Criminal Record

goose1 · 25-07-2015 3:57pm #1

Hi

I'd really appreciate if there was no judgement here but I get if people do judge.

I just completed my PGDE in Glasgow. However,while there, on an EXTREMELY heavy night out I was basically kicked out of a club, just about remember calling the bouncer a 'fat bastard'. Shameful,I know. I am so so so regretful I ever left the house that night. The bouncer told the police that the remark was 'black bastard' and due to witnesses not appearing at the last court date the matter is ongoing.

I was informed via email yesterday that my probation year has been deferred to next year. This is the first I've heard of it, despite being totally honest since Christmas and being allocated a school, getting myself sorted with a house etc. How is this possible? Can I sub in Ireland? What if I get a record for this?

Please don't think badly of me,I'm so remorseful.

Ailish

TheDriver · 25-07-2015 4:21pm

Depends on what the actual charge was?

5ub · 25-07-2015 7:47pm

As above, what exactly is the charge?

linguist · 26-07-2015 3:46pm

Obviously, the question asked by the previous two respondents is important. I'll be charitable and not infer anything from your failure to answer it so far.

So let's come to the issue of Garda vetting and working with young people which seems to go to the heart of this.

It's about whether you have any convictions or prosecutions pending and then it comes down to the Teaching Council to make a determination on whether to clear you to teach children or not. If you have nothing on your record, then clearly you will be cleared to teach the minute the form comes back. The single most important thing to do, however, is fill in the form with absolute honesty. Certain minor offences can be disregarded after a period of time. The form sets this out and you don't need to declare them.

Now this is the really important bit. In deciding whether to clear you to teach or otherwise, the central question is whether you or your conduct represent an unacceptable risk to children. I am just an ordinary layman but it would seem to me that if what you did was get into a verbal altercation with a bouncer, the circumstances of which are disputed, it would be very hard to argue that it is a child protection matter. If an adverse decision is made, you have appeal avenues and you can of course take legal advice.

There is a lesson for all of us in this. Yes, we do have to remember that we are people of standing - even if our salaries suggest it less and less!

RealJohn · 28-07-2015 10:59am

linguist wrote: »

Now this is the really important bit. In deciding whether to clear you to teach or otherwise, the central question is whether you or your conduct represent an unacceptable risk to children. I am just an ordinary layman but it would seem to me that if what you did was get into a verbal altercation with a bouncer, the circumstances of which are disputed, it would be very hard to argue that it is a child protection matter. If an adverse decision is made, you have appeal avenues and you can of course take legal advice.

In fairness, the OP says that there was an element of racist language (which she denies) to the issue so if that's what the charge is (racially motivated public order offense or something like that) then it wouldn't be difficult to argue that it's a child protection matter at all, in that it could easily be believed that the OP would treat black students with less respect and would be less inclined to protect them from racial abuse coming from their peers.
Obviously I'm not saying that this is actually the case in the OP's case but that's how it would be looked on I would think.

r93kaey5p2izun · 28-07-2015 12:29pm

The result of all prosecutions will be recorded on vetting so once you are charged it will be recorded as pending or the outcome (convicted or not) will be on your vetting. This may cause problems even if you are found innocent unfortunately.

Whether or not you can sub without your probation year I'm not sure.

Incidentally OP, your situation sounded familiar to me and right enough, a similar case has been through the Scottish courts in recent years. A teacher was convicted of racially aggravated conduct for using a racial slur against a bouncer. She was fined in court. However she was also struck off the teaching register and lost her job - she lost an appeal over this despite her former principal speaking in her favour. If you are innocent then hopefully you will be cleared but it seems this certainly could affect your teaching career.

Edit for completeness: It seems this teacher was permitted to re-register after a year following another hearing where she showed evidence of having worked with an Equality Council. The Scottish media reports "outrage" in certain quarters at this decision.

gaiscioch · 28-07-2015 2:27pm

Wilson Delightful Kale wrote: »

The result of all prosecutions will be recorded on vetting so once you are charged it will be recorded as pending or the outcome (convicted or not) will be on your vetting. This may cause problems even if you are found innocent unfortunately.

This, if true, would be deeply unjust. It's an automatic lose for everybody who faces a mere allegation, no matter how untrue it is. A single false allegation can destroy a life, not just a career. The law shouldn't be facilitating it by recording allegations which have not been proven in a court of law.

r93kaey5p2izun · 28-07-2015 2:47pm

gaiscioch wrote: »

This,if true, would be deeply unjust. It's an automatic lose for everybody who faces a mere allegation, no matter how untrue it is. A single false allegation can destroy a life, not just a career. The law shouldn't be facilitating it by recording allegations which have not been proven in a court of law.

It's certainly true that being found innocent in court or having a charge struck out in court are recorded on vetting. Whether or not that will cause problems will be down to employers looking at the vetting result - unfortunately I feel there are many who will have a "no smoke without fire" reaction. But that's just my opinion. A person who felt they were being unfairly treated due to a recorded prosecution (with being found innocent) could appeal any such decisions I'm sure, but it would be very difficult to prove in many job interview or application scenarios I imagine.

Yes I agree it's totally unjust and overall I also find much of the TC code of conduct extremely worrying.

EDIT: See my later post for clarification about a new "administrative filter" for disclosing "non-convictions".

gaiscioch · 28-07-2015 3:19pm

Wilson Delightful Kale wrote: »

unfortunately I feel there are many who will have a "no smoke without fire" reaction. But that's just my opinion. A person who felt they were being unfairly treated due to a recorded prosecution (with being found innocent) could appeal any such decisions I'm sure, but it would be very difficult to prove in many job interview or application scenarios I imagine.

Yes I agree it's totally unjust and overall I also find much of the TC code of conduct extremely worrying.

"No smoke without fire" is precisely how it works for the vast majority of people. Can you imagine the interview board discussing a candidate - "He was brilliant. However, he was cleared of an allegation, but the allegation is still there and if it gets out that we employed somebody with an allegation against them we are in trouble, especially if something happens in the future". Your career is over as a teacher. No school will take the risk, no matter how innocent you are.

It's deeply worrying if unproven allegations against a teacher are recorded by the Teaching Council of Ireland on that teacher's record. If that is the case, how can the unions or even natural justice justify it. There's little comfort in the accuser coming out 20 years later and saying they made up the allegation. Life is too short. The very worst thing, by a long shot, that could happen any teacher's career is that somebody could level a false allegation against her/him.

Dave0301 · 28-07-2015 3:44pm

I didn't know that even if proven innocent in a court, the charges are still flagged up on vetting.

Seems grossly unfair that something you are found legally to be cleared of can come back to haunt you in future job applications.

r93kaey5p2izun · 28-07-2015 3:49pm

I have a couple of acquaintances (not teachers) who have had "non-convictions" recorded on their vetting certs for voluntary work. However, I was just discussing this with one of them and they informed me that there is now, since just last year, something called an "administrative filter" applied to vetting disclosures. This is good to hear and addresses some of the concerns discussd here. It is now at the discretion of the vetting unit whether to disclose "non-convictions" based on the type of offence and whether they think it relevant to the work involved and whether they hold concerns about the individual. They have to notify the person in writing what they will be disclosing and you can make a written submission. However, the type of allegations we are all most concerned about are probably the ones that would be considered relevant for disclosure.

Relevant to the OP - this new system means most minor convictions for public order offences etc will not be disclosed after 7 years and this probably wouldn't get disclosed if not convicted. It seems based on that previous case though that a conviction would be an issue with Scotland's TC.

Hazelnut Button · 28-07-2015 5:28pm

Soft information will be disclosed as part of new garda vetting system.

The following is from the dept circular
2.5 The statutory vetting arrangements under the Vetting Act will, in addition to the existing check for criminal offences, also include a check for any relevant "soft information”. This will be an important new aspect of the vetting arrangements. "Soft information" referred to as "specified information" in the Vetting Act, is information other than criminal convictions held by the Garda Síochána that leads to a bona-fide belief that a person poses a threat to children or vulnerable persons."

linguist · 28-07-2015 5:52pm

There's a part of me that thinks a couple of things may be getting blurred here.

The Garda vetting part of this discussion is very well informed, i.e. the fact that certain information that might exist short of a conviction could be disclosed to the TC but that a senior Garda would make a determination on it and inform the applicant, affording them a chance to challenge such a move. Also, with regard to soft information, I've always understood this to be of a child protection nature. The example would be where an allegation of impropriety involving a child or vulnerable adult was made, an investigation - including by the HSE - was launched, but it was decided not to prosecute.

On a separate note, we have the code of professional conduct for teachers, which sets down inter alia values that teachers are expected to uphold, including non-discrimination towards racial or ethnic groups. When the proposed fitness to practice hearings start, behaviour such as that alleged here could conceivably form the basis for a TC investigation.

I think that, in all of this, it must be borne in mind that appeals avenues will exist. I imagine that any TC investigation regarding conduct unrelated to children and clearly in the teacher's private life such as a 'minor' public order offence would form the basis of a major test case in the High Court given its significance for the entire profession. One imagines that there are law firms specialising in the civil rights area that would be very interested in taking such a case pro bono.

gaiscioch · 28-07-2015 10:48pm

Just looking a bit further into how allegations are treated, and found this very interesting distinction in England and Wales: "There is provision within the Education Act 2011 that provides anonymity to teachers facing accusations of criminal behaviour against pupils at school.
"The provision, which applies to both England and Wales, is not applicable to the General Teaching Council for Wales investigations, hearings or outcomes."

However, it seems from reading the article linked below, that by the time a teacher appears before the Welsh Teaching Council they have already been found guilty in a court of law and if so the issue of an unproven allegation being on a teacher's record does not apply: "If an allegation goes to the police, they investigate and may pass the case onto the Crown Prosecution Service who will decide if it goes to court. If a teacher is found guilty, sacked or resigns as a result of the process, they have to appear before the General Teaching Council for Wales."

('Most accusations against teachers in Wales are dropped', BBC, 27 February 2012)

I'm not finding any information about what the procedure is in Ireland in the event of an allegation being made against a teacher, despite looking at the Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015 (I note Michael Moynihan, Richard Boyd Barrett and others have, at different stages of the bill, also raised the issue of how false allegations against teachers will be dealt). Other than O'Sullivan's preference that fitness to teach inquiries be held in public (Boyd Barrett spoke very well against it here), the disciplinary procedure remains unclear. Will the TC inquiry be the final step following a criminal conviction in court? I'd have no problem with that. If, however, its role is before a conviction in court, then I'm concerned at how an unproven allegation could affect a teacher's record.

Queenalocin · 13-08-2015 8:34pm

This is wending its way through the legal system at the moment but there is some interesting information in relation to Garda Vetting and an Admin Filter.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2012/3412/document1.htm
http://www.iprt.ie/spent-convictions

Criminal Record

Comments