Arrested for questioning: clean record or not?!

emmasharn · 13-06-2018 02:38PM #1

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 · 13-06-2018 02:39PM

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 · 13-06-2018 02:57PM

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 · 13-06-2018 03:00PM

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 · 13-06-2018 03:01PM

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

TomOnBoard · 13-06-2018 03:07PM

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 · 13-06-2018 03:45PM

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 · 13-06-2018 04:19PM

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 · 13-06-2018 04:24PM

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 · 13-06-2018 04:25PM

Thanks for that reply

punisher5112 · 13-06-2018 04:58PM

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

GM228 · 13-06-2018 05:27PM

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 · 13-06-2018 05:29PM

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 · 13-06-2018 05:36PM

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 · 13-06-2018 05:40PM

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 · 13-06-2018 05:42PM

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 · 13-06-2018 06:14PM

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 · 13-06-2018 06:20PM

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 · 13-06-2018 06:33PM

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 · 13-06-2018 07:47PM

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 · 14-06-2018 03:40AM

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 · 14-06-2018 05:29AM

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 · 14-06-2018 06:42AM

GM228 wrote: »

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

And relevant specified information (soft information)?

techdiver · 14-06-2018 06:55AM

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 · 14-06-2018 06:58AM

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 · 14-06-2018 07:04AM

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 · 14-06-2018 07:04AM

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 · 14-06-2018 07:05AM

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 · 14-06-2018 07:37AM

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 · 14-06-2018 07:59AM

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 · 14-06-2018 08:02AM

There is no smoke without fire!

Arrested for questioning: clean record or not?!

Comments