Disclosure of "spent" convictions on application forms

[flyboytim]

""Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
This post is exempt from the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. Applicants are not entitled to withhold information when asked about convictions which for other purposes are 'spent' under the provisions of the Act. In the event of employment, any failure to disclose such convictions could result in dismissal or disciplinary action. Information given will be completely confidential.""

Many UK organisations now include a section where the applicant is told that the post being applied for is exempt from the provisions of the Act, whereas in reality, this only applies to certain posts, under the current legislation, and not necessarily the post advertised.

Then the applicant has to answer yes or no, with the warning that any false statements may result in disciplinary action or dismissal etc.

How honest does the forum think an applicant should be, in that the statement in itself may not be applicable in law, in view of the "Catch 22" provisio of the warning?

 

[sleipnir214]

I strongly recommend that you ask a lawyer this very question.

Also, I think the subject is inappropriate for this site. How does your question apply to ethics in IT?

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[flyboytim]

Under this particular Act, at the current time, there are proscribed exempt occupations which in general do not include IT workers, or other administrative staff. Yet many IT post application forms contain this section.

In this context "unspent convictions" can include minor traffic violations, youth offences from many years ago, cautions, and overturned convictions. The Act exists to allow people with minor convictions in the past to be able to live lives that are not tainted with pasts from which they are rehabilitated.

Does this not fall into the realm of ethics, when an organisation may unfairly use its licence to demand disclosure and threaten penalties, before it has started a selection process for an applicant?

 

[sleipnir214]

I'm basing my opinion on information in this website:

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/rehabact.htm

I see the point of your question.

I am assuming that an organization can ethically ask for any information the law allows it to ask for.

Thus, the question seems to boil down to, "Does position in question actually fall under an amended exemption to the RoOA of 1974?"

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[flyboytim]

And if the organisation is not in a position to apply that law to any post it uses the application form for, should it not state that the yes/no question is optional except for those proscribed occupations?

 

[sleipnir214]

Maybe. How much has legal precedent affected implementation of the law in the 28 years since it was passed?

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[chiph]

Unless the job involves handling prescription drugs, personal info of customers/clients, weapons, etc. I would think they have no need for that information.

Here in the US, you can find out if someone has a conviction on their record with the payment of a fee (for example:

http://www.123nc.com

or

http://www.backgroundferret.com),

and many employers will hire an investigation firm to check up on applicants.

Chip H.


If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[flyboytim]

AFAIK it is now appearing on forms because of the official fear of some workers being in a position to abuse vulnerable people, children, aged, in care, etc. Also to exclude or discourage persons with a dishonest background applying for positions of responsibility in which they may be in a position to take criminal advantage of.
Rightly so, I think most of us would agree.
As it stands, only certain applications are subject to the exemption. The form threatens all with sanctions if a false reply to this question is given. There is no allowed option which preserves the individual's right of protection under this Law. At a pre-selection stage, it cannot be expected not to colour the decision to invite the candidate for interview or not.
Perhaps oficial disclosure (at the organisation's expense)ought to be made compulsory for all work applications, which should be taken up only after a shortlist has been drawn up, and then the balance of the severity and currency of the offence could be taken into consideration when selecting the candidate on the basis of their suitability for the post.

 

[sleipnir214]

I see your point. What happens if you've filled in the information, but the position you've applied for doesn't require reporting?

The RoOA of 1974 seems, to me, a bit arbitrary to begin with. Some reporting times are based on length of incarceration. Would it not be possible for two people to have been convicted of the same crime under similar circumstances to be sentenced to different lengths of jail time by different judges? And could that mean that one person would have to report the offense for a longer period than another?

Also, I see indications that the RoOA of 1972 has been amended multiple times, apart from the amendment in 1974. Parts of it, for example, seem to have been repealed in 1981 and 1983.

I think it would be in your best interest to consult legal representation to get the matter clarified. I'd be interested to read what the lawyer solicitor member of the legal profession tells you.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[lionelhill]

I'd be inclined to try being honest. It may even be that your future employer admires you for it. I mean, most businesses (the more public, the worse the situation) are terrified of being seen to provide computer-access to a pedophile, so frankly they may just giggle at your parking ticket.
Also, if they don't offer you the job, you can always check they had the right to ask you to disclose your past, and if they don't, you can take them to the cleaners, I'd assume.... (but I know nothing of law)