Garda vetting disclosure

redcatstar

Hi
My brother was garda vetted for voluntary work , he has 2 convictions fines for possession of cannabis going back to 1983 and was fined
He also has a fine for criminal damage in england in 1985
He thought as they were over 7 years old that he didn't have to disclose on garda vetting but they showed up , the volunteer group he had applied to never got back to him so after 6 weeks he contacted them, and they then told him that the offences showed up, they said they would ring and have a chat about them ,they never did. He is extremely upset that something from 36 years ago has led to them not willing to take him on as a volunteer. If he applies to volunteer or look for a job ( he retired early from public service) and has great skills to offer. Can anyone shed some light on what he can do TIA

Lenar3556

The particular details of the convictions will be important in establishing the position surrounding ‘spent convictions’. There are conditions which determine whether such provisions apply depending on the nature of the offences and number of convictions. The devil is in the detail.

You’re brother could make a data subject access request to An Garda Siochana to see what exactly is on record and establish whether the spent convictions criteria applies.

I presume the UK offence was disclosed separately under police vetting? Of which your brother would have had to apply directly?

The organisations primary concern is the protection of children and vulnerable adults in their care and Garda Vetting is one of the tools used to undertake the required due diligence. I don’t see anything in what you have said that would suggest the individual presents an increased risk in this regard. In my experience most organisations therefore wouldn’t place undue significance on what has been disclosed given the relatively minor nature of the convictions and passage of time since.

L1011

Are the offences in question even covered by the spent convictions legislation? Only certain ones are

redcatstar

L1011 wrote: »

Are the offences in question even covered by the spent convictions legislation? Only certain ones are

I dont know or cant figure out if they are under spent convictions, he only got fines , 2 were possession for hash and one in England damage to car

redcatstar

Lenar3556 wrote: »

The particular details of the convictions will be important in establishing the position surrounding ‘spent convictions’. There are conditions which determine whether such provisions apply depending on the nature of the offences and number of convictions. The devil is in the detail.

You’re brother could make a data subject access request to An Garda Siochana to see what exactly is on record and establish whether the spent convictions criteria applies.

I presume the UK offence was disclosed separately under police vetting? Of which your brother would have had to apply directly?

The organisations primary concern is the protection of children and vulnerable adults in their care and Garda Vetting is one of the tools used to undertake the required due diligence. I don’t see anything in what you have said that would suggest the individual presents an increased risk in this regard. In my experience most organisations therefore wouldn’t place undue significance on what has been disclosed given the relatively minor nature of the convictions and passage of time since.

Hi no he didn't disclose anything cause he thought they were spent

Dublin Lad2021

I've been involved in recruiting people, Garda vetted didn't disclose etc. We'd generally have a talk with them about what happened, why they didn't disclose, what their life is like now etc. Etc. Etc. Honestly the company may have just forgotten, it happens especially now during Pandemic, I'd say just tell him to stick with it and follow up with the charity. It could also be possible that they're waiting under restrictions are lifted before taking on volunteers

Lenar3556

redcatstar wrote: »

Hi no he didn't disclose anything cause he thought they were spent

I’m open to correction, but as far as I recall, one offence for simple possession of drugs comes under the remit of ‘spent’ after 7 years.
However two separate offences of this category are not quite so spendable and this is likely why they were disclosed.

Lenar3556

redcatstar wrote: »

I dont know or cant figure out if they are under spent convictions, he only got fines , 2 were possession for hash and one in England damage to car

I’m still not sure how damaging a car in England would be returned as a conviction in Garda vetting?

Notmything

The UK one wouldn't have been disclosed through Garda vetting though.

From experience if you have lived outside Ireland for more than 6 months you need to provide a police clearance certificate from that country.

poisonated

I’ve come across a few fairly silly things come up in Garda clearances such as driving in a bus lane. Most peoplewhen hiring would consider the offence. Depending on the job, I would think he would be fine for possession of marijuana but not for criminal damage as it generally shows malicious intent. However, come to think of it, I think it shows up as possession of a controlled substance or something and doesn’t specify marijuana.

Mrs OBumble

Disclosure is irrelevant.

He can apply for things, they will decide if his background is a problem or not. Volunteer groups likely just won't phone back if they don't want him.

Lenar3556

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Disclosure is irrelevant.

He can apply for things, they will decide if his background is a problem or not. Volunteer groups likely just won't phone back if they don't want him.

Yes, but I think the OP’s principle point is the fairness of a minor conviction (although I now gather there are a few) from 30+ years ago being disclosed to a volunteer organisation now. This is the very logic behind the spent convictions legislation.

Mrs OBumble

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Yes, but I think the OP’s principle point is the fairness of a minor conviction (although I now gather there are a few) from 30+ years ago being disclosed to a volunteer organisation now. This is the very logic behind the spent convictions legislation.

If the conviction is irrelevant to the activity, they will still take him. If it's relevant, they won't. Whether it's 3 years ago or 30 may influence the risk assessment they do in response to getting the information about the conviction. Or it may not: once dope-head, always a risk of being one, for some types of activity.

But only they know the nature of the activity, and whether it's relevant or not.

MrMusician18

Some groups do the background check and if anything comes up then they rule out the candidate. Harsh, and lazy perhaps but that's their process.

redcatstar

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Yes, but I think the OP’s principle point is the fairness of a minor conviction (although I now gather there are a few) from 30+ years ago being disclosed to a volunteer organisation now. This is the very logic behind the spent convictions legislation.

Actually I made a mistake there is 1 for possession at 18 yrs old in Ireland and 1 a fine for criminal damage in England at 22 yrs. I seriously dont see why they would be listed on hes garda vetting as has nothing for last 36 yrs

redcatstar

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If the conviction is irrelevant to the activity, they will still take him. If it's relevant, they won't. Whether it's 3 years ago or 30 may influence the risk assessment they do in response to getting the information about the conviction. Or it may not: once dope-head, always a risk of being one, for some types of activity.

But only they know the nature of the activity, and whether it's relevant or not.

Nothing more than cannabis

Vestiapx

redcatstar wrote: »

Actually I made a mistake there is 1 for possession at 18 yrs old in Ireland and 1 a fine for criminal damage in England at 22 yrs. I seriously dont see why they would be listed on hes garda vetting as has nothing for last 36 yrs

If he thought that it was clear that possession at 18 and criminal damage at 22 are excused after 30 odd years then why didn't he disclose?

redcatstar

Lenar3556 wrote: »

The particular details of the convictions will be important in establishing the position surrounding ‘spent convictions’. There are conditions which determine whether such provisions apply depending on the nature of the offences and number of convictions. The devil is in the detail.

You’re brother could make a data subject access request to An Garda Siochana to see what exactly is on record and establish whether the spent convictions criteria applies.

I presume the UK offence was disclosed separately under police vetting? Of which your brother would have had to apply directly?

The organisations primary concern is the protection of children and vulnerable adults in their care and Garda Vetting is one of the tools used to undertake the required due diligence. I don’t see anything in what you have said that would suggest the individual presents an increased risk in this regard. In my experience most organisations therefore wouldn’t place undue significance on what has been disclosed given the relatively minor nature of the convictions and passage of time since.

English one came from gardai as well cannabis Ireland fine 18 yrs old criminal damage fine age 22 yrs happened in England

redcatstar

Vestiapx wrote: »

If he thought that it was clear that possession at 18 and criminal damage at 22 are excused after 30 odd years then why didn't he disclose?

Fear

Notmything

redcatstar wrote: »

English one came from gardai as well cannabis Ireland fine 18 yrs old criminal damage fine age 22 yrs happened in England

Gardai don't have access to English criminal records tho.

Edit: vetting also covers northern Ireland

redcatstar

Notmything wrote: »

Gardai don't have access to English criminal records tho.

Can I ask how they got it then, not been smart ,just know he didn't disclose or give English addresses

Notmything

redcatstar wrote: »

Can I ask how they got it then, not been smart ,just know he didn't disclose or give English addresses

Genuinely no idea, I've been doing vetting on/off for work and it's always been the case that you have to provide a police clearance certificate for the periods you lived outside the state.

Fwiw I just vetted someone the other day and they can't start until they supply a certificate from when they lived in the UK