Garda Vetting form and Drink driving

i124Q

I'm filling out a Garda vetting form, do I have to put my drink driving offence down? Or is drink driving not a criminal offence?

Thanks

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

bbam

Seriously.
You go to court, the judge finds you guilty, bans you from driving. And you think you've committed no criminal offences.

Wow.

i124Q

Well I don't see why I'm a criminal when it's just a driving offence? What if I don't disclose it on the vetting form? Thanks for the replies!

ElleEm

i124Q wrote: »

Well I don't see why I'm a criminal when it's just a driving offence? What if I don't disclose it on the vetting form? Thanks for the replies!

You have to be kidding.

You committed a CRIME. It's in the name!

If you don't disclose it, the Gardai will find it on your record and disclose it for you.There could be further repercussions as it is lying on a legal document.

Pat Mustard

i124Q wrote: »

Or is drink driving not a criminal offence?

It is a criminal offence.

Minor offences are still criminal offences.

Parking illegally is a criminal offence.

i124Q

The Mustard wrote: »

It is a criminal offence.

Minor offences are still criminal offences.

Parking illegally is a criminal offence.

So you would put your 'Illegal Parking' conviction on the vetting form? What a joke of a system. I'm trying to apply for some charity work and have to do this vetting form.

ElleEm

i124Q wrote: »

So you would put your 'Illegal Parking' conviction on the vetting form? What a joke of a system. I'm trying to apply for some charity work and have to do this vetting form.

It is actually a very good system, as it protects vulnerable people! You have to disclose it. It is up to the organisation whether they are willing to look past it.

234

i124Q wrote: »

So you would put your 'Illegal Parking' conviction on the vetting form? What a joke of a system. I'm trying to apply for some charity work and have to do this vetting form.

In Ireland there is no such concept as a "non-criminal offence." Some civil law jurisdictions do have administrative offences.

i124Q

After how many years (from conviction) do I have the right to not disclose it on a vetting form? As in, when does it go away?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pat Mustard

i124Q wrote: »

So you would put your 'Illegal Parking' conviction on the vetting form? What a joke of a system. I'm trying to apply for some charity work and have to do this vetting form.

I don't know why you are directing that at me. I'm not asking you for anything.

i124Q

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surely it does? Does anyone actually know?

ElleEm

You got your answer from the poster above. A bit of Googling will get you the same answer. Try it!

Pro Hoc Vice

i124Q wrote: »

Surely it does? Does anyone actually know?

There is currently before the Dail a bill called the spent convictions bill. But it has gone no where for ages. In any case it will most likely not effect disclosure in relation to certain vetting involving children etc.

The fact is that in ireland any conviction or interaction with the criminal courts remains on your record for life. You may not like that answer but it's the fact of the situation. How do I know well I have seen enough reports from pulse to see what it records and the fact it goes back years.

http://www.iprt.ie/spent-convictions

From that site "There is currently no legislation in Ireland providing for the expungement of criminal convictions. Ireland is the only country in the EU and one of the only countries in the Council of Europe area to not have such ‘second chance’ legislation*."

porsche959

bbam wrote: »

Seriously.
You go to court, the judge finds you guilty, bans you from driving. And you think you've committed no criminal offences.

Wow.

There are plenty of jurisdictions where a first time DUI offence does not need to be disclosed. Plus a huge proportion of the population - in particular among over 40's - has committed this particular offence and gotten away with it. So spare us the drama queen tantrum.

No-one in their right mind would defend drink driving, but the question the OP asks is entirely legitimate.

Pro Hoc Vice

porsche959 wrote: »

There are plenty of jurisdictions where a first time DUI offence does not need to be disclosed. Plus a huge proportion of the population - in particular among over 40's - has committed this particular offence and gotten away with it. So spare us the drama queen tantrum.

No-one in their right mind would defend drink driving, but the question the OP asks is entirely legitimate.

That's not what bbam said, it was clearly said that he did not understand why the OP did not consider it a criminal offence.

Disclosure of certain minor or road traffic offences is a different matter, they remain criminal but are excluded from disclosure, for example many forms that ask about convictions state that road traffic offence are excluded. Also in the US for certain Visa applications only crimes of moral turpitude need to be disclosed, drink driving according to the US Supreme Court is not a crime of moral turpitude, but it remains a criminal act.

Holsten

They will show up in your vetting so its up to you to say about them or not.

Vetting system isn't the best and needs change.

porsche959

ElleEm wrote: »

It is actually a very good system, as it protects vulnerable people! You have to disclose it. It is up to the organisation whether they are willing to look past it.

To take a few hypothetical cases - though I've heard of several similar in real life.

(1) Individual A - accused of drink driving in say 1977

Pleads guilty at first opportunity - is duly convicted and as a result conviction on his/her record for life.

(2) Individual B - accused of drink driving in say 2002

Spends a lot of money on a legal defense and gets off due to technicalities and/or police corruption and/or connections?

How does this protect vulnerable people?

MayoSalmon

porsche959 wrote: »

To take a few hypothetical cases - though I've heard of several similar in real life.

(1) Individual A - accused of drink driving in say 1977

Pleads guilty at first opportunity - is duly convicted and as a result conviction on his/her record for life.

(2) Individual B - accused of drink driving in say 2002

Spends a lot of money on a legal defense and gets off due to technicalities and/or police corruption and/or connections?

How does this protect vulnerable people?

It doesn't. Basically if you have money you have a better chance of escaping the law.

porsche959

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Disclosure of certain minor or road traffic offences is a different matter, they remain criminal but are excluded from disclosure, for example many forms that ask about convictions state that road traffic offence are excluded. Also in the US for certain Visa applications only crimes of moral turpitude need to be disclosed, drink driving according to the US Supreme Court is not a crime of moral turpitude, but it remains a criminal act.

Indeed. So if I'm a communist I have to declare but not if I have a DUI.

hullaballoo

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is currently before the Dail a bill called the spent convictions bill. But it has gone no where for ages. In any case it will most likely not effect disclosure in relation to certain vetting involving children etc.

The fact is that in ireland any conviction or interaction with the criminal courts remains on your record for life. You may not like that answer but it's the fact of the situation. How do I know well I have seen enough reports from pulse to see what it records and the fact it goes back years.

http://www.iprt.ie/spent-convictions

From that site "There is currently no legislation in Ireland providing for the expungement of criminal convictions. Ireland is the only country in the EU and one of the only countries in the Council of Europe area to not have such ‘second chance’ legislation*."

Whilst the above is correct, surely it's only going to serve to cause confusion in this thread? Not everything requires a full legal analysis.

The OP is struggling to come to terms with the fact that drink driving is a crime and convictions don't go away. I don't think sending him off to review a stagnant bill is the answer.

Pro Hoc Vice

porsche959 wrote: »

To take a few hypothetical cases - though I've heard of several similar in real life.

(1) Individual A - accused of drink driving in say 1977

Pleads guilty at first opportunity - is duly convicted and as a result conviction on his/her record for life.

(2) Individual B - accused of drink driving in say 2002

Spends a lot of money on a legal defense and gets off due to technicalities and/or police corruption and/or connections?

How does this protect vulnerable people?

"What details are disclosed as a result of Garda Vetting?
Within current disclosure policy, details of all convictions and/or prosecutions, successful or not, pending or completed, in the State or elsewhere as the case may be are disclosed to the authorised liaison person in the registered organisation."

From http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=36#FAQ2722

So the fact of the prosecution will be disclosed, but in one case the person is guilty of an offence in the other the person is innocent.

endacl

It'll come out in the report op. Do you want it to be related as a listed conviction or as an uncovered omission though. That'd be your call.

Pro Hoc Vice

hullaballoo wrote: »

Whilst the above is correct, surely it's only going to serve to cause confusion in this thread? Not everything requires a full legal analysis.

The OP is struggling to come to terms with the fact that drink driving is a crime and convictions don't go away. I don't think sending him off to review a stagnant bill is the answer.

The OP asked the following in response to a poster stating that convictions remain for life,

The OP said "After how many years (from conviction) do I have the right to not disclose it on a vetting form? As in, when does it go away?"

Fred Swanson said "It never goes away."

"Quote:
Originally Posted by i124Q
Surely it does? Does anyone actually know?"

My answer was a clear statement of fact in relation to that question posed. I did not send him off to review the bill but gave him a link to a easy to understand statement by the IPRT.

hullaballoo

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The OP asked the following in response to a poster stating that convictions remain for life,

The OP said "After how many years (from conviction) do I have the right to not disclose it on a vetting form? As in, when does it go away?"

Fred Swanson said "It never goes away."

"Quote:
Originally Posted by i124Q
Surely it does? Does anyone actually know?"

My answer was a clear statement of fact in relation to that question posed. I did not send him off to review the bill but gave him a link to a easy to understand statement by the IPRT.

I'm not getting into a discussion with you in-thread about this. Just try and take on board what my point is rather than trying to hash it out. If needs be, PM me.

porsche959

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm not getting into a discussion with you in-thread about this.

Interesting.

i124Q

So I have to put it on the form? What if I don't? It Sucks because it's not even a job, it's a bit of charity work I'm applying for over the summer. Do you wreckon if they see anything they will decline me, or will hear me out because it's nothing too serious, and was a silly mistake around 4 years ago, which I deeply regret. Is there any point even explaining the fact I wasn't even driving, just sitting in the drivers seat. They might think I'm making it up.

bbam

i124Q wrote: »

Surely it does? Does anyone actually know?

We do these forms here all the time..
Crimes are never extinguished from your record.

If you don't fill it in it will be noted during the check and reported back.

i124Q

bbam wrote: »

We do these forms here all the time..
Crimes are never extinguished from your record.

If you don't fill it in it will be noted during the check and reported back.

Ok so it's best I talk to the people about it when I note it down.. Does drunk and disorderly come back, from when you were 16/17..?

V.W.L 11

i124Q wrote: »

So I have to put it on the form? What if I don't? It Sucks because it's not even a job, it's a bit of charity work I'm applying for over the summer. Do you wreckon if they see anything they will decline me, or will hear me out because it's nothing too serious, and was a silly mistake around 4 years ago, which I deeply regret. Is there any point even explaining the fact I wasn't even driving, just sitting in the drivers seat. They might think I'm making it up.

I went for a job one time OP, I had your attitude "why the fcuk should I declare a certain conviction" guess what OP,it COST ME THE JOB,SO DECLARE IT OR IT WILL BE DECLARED FOR YOU

hullaballoo

i124Q wrote: »

Ok so it's best I talk to the people about it when I note it down.. Does drunk and disorderly come back, from when you were 16/17..?

It depends on how it was dealt with. If you were convicted in Court, then yes, that too is a criminal offence.

The best thing you can do is to be totally honest about every time you've been in court and been convicted (including all fines, which are convictions). This goes from an unpaid parking ticket right up to murder.

If the organisation that is requiring this information find out that you tried to hide things, they are unlikely to accept your application. However, if you declare these convictions, they may think that they are minor enough and or long ago and decide you should be given the position despite having previous convictions.

You need to be aware that drink driving is generally considered to be quite a serious offence from a social perspective. If they decide to interview you, they will invariably question you about this. 4 years ago is not that long a time. 20, yes. 4, no.

Pro Hoc Vice

hullaballoo wrote: »

It depends on how it was dealt with. If you were convicted in Court, then yes, that too is a criminal offence.

The best thing you can do is to be totally honest about every time you've been in court and been convicted (including all fines, which are convictions). This goes from an unpaid parking ticket right up to murder.

If the organisation that is requiring this information find out that you tried to hide things, they are unlikely to accept your application. However, if you declare these convictions, they may think that they are minor enough and or long ago and decide you should be given the position despite having previous convictions.

You need to be aware that drink driving is generally considered to be quite a serious offence from a social perspective. If they decide to interview you, they will invariably question you about this. 4 years ago is not that long a time. 20, yes. 4, no.

A recent statment from the minister which may in fact change matters. http://www.iprt.ie/contents/2610

amen

Op, you want to volunteer ?

So lets say your drink driving conviction was not disclosed.

So say some of the work involves driving people and your turn up to work one day after a night out and cause a crash.

It then turns out that you had a previous conviction for drink driving that was not disclosed. Where does that leave the charity ? It they had known of the conviction they may not have let you drive

hardCopy

The charity should have the sense to ignore any irrelevant convictions.

If you're volunteering to paint a wall then the driving conviction should have no bearing, it would be more relevant if you were volunteering to drive a minibus.

If they turn you down then just volunteer elsewhere.

V.W.L 11

hardCopy wrote: »

The charity should have the sense to ignore any irrelevant convictions.

If you're volunteering to paint a wall then the driving conviction should have no bearing, it would be more relevant if you were volunteering to drive a minibus.

If they turn you down then just volunteer elsewhere.

I agree with what you'd said but can I quote an example,i have a conviction for careless driving,dating back near on a decade,would I be deemed an unsuitable driver for the sake of 1 stupid lapse of concentration and be debarred from driving professionally for life as a result???but yes,wall painting,drink driving = no issue tbh.

No Pants

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Within current disclosure policy, details of all convictions and/or prosecutions, successful or not, pending or completed, in the State or elsewhere as the case may be are disclosed to the authorised liaison person in the registered organisation."

How does that work with innocent until proven guilty? No matter how many court appearances I have made or have scheduled, it doesn't make me a criminal until conviction.

Pro Hoc Vice

No Pants wrote: »

How does that work with innocent until proven guilty? No matter how many court appearances I have made or have scheduled, it doesn't make me a criminal until conviction.

I have no idea, but I wonder will someone challenge it. In any event it is a statment of fact and a matter that was in a public forum. If Mr. X was accused of rape and acquitted, that is a fact and a public fact at that.

V.W.L 11

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I have no idea, but I wonder will someone challenge it. In any event it is a statment of fact and a matter that was in a public forum. If Mr. X was accused of rape and acquitted, that is a fact and a public fact at that.

It was challenged last year i think,it cost a woman a job,my details of it are vague but google it,the judge recommended it be reviewed by the minister AFAIK

Pro Hoc Vice

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

It was challenged last year i think,it cost a woman a job,my details of it are vague but google it,the judge recommended it be reviewed by the minister AFAIK

It seems two cases http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/59a45784cc81582580257c14005efb9f?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,Webster

That case gives details of the first JR which was settled on terms. In any event the ministers recent statement should resolve the issue to some extent.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/legal-challenge-to-current-garda-vetting-procedure-28901417.html

V.W.L 11

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It seems two cases http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/59a45784cc81582580257c14005efb9f?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,Webster

That case gives details of the first JR which was settled on terms. In any event the ministers recent statement should resolve the issue to some extent.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/legal-challenge-to-current-garda-vetting-procedure-28901417.html

Hopefully it is resolved soon,i myself was charged with an offence once which the state subsequently withdrew but I myself recently went for a job which required garda vetting and that came up,it also cost me a job,i have convictions of a minor nature which the employer said fair enough you learned your lesson on those issues but with the "not guilty" one that's where the trouble lay,i say "not guilty" because even if you are found innocent the state still treat you as guilty,a bit like in france I think,where you are guilty unless proven otherwise innocent



NOTE: IT IS A DIFFERENT JOB FROM THE ONE IN WHICH I REFERRED TO IN MY EARLIER POST,JUST SO AS TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION

V.W.L 11

Trevor Webster was one and here is the other case http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-settles-case-against-state-over-her-garda-vetting-30041897.html

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

V.W.L 11

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It seems the state would rather settle of out court with any challengers rather than change policy.

Would be interesting to know the financial settlement details offered to "shut challengers up"

amen

details of all convictions and/or prosecutions, successful or not, pending or completed

so I'm a serial killer and I accidentally let one of my victims live. Before she gets a chance to testify in court I kill her. No other evidence so I walk.

A few years later I kill again but this time some physical evidence left. I manage to destroy the building/evidence before it gets to court. Again I walk.

In this case should my potential convictions not be listed?

,i have convictions of a minor nature which the employer said fair enough you learned your lesson on those issues but with the "not guilty" one that's where the trouble lay

If an empployeer was going to employee a person and had two candidates equally good and one had no pending convictions and the other had convictions should the employeer not have the full facts before offering to employee someone ?

Nonoperational

To keep it very simple, if you were convicted in court then it is a criminal conviction and will come up on vetting. If you paid a fine and didn't go to court, for drunk and disorderly etc, then it is not relevant and you do not have a criminal conviction for that offence.

You cannot dodge the drink driving conviction.

Holsten

Nonoperational wrote: »

To keep it very simple, if you were convicted in court then it is a criminal conviction and will come up on vetting. If you paid a fine and didn't go to court, for drunk and disorderly etc, then it is not relevant and you do not have a criminal conviction for that offence.

You cannot dodge the drink driving conviction.

And if you were not convicted, found not guilty, a dismissal it will STILL show up in the vetting. All successful AND unsuccessful prosecutions.

Horrible system.

i124Q

Holsten wrote: »

And if you were not convicted, found not guilty, a dismissal it will STILL show up in the vetting. All successful AND unsuccessful prosecutions.

Horrible system.

I agree, it really is horrible even if proven innocent!

The volunteering itself has nothing to do with driving. Its just a 5 day boot camp with kids, where you do outdoor activities..etc I don't think they should reject me due to a drink driving offence. Although it is up to them at the end of the day, we shall see.

Thanks for all the replies, some good insight into the whole system which I never knew before.