Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 etc minor convictions become "spent" after a few years, meaning they do not have to be disclosed. But what if an employer asks an applicant whether they have ever had any convictions including spent ones? Is the applicant entitled to suppress the spent convictions? Or if not, is the RoA Act rendered ineffective?
about the same time as employers being economical with the truth, telling half truths and deliberately misleading the nature of the real job on offer
Interesting conundrum Pete, what is the answer ? To refuse to answer would be seen as answering in the affirmative and saying "No" would be an untruth. In this situation does the applicant have the right to lie ?
The 'spent' period is > 9 yrs I believe. After that as I understood it, one did not have to declare it. I had a record from my youth and I never mentioned it ever on CV. Although I have been frank with every employer that Ive spent 2wk in Pentonville for not paying my fines for driving offenses and 4 wks in Wandsworth for riding on a ban. All offenses scooter related. Oddly enough all seem to find it amusing. I also had some petty theft as a child, like shoplifting in Liptons stylee. I got caught, i gave it up.
be a politician, beg the question and reply "I have no unspent convictions" you have not lied and you have honestly replied to any question that they can legitimately ask any employer who tries to cleverly word questions to get around the law is best avoided as they have a distinct lack of ethics
My view is that an employer who asks that question ('any convictions including spent ones') is trying to circumvent the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and it would be quite reasonable for a job applicant to rely upon the law and not mention spent convictions. If at a later date the employer tried to dismiss an employee on the grounds that he had told lies in his CV or job application, it would be unfair dismissal. An employer going to an Employment Tribunal and arguing that he was entitled to evade the RoA in this way (and that the employee was not entitled to rely on the RoA)would get short shrift. Probably.
Yep that sounds about right to me. Unless there were justifiable reasons for getting rid of that person they'd be on a very sticky wicket. Spent is spent....unless the sentence was over 30 months I think....in which case its never spent....if that makes sense! Or if they're a solicitor....or police officer.....or working with children....or vulnerable adults.... If its none of the above an employee can't be held accountable (and dismissed) for not disclosing. On the original point, a CV is there to get you an interview....it's a sales document essentially. A proficient interviewer should be able to uncover inaccuracies by drilling down on any questionable answers at interview. If you're not sure of a candidates answer, don't hire. An if you're writing a CV, don't lie. Make the most of what you've got but don't lie......especially at interview. You will get caught out, if not in the interview then when references are taken or during your employment when you fail to meet expectations.
well said Pete but the key word unfortunately is probably, because the employer could make life very difficult if they wished to for said person, which goes all the way back to my previous post, employers like these are best avoided
I agree. Its also illegal for the employer to ask about spent convictions and if they do know about spent convictions, they can't (formally) base a hiring decision on that knowledge.....how they choose to dress up the 'sorry you weren't successful' letter is up to them
