DR10 40 years ago - impact on Daughter's Police Application?
Discussion
They are termed 'public records' but it doesn't mean anyone can freely access them & there are even exemptions form FOI requests.
This link - which has already been posted - will tell you about it, should you choose to read it.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-ma...
This link - which has already been posted - will tell you about it, should you choose to read it.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-ma...
SpidersWeb said:
Yes it isn't 'readily' available to the public, it is simply not available to the public as it is impossible for a member of the public to discover it.
To argue that something that is not available to the public is a 'public record' is rather a stretch.
Wrong. It is possible to find. It make take some time.To argue that something that is not available to the public is a 'public record' is rather a stretch.
Do keep posting foolish points.
This topic became hard work.
The point of saying it was public record was to highlight it isn’t private / confidential / illegal to discuss. It doesn’t matter how hard it is to find. It doesn’t matter if it’s practically “out of sight”.
More importantly to the OP, the police aren’t going to be asking this lady about her dad’s ancient drink driving conviction and it won’t impact her application.
The point of saying it was public record was to highlight it isn’t private / confidential / illegal to discuss. It doesn’t matter how hard it is to find. It doesn’t matter if it’s practically “out of sight”.
More importantly to the OP, the police aren’t going to be asking this lady about her dad’s ancient drink driving conviction and it won’t impact her application.
What is a 'public record'?
https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/what...
"4.1 Public Records are defined in section 10 (1) of the Public Records Act, 1958, and the First
Schedule of that Act. ‘Records’ in general are defined as carriers of information in any format
(e.g. paper, photographic, film, sound, electronic, three dimensional models) (section 10(1)).
‘Public Records’ are specifically defined in the First Schedule; these definitions are
summarised overleaf.
In very general terms, as a broad rule of thumb, if the creator of a record was a central
government department, agency or body, or predecessor to a modern department of state,
funded from central Treasury funds granted through a parliamentary vote, then its records are
likely to be public records falling within the definition and scope of the 1958 Act. It is advisable
to study the provenance and administrative history of a record (where known) to ascertain if it
is a public record."
https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/what...
"4.1 Public Records are defined in section 10 (1) of the Public Records Act, 1958, and the First
Schedule of that Act. ‘Records’ in general are defined as carriers of information in any format
(e.g. paper, photographic, film, sound, electronic, three dimensional models) (section 10(1)).
‘Public Records’ are specifically defined in the First Schedule; these definitions are
summarised overleaf.
In very general terms, as a broad rule of thumb, if the creator of a record was a central
government department, agency or body, or predecessor to a modern department of state,
funded from central Treasury funds granted through a parliamentary vote, then its records are
likely to be public records falling within the definition and scope of the 1958 Act. It is advisable
to study the provenance and administrative history of a record (where known) to ascertain if it
is a public record."
MrBogSmith said:
This topic became hard work.
The point of saying it was public record was to highlight it isn’t private / confidential / illegal to discuss. It doesn’t matter how hard it is to find. It doesn’t matter if it’s practically “out of sight”.
More importantly to the OP, the police aren’t going to be asking this lady about her dad’s ancient drink driving conviction and it won’t impact her application.
^^^^^^That.The point of saying it was public record was to highlight it isn’t private / confidential / illegal to discuss. It doesn’t matter how hard it is to find. It doesn’t matter if it’s practically “out of sight”.
More importantly to the OP, the police aren’t going to be asking this lady about her dad’s ancient drink driving conviction and it won’t impact her application.
SpidersWeb said:
Derek Smith said:
If she prepares a reply to a question on it at the interview, it could make her feel more confident/not worry about it, but I doubt they will ask.
Could they ask a question on it? Asking a specific question would involve revealing someone else's criminal history and unless that individual has consented then surely that would be illegal (and even asking a question that was posed as a theoretical 'what if' question, but which had actually been based on reality would be asking for trouble).
paintman said:
What is a 'public record'?
https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/what...
"...........
In very general terms, as a broad rule of thumb, if the creator of a record was a central
government department, agency or body, or predecessor to a modern department of state,
funded from central Treasury funds granted through a parliamentary vote, then its records are
likely to be public records falling within the definition and scope of the 1958 Act. It is advisable
to study the provenance and administrative history of a record (where known) to ascertain if it
is a public record."
I remember watching "Yes Minister", does anybody else? https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/what...
"...........
In very general terms, as a broad rule of thumb, if the creator of a record was a central
government department, agency or body, or predecessor to a modern department of state,
funded from central Treasury funds granted through a parliamentary vote, then its records are
likely to be public records falling within the definition and scope of the 1958 Act. It is advisable
to study the provenance and administrative history of a record (where known) to ascertain if it
is a public record."
This reads like a verbatim extract from that brilliant series.
It was so accurate, I thought.
agtlaw said:
SpidersWeb said:
Could they ask a question on it?
Asking a specific question would involve revealing someone else's criminal history and unless that individual has consented then surely that would be illegal (and even asking a question that was posed as a theoretical 'what if' question, but which had actually been based on reality would be asking for trouble).
Criminal conviction = public record.Asking a specific question would involve revealing someone else's criminal history and unless that individual has consented then surely that would be illegal (and even asking a question that was posed as a theoretical 'what if' question, but which had actually been based on reality would be asking for trouble).
I think this is what SpidersWeb is referring to.
Sorry for the late reply - just got back from work!
Many thanks for the helpful replies, and words of encouragement from those in the force
I'll find out which force she's applied to - there are several possibilities as she lives near the boundary of several counties in central England.
The issues would appear to be:
1) Is the nature of the offence, in itself, grounds for concern?
2) If I continue to 'keep shtum' then she can't really be be admonished for not declaring what she doesn't know
3) However, if it's mentioned at interview/vetting then it would likely put her in an awkward position
4) If I pre-empt 3) by fessing up to her, then she would be compelled to declare it
It would seem that the right thing to do is deal with the transient shame of telling her - I'm pretty sure she knows by now that her Dad isn't perfect. Having done so, I will make sure she knows the consequences of non-disclosure!
Many thanks for the helpful replies, and words of encouragement from those in the force
I'll find out which force she's applied to - there are several possibilities as she lives near the boundary of several counties in central England.The issues would appear to be:
1) Is the nature of the offence, in itself, grounds for concern?
2) If I continue to 'keep shtum' then she can't really be be admonished for not declaring what she doesn't know
3) However, if it's mentioned at interview/vetting then it would likely put her in an awkward position
4) If I pre-empt 3) by fessing up to her, then she would be compelled to declare it
It would seem that the right thing to do is deal with the transient shame of telling her - I'm pretty sure she knows by now that her Dad isn't perfect. Having done so, I will make sure she knows the consequences of non-disclosure!
the tribester said:
40 years ago, I don't think Drink Drive was a recordable offence or crimed. Certainly no fingerprints or photographs taken.
Would the conviction have instigated a PNC record?
Wasn't notifiable so no crime report, the disqual drive resulting from the conviction may be on PNC though. Any conviction will be long spent now thoughWould the conviction have instigated a PNC record?
Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 23 April 17:02
AHarrison said:
Sorry for the late reply - just got back from work!
Many thanks for the helpful replies, and words of encouragement from those in the force I'll find out which force she's applied to - there are several possibilities as she lives near the boundary of several counties in central England.
The issues would appear to be:
1) Is the nature of the offence, in itself, grounds for concern?
2) If I continue to 'keep shtum' then she can't really be be admonished for not declaring what she doesn't know
3) However, if it's mentioned at interview/vetting then it would likely put her in an awkward position
4) If I pre-empt 3) by fessing up to her, then she would be compelled to declare it
It would seem that the right thing to do is deal with the transient shame of telling her - I'm pretty sure she knows by now that her Dad isn't perfect. Having done so, I will make sure she knows the consequences of non-disclosure!
Point one:. No issues at all. Many thanks for the helpful replies, and words of encouragement from those in the force
I'll find out which force she's applied to - there are several possibilities as she lives near the boundary of several counties in central England.The issues would appear to be:
1) Is the nature of the offence, in itself, grounds for concern?
2) If I continue to 'keep shtum' then she can't really be be admonished for not declaring what she doesn't know
3) However, if it's mentioned at interview/vetting then it would likely put her in an awkward position
4) If I pre-empt 3) by fessing up to her, then she would be compelled to declare it
It would seem that the right thing to do is deal with the transient shame of telling her - I'm pretty sure she knows by now that her Dad isn't perfect. Having done so, I will make sure she knows the consequences of non-disclosure!
Point three: It won't be brought up at an interview. Vetting interview I don't know anything about, but I believe it's if a family member is an active criminal. As I mentioned on my first post. My dad had previous for domestic abuse and fraud and it was no issues for me. Oh and drug dealing which I forgot about.
Point four: She would, but it won't effect anything.
Police officers have kept their jobs after being convicted of drink driving...
SpidersWeb said:
agtlaw said:
Typical PH idiot to “double down” on the wrong answer. All arising from his nonsense post about asking permission!
Got out of bed the wrong side this morning?agtlaw said:
SpidersWeb said:
agtlaw said:
Public record does not mean readily available to anyone on some central database accessed via Google. It means public record.
But the record isn't available to the public if the database isn't accessible by the public!agtlaw said:
Drink driving is a criminal offence which leads to a criminal conviction and a public record will be available.
It isn’t a “minor road traffic offence.”
As before, how do you find out if an individual has ever had a criminal conviction if it is a 'public record'.It isn’t a “minor road traffic offence.”
Already answered this.
To argue that something that is not available to the public is a 'public record' is rather a stretch.
Agtlaw knows his stuff.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff