all this old coblers about declaring their past deeds when they have no bearing on the job. If we want to stigmatise a whole section of our community, by barring their employment into wide areas of our economy, this surely is the way.

BTW I have a clean record.

[Chris_w666]

ianash said:

If a person is told that their conviction is spent then under the rehabilitation of the offender act shouldn't they now be able to get on with their lives, without fear of exposure. I can understand that you can't have a "reformed" child molester dealing with children, but I fail to see why a spent DD should have to be disclosed if it has no relevence to the job applied for.

There are some real sanctimonious people out there, with all this old coblers about declaring their past deeds when they have no bearing on the job. If we want to stigmatise a whole section of our community, by barring their employment into wide areas of our economy, this surely is the way.

BTW I have a clean record.

I wouldn't say I was sanctimonious but if someone declared their past I would have less concern them looking after children than them hiding it from me. Also the person was aware that the offence would show on their CRB but chose not to tell us about it, keeping secrets about your past is not the ideal starting point for someone wanting to work with vulnerable children.

[f13ldy]

I always think that if my conviction has a bearing on the job in hand, then I probably won't apply.

Saves employers and myself trouble. But I will always tell if asked.

[ianash]

Chris_w666 said:

ianash said:

If a person is told that their conviction is spent then under the rehabilitation of the offender act shouldn't they now be able to get on with their lives, without fear of exposure. I can understand that you can't have a "reformed" child molester dealing with children, but I fail to see why a spent DD should have to be disclosed if it has no relevence to the job applied for.

There are some real sanctimonious people out there, with all this old coblers about declaring their past deeds when they have no bearing on the job. If we want to stigmatise a whole section of our community, by barring their employment into wide areas of our economy, this surely is the way.

BTW I have a clean record.

I wouldn't say I was sanctimonious but if someone declared their past I would have less concern them looking after children than them hiding it from me. Also the person was aware that the offence would show on their CRB but chose not to tell us about it, keeping secrets about your past is not the ideal starting point for someone wanting to work with vulnerable children.

I don't mean to be insulting. But I despair when I read about systems being put in place that will have the effect of preventing "reformed" people being able to put their past behind them. The objective of our criminal justice system beyond punishment is rehabilitation. If we can't rehabilitate, then the danger is that recidivism increases and we have even more crime.

Edited by ianash on Thursday 2nd April 18:26

Edited by ianash on Thursday 2nd April 18:30

[Chris_w666]

ianash said:

I don't mean to be insulting. But I despair when I read about systems being put in place that will have the effect of preventing "reformed" people being able to put their past behind them. Th e objective of our criminal justice system beyond punishment is rehabilitation. If we can't rehabilitate, then the danger is that recidivision increases and we have even more crime.

I don't disagree and will not discriminate against someone with an honest past, there are only a small number of convictions that will stop me letting someone work with children. But the character of someone that can stand up and say 'I did something but I have put it behind me' is usually stronger than the person who ignores it and hopes you won't notice.

[ianash]

Chris_w666 said:

ianash said:

I don't mean to be insulting. But I despair when I read about systems being put in place that will have the effect of preventing "reformed" people being able to put their past behind them. Th e objective of our criminal justice system beyond punishment is rehabilitation. If we can't rehabilitate, then the danger is that recidivision increases and we have even more crime.

I don't disagree and will not discriminate against someone with an honest past, there are only a small number of convictions that will stop me letting someone work with children. But the character of someone that can stand up and say 'I did something but I have put it behind me' is usually stronger than the person who ignores it and hopes you won't notice.

I acknowledge the need for extraordinary measures where children are concerned. However, if an offender is told his conviction is spent and he can get on with his life, then that's how it should be. If Parliament decides the 6 year rule is inadequate, then it should increase the time limits. This could vary from type of jobs where an offender would be disbarred, if for example a sex pest wanted to be let loose with vulnerable people.

What happens when a 55 year old man who was arrested and convicted of a minor non sexual offence at 14 years of age wants to be a cleaner in an old people’s home? If he fails to declare or even remember the offence, should he be prevented from being employed in this type of work.

[AJS-]

My understanding is that for the standard disclosure needed for most jobs cautions and convictions from before you were 18 are recorded unless you ask for them to be removed. A friend of mind actually fell foul of this which meant he had to request they be removed and then get another, clean CRB check and wait another 6 weeks.

I believe the same applies to cautions more than 10 years old since you turned 18, but convictions are recorded permanently.

[Bugeyeandy]

Chris_w666 said:

We had a person apply for work with us that had a 12 year old DD conviction with a driving ban show up, he was dismissed for not mentioning this at interview.

I don't get this one, do you employ someone then wait for the CRB to come back?
As for dismissing someone for a DD offence that happened 12 years ago , what is the thinking behind this? I don't get it.

[Chris_w666]

Bugeyeandy said:

Chris_w666 said:

We had a person apply for work with us that had a 12 year old DD conviction with a driving ban show up, he was dismissed for not mentioning this at interview.

I don't get this one, do you employ someone then wait for the CRB to come back?
As for dismissing someone for a DD offence that happened 12 years ago , what is the thinking behind this? I don't get it.

He wasn't dismissed for the conviction, he was dismissed for not disclosing it before appointment as I have already mentioned.

We can employ someone and not allow them to work unsupervised until the CRB comes back, otherwise you can wait a month or two to start someone in employment that can be bad for them financially and us.

[jezb]

I thought Juvenile entries could be removed after a certain period of time, but could well be wrong.

Mines clean

[beckyh]

Hi,

You can get your time spent offences taken off a crb, NACRO should be able to help.