Rehabilitation of offenders.

[Dr Jekyll]

A mate of mine recently started a new job and had to fill in a form asking among other things whether he had unsent convictions. The only convictions he has are a speeding ticket from 30 years ago and a dangerous driving (fine and 12 month ban followed by retest) from 11 years ago so he said 'No'.


Shortly after that they decided to tighten up vetting and asked everyone to consent to a criminal records check. He's now had a letter from the 'Disclosure and banning service' asking him to send a copy of his licence to prove he took and passed his test after the ban. Apparently if he doesn't details of the offence will be listed on his records check certificate, even though it's spent.


Is this right? If he'd decided he'd had enough of driving and not bothered with a retest the conviction wouldn't be spent?


Surely if the employer or anyone else wants to know he's got a licence they check with him directly, or with DVLA?

[Car-Matt]

If he explains to his employer they won’t care either way

[ElectricPics]

It's correct. From what I understand if a driver fails to obtain a new licence after disqualification, it's treated as if the disqualification hasn't ended, despite the rehabilitation period being a minimum 5 years from conviction. Absurd? I'd say so.

[Aretnap]

This does seem to be correct. His conviction cannot become spent while "a relevant order" (such as a disqualification) is still in force ( law). And the disqualification remains in effect until he passes his test ( law). So if he decides that he has had enough of driving and doesn't bother retaking his test, the conviction never becomes spent. And for that matter, if he does retake his test but never manages to pass it, the conviction can also never become spent.

I agree that the situation is bizzare and arguably unjust... but I don't think that driving offences were topmost in the minds of the people who drafted the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. They also never clearly defined the rehabilitation period for a driving licence endorsement, and it was left to the Appeal Court to sort that one out.

[GC8]

Can an employer simply decide to 'tighten up'? CRB checks are allowed/required for prescribed purposes only, and not on the arbitary whim of a company or body.

[Aretnap]

GC8 said:

Can an employer simply decide to 'tighten up'? CRB checks are allowed/required for prescribed purposes only, and not on the arbitary whim of a company or body.

"Basic" CRB (or DBS in new money) checks are a fairly new thing and can be requested by any employer. They show only unspent convictions.

"Standard" or "enhanced" checks, which show spent convictions as well, can only be requested for certain positions in certain sectors, eg jobs that involve working with children.

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/information/basic-checks/

[Aretnap]

Incidentally I see that Googling "CRB check" brings up a whole load of those scam sites which attempt to charge you twice the actual application fee for taking your details and entering them into the actual DBS website - similar tto the ones that try to rip you off when you apply for a driving licence or passport. I suppose where there's money to be made...

[GC8]

Is the fellow in question being asked to provide the current equivalent of a Subject Access Check then?

[Pica-Pica]

Disclosure and BARRING Service (not Disclosure and Banning Service).

[Dr Jekyll]

GC8 said:

Is the fellow in question being asked to provide the current equivalent of a Subject Access Check then?

I don't know, I think his employer has a new client that he's likely to be assigned to, and it's the client that's pressing for the checks on all relevant staff.

[Dr Jekyll]

GC8 said:

Is the fellow in question being asked to provide the current equivalent of a Subject Access Check then?

I don't know, I think his employer has a new client that he's likely to be assigned to, and it's the client that's pressing for the checks on all relevant staff.