Arrested for questioning: clean record or not?!

emmasharn

If a person was arrested & cautioned for questioning 18 years ago will this show up on a criminal record? No conviction has ever been brought.

goldenhoarde

emmasharn wrote: »

If a person was arrested & cautioned for questioning 18 years ago will this show up on a criminal record? No conviction has ever been brought.

No as they were not convicted of anything

emmasharn

Thanks.

After contact with citizens information they were unsure of whether this would appear on a record during garda vetting.

Thanks for the reply again!

pcuser

Hi Emmasharn,

Im the vetting officer for a local organisation. I can tell you that it will not show up on a vetting form. Even if you were convicted of a minor offence it would have being wiped after 7 years provided you had no more convictions after this.

punisher5112

There would be a file on pulse but you weren't convicted of anything so won't go against you.

TomOnBoard

punisher5112 wrote: »

There would be a file on pulse but you weren't convicted of anything so won't go against you.

Would Pulse have existed or dealt with that kind of thing back in 2000? More likely only a paper file would have been held at the time. Long since eaten by rodents I'd say..

GM228

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Would Pulse have existed or dealt with that kind of thing back in 2000? More likely only a paper file would have been held at the time. Long since eaten by rodents I'd say..

Pulse was introduced in 1999.

emmasharn

Well this happened 18 years ago in the uk.

Pulse may not be a UK thing.

acro office in the UK were rang about this query but until a Police Clearance Certificate is issued they don't know if it will appear. Told to wait till it comes in the post.

If it does then a deletion request can be asked but main concern is then, does a second cert need to be sent out after with the 'clean' version.

If so it already cost 45 Sterling for the first one so hopefully no more charges for additional reprint.

emmasharn

Hi & thanks.

Garda Vetting said they won't cover the UK addresses but a Police Clearance Certificate could be requested.

Hopefully as you say bit won't be included since it was 18 years ago and was only a caution during arrest for questioning in the UK.

Citizens info had said they weren't sure.

If it did appear at all that would really reflect badly at interview stage lol

emmasharn

Thanks for that reply

punisher5112

We had no way of knowing it was UK and not Ireland.

GM228

emmasharn wrote: »

Well this happened 18 years ago in the uk.

Would have helped had you mentioned this.

emmasharn wrote: »

Pulse may not be a UK thing.

No, but they have PNC which is their equivalent of our Pulse and they have had it since 1974.

emmasharn wrote: »

acro office in the UK were rang about this query but until a Police Clearance Certificate is issued they don't know if it will appear. Told to wait till it comes in the post.

Any arrest and caution (conviction or not) may be shown on a UK PCC (subject to what's known as the step-down system which can take up to 20 years), but this is assuming it was recorded on the system in the first place.

emmasharn wrote: »

If it does then a deletion request can be asked but main concern is then, does a second cert need to be sent out after with the 'clean' version.

If so it already cost 45 Sterling for the first one so hopefully no more charges for additional reprint.

You can not request to delete the information considering it is not incorrect. It is optional for them to not show the information on the PCC, but it is not deleted from the file. On this point a PCC is not normally issued for other than Visa issues, I assume you are looking for a Subject Access Disclosure (SAD) or is it indeed a PCC?

idnkph

punisher5112 wrote:

There would be a file on pulse but you weren't convicted of anything so won't go against you.

Are you entitled under the freedom of information act to ask for anything on your pulse file?

laotg

You're not recorded as a criminal until you are convicted so you don't have a criminal record.

A lot of non criminals are on pulse, witnesses, victims, suspects. Unless you have been to court and been found guilty of something you will not have a criminal record.

GM228

laotg wrote: »

You're not recorded as a criminal until you are convicted so you don't have a criminal record.

A lot of non criminals are on pulse, witnesses, victims, suspects. Unless you have been to court and been found guilty of something you will not have a criminal record.

Not quite true, your "criminal record" is any conviction or any cases pending, many can't get their head around the second one.

GM228

idnkph wrote: »

Are you entitled under the freedom of information act to ask for anything on your pulse file?

Not under FOI, rather Data Protection - yes you can, but there are some restrictions.

TomOnBoard

punisher5112 wrote: »

We had no way of knowing it was UK and not Ireland.

Yeah, that was rather an important snippet of information to leave out from the original post when you're looking for advice...:mad:

bmc58

pcuser wrote: »

Hi Emmasharn,

Im the vetting officer for a local organisation. I can tell you that it will not show up on a vetting form. Even if you were convicted of a minor offence it would have being wiped after 7 years provided you had no more convictions after this.

Hello,

You have interested me with your knowledge.I wonder would would a conviction for "Driving without due care and attention" still be on my record after 35 years.Not a penalty point or any other incident since.

laotg

GM228 wrote:

Not quite true, your "criminal record" is any conviction or any cases pending, many can't get their head around the second one.

Cases pending cannot be disclosed. Innocent until proven guilty etc. Garda vetting just shows convictions, not potential convictions, which would be ridiculous.

punisher5112

laotg wrote: »

Cases pending cannot be disclosed. Innocent until proven guilty etc. Garda vetting just shows convictions, not potential convictions, which would be ridiculous.

The information would be on pulse but may not be disclosed under a vetting for example until convicted.

Peregrinus

emmasharn wrote: »

Well this happened 18 years ago in the uk . . .

Ah. This make a difference.

In the UK they have different levels of employment checks.

The "basic check", which you can obtain yourself, shows only offences of which you have been actually convicted, and even then it doesn't show them if your conviction has become spent.

The other checks you cannot obtain yourself; only your employer or prospective employer can obtain them. They are:

- The "standard check": shows shows spent and unspent convictions, as well as cautions, reprimands and final warnings (which are altenative ways of dealing with an offence that don't involve a prosecution or a conviction).

- The "enhanced check": shows the same as a standard check plus any information held by local police that’s considered relevant to the role you are occupying/applying for.

- The "enhanced check with barred lists" shows the same as an enhanced check plus whether you're on a list of people barred from doing the role in question.

If you were questioned in relation to a matter that is thought to be relevant to the role for which you are now applying, that could turn up on an enhanced check. So if you were questioned in connection with, say, a possible driving offence, but the role doesn't involve driving, it shouldn't turn up. But if you were questioned in connection with a possible theft or fraud offence, and the role involves looking after money, it may turn up.

GM228

laotg wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

Not quite true, your "criminal record" is any conviction or any cases pending, many can't get their head around the second one.

Cases pending cannot be disclosed. Innocent until proven guilty etc. Garda vetting just shows convictions, not potential convictions, which would be ridiculous.

Yes they can, and in fact any pending prosecution must by law be disclosed.

Vetch

GM228 wrote: »

Yes they can, and in fact any pending prosecution must by law be disclosed.

And relevant specified information (soft information)?

techdiver

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if you were questioned in connection with a possible theft or fraud offence, and the role involves looking after money, it may turn up.

That's nuts!

So you could be questioned for something that it later proved that you were 100% innocent of and it could follow you around for life and effect your employment prospects!

NoviGlitzko

I had a fake ID taken off me by Gardai 13 years ago and a Garda mentioned it to me when I was in the Garda station. I never met him before. How did he know that?

Peregrinus

techdiver wrote: »

That's nuts!

So you could be questioned for something that it later proved that you were 100% innocent of and it could follow you around for life and effect your employment prospects!

We're talking about the protection of vulnerable people here, techdiver. Would you be happy if, in a trial for child sex abuse, it emerged that the defendant had been cleared to work with children, and employed to do so, despite having been interviewed as a suspect in relation to previous child sex incidents?

So, yeah, employers of those who are working with vulnerable people do get to see information that, normally, wouldn't be seen by anybody.

This is the reason, incidentally, why these higher level checks are only provided to employers working in the field (who have to register to obtain them). They understand the requirements of the post they're filling, and they have the ability to evaluate the information provided to them and assess its relevance, and they at least understand that they should disregard it if it is, in fact, irrelevant.

Yes, its obviously unfair and unfortunate if you are wrongly suspected of a crime, and that suspicion follows you round and closes off certain job opportunities to you. But its maybe more unfair and more unfortunate if you are vulnerable person who is abused because information relevant to assessing the risk of abuse was disregarded because of a "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" standard being applied to exclude it. The system has to balance the potential disadvantage to job applicants and potential disadvantage to vulnerable people.

Peregrinus

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I had a fake ID taken off me by Gardai 13 years ago and a Garda mentioned it to me when I was in the Garda station. I never met him before. How did he know that?

Pulse.

4ensic15

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I had a fake ID taken off me by Gardai 13 years ago and a Garda mentioned it to me when I was in the Garda station. I never met him before. How did he know that?

A little bird told him.

GM228

Vetch wrote: »

And relevant specified information (soft information)?

Correct, but the information must be in relation to a finding or allegation of harm to another person and it can only form part of the disclosure if the vetting officer reasonably believes that the information gives rise to a bona fide concern of a potential harm to a child or vulnerable person and disclosure is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

techdiver

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're talking about the protection of vulnerable people here, techdiver. Would you be happy if, in a trial for child sex abuse, it emerged that the defendant had been cleared to work with children, and employed to do so, despite having been interviewed as a suspect in relation to previous child sex incidents?

So, yeah, employers of those who are working with vulnerable people do get to see information that, normally, wouldn't be seen by anybody.

This is the reason, incidentally, why these higher level checks are only provided to employers working in the field (who have to register to obtain them). They understand the requirements of the post they're filling, and they have the ability to evaluate the information provided to them and assess its relevance, and they at least understand that they should disregard it if it is, in fact, irrelevant.

Yes, its obviously unfair and unfortunate if you are wrongly suspected of a crime, and that suspicion follows you round and closes off certain job opportunities to you. But its maybe more unfair and more unfortunate if you are vulnerable person who is abused because information relevant to assessing the risk of abuse was disregarded because of a "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" standard being applied to exclude it. The system has to balance the potential disadvantage to job applicants and potential disadvantage to vulnerable people.

I'm not convinced that is needed to provide the needed protections for the above. You coupling both together which doesn't need to be the case.

Take the example of some idiot accusing you of stealing something belonging to him. You are questioned and cleared. By your argument above, it is perfectly reasonable for that idiot to have left you with major issues for the rest of your life. We have to be better than that.

4ensic15

There is no smoke without fire!

Peregrinus

techdiver wrote: »

I'm not convinced that is needed to provide the needed protections for the above. You coupling both together which doesn't need to be the case.

Take the example of some idiot accusing you of stealing something belonging to him. You are questioned and cleared. By your argument above, it is perfectly reasonable for that idiot to have left you with major issues for the rest of your life. We have to be better than that.

The idiot who accused you of course knows that he accused you and (assuming he believes the accusation to be true) of course he will continue to have issues with you. There's nothing you can do about that. Idiots are idiots.

The issue is whether the fact that he accused you should ever be disclosed to anyone else. Specifically, should it be disclosed to a prospective employer?

It won't be disclosed unless (a) you're applying for a post involving working with vulnerable people, and (b) the disclosure authorities think it's relevant to the post for which you are applying (e.g. the post involves handling their financial affairs). For example, if the reason they did not proceed against you is because it emerged that there was a mistaken identity, and in fact someone else was identified as the thief, they probably won't disclose the fact that you were interviewed.

If they think it is relevant, and do disclose it, they will also disclose that you were "questioned and cleared". For example if they conclude that the accusation was motivated by malice, or that the accuser was an unreliable witness, they will say so. The prospective employer will not be left with the impression that there is a miasma of suspicion around you if, in fact, there isn't.

The disclosure is not a bar to being appointed to the post. The employer evaluates it; he may decide that it's irrelevant, or marginal, or outweighed by your many other fine qualities.

techdiver

Peregrinus wrote: »

The idiot who accused you of course knows that he accused you and (assuming he believes the accusation to be true) of course he will continue to have issues with you. There's nothing you can do about that. Idiots are idiots.

The issue is whether the fact that he accused you should ever be disclosed to anyone else. Specifically, should it be disclosed to a prospective employer?

It won't be disclosed unless (a) you're applying for a post involving working with vulnerable people, and (b) the disclosure authorities think it's relevant to the post for which you are applying (e.g. the post involves handling their financial affairs). For example, if the reason they did not proceed against you is because it emerged that there was a mistaken identity, and in fact someone else was identified as the thief, they probably won't disclose the fact that you were interviewed.

If they think it is relevant, and do disclose it, they will also disclose that you were "questioned and cleared". For example if they conclude that the accusation was motivated by malice, or that the accuser was an unreliable witness, they will say so. The prospective employer will not be left with the impression that there is a miasma of suspicion around you if, in fact, there isn't.

The disclosure is not a bar to being appointed to the post. The employer evaluates it; he may decide that it's irrelevant, or marginal, or outweighed by your many other fine qualities.

The attitude of 4ensic15 above sums up why there are potential issues with these types of disclosures. "Questioned and cleared", holds little weight in a society where so many believe there is no smoke without fire.

Let me be clear in case there is any doubt. I'm 100% in favour of vetting. But we need the standard and integrity of discourse to be above reproach.

Peregrinus

techdiver wrote: »

The attitude of 4ensic15 above sums up why there are potential issues with these types of disclosures. "Questioned and cleared", holds little weight in a society where so many believe there is no smoke without fire.

But we're not talking about disclosure to society at large, of course; we're talking about disclosure to an employer who's in the business of making judgments about those who provide services to vulnerable people. They deal with these disclosure all the time, and they have put some time into thinking about how to assess them and how to factor them into employment decisions. They're not likely to be operating out of a "no smoke without fire" paradigm.

Yes, they could be unduly swayed by the disclosure. Or, they might take a balanced and judicious view of it, and still refuse you a job which you are, in fact, perfectly fitted to do. But we have to balance that against the risk of harm resulting if unsuitable people are appointed because information that might have pointed to their unsuitability was withheld.