nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Assault causing harm charge and working with children

harmless

I know someone locally who sometimes works with children, they do some extracurricular activities with secondary school children and also run summer camps.(they are not a qualified teacher)

When reading the local paper I see they have been found guilty of assault causing harm.

This is mostly me being nosy but I also have an interest in understanding how Garda vetting works.

Would they be completely excluded from all further work with children or would it be a case by case basis?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hobgoblin11

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058278389/assault-causing-harm-charge-and-working-with-children

how do you know they got themselves vetted?

harmless

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071621#Comment_120071621

I assumed(perhaps wrongly) that a school would do vetting. Or do you mean assault causing harm may not show on vetting?

Hobgoblin11

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071668#Comment_120071668

if they got themselves vetted their convictions would show up, spent or not as they will be working with children, depends on how thorough the school have been maybe they know him and feel thats enough vetting

The non-disclosure regime under the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016 does not apply to employment relating to children or vulnerable adults. However, applicants for these roles must be Garda vetted and has its own non-disclosure regime

https://www.citizensinformation.ie

save them kids!

harmless

I see, so it would show up and then it is up to the school to decide? Is that correct?

Thanks for the answer, exactly what I was looking for.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058278389/assault-causing-harm-charge-and-working-with-children

Garda vetting of an individual is a process often undertaken by an employer where an employee is to be working with children or vulnerable adults. (And limited other categories of employment)

The vetting process will disclose criminal convictions and any charges which are pending. Exceptionally, ‘soft’ information may be disclosed where this is deemed necessary and appropriate by the Garda vetting bureau.

Ultimately, it is a matter for an employer/perspective employer to evaluate any vetting disclosure/prior convictions in assessing an individual’s suitability for a particular job, and also having regard to the organisations duty of care to the children/vulnerable adults which it is responsible for.

There is no pass/fail criteria as such, and it’s a case by case decision for individual employers.

the_amazing_raisin

A follow up question would be whether any conviction post vetting would be discovered

For example if someone was working in a summer camp last year, and had since had a conviction, would the school do the vetting again or would they just take last year's result?

One would assume they probably should do the vetting, but are they legally obliged to?

Or is there a separate mechanism whereby the school would be informed of a temporary workers conviction?

Peregrinus

Well, this particular conviction was in the newspapers and, Ireland being Ireland, people in the school are almost certain to learn of it.

But, no, there's no mechanism whereby the guards send out "updates" in relation to people who have already been vetted when new and relevant events occur. This won't be disclosed through the vetting process unless the person is vetted again.

There is, I think, a requirement for employees who are vetted to be re-vetted every three years. That would bring any post-vetting charges or convictions to light even if they hadn't made it into the papers.

mondeoman72

Vetting is the disclosure by the vetting bureau, of a persons RELEVANT history. There is a mechanism for the person to put a case why something may not be relevant.

Hypothetically, if the person was found guilty of assault causing harm, is that relevant to the vetting application? What were the circumstances. A drunken fight outside a pub a few years ago.....

We dont know the details but even if it was disclosed, it would be down to the employer to decide if it is relevant to the position involved. Vetting lasts, I think 3 years, and has to be redone for every different position. I know someone vetted 3 times last year for 3 different roles where they needed it.

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071621#Comment_120071621

Anyone working with children has tom be Garda vetted.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075025#Comment_120075025

A decision as to the ‘relevance’ is generally a matter for the employer when reviewing any disclosure. All criminal convictions are disclosed, there is no relevance test applied by the vetting bureau.

In the case of ‘specified information’, a vetting subject is contacted before a disclosure of such information is made, and they have an opportunity to make a submission on same. Disclosures of specified information are however quite rare.

mondeoman72

Not quite. But I will not be elaborating

Claw Hammer

A lot depends on the relevance of the conviction. If the assault causing harm was because someone stole his pint in a nightclub it would be a different thing to giving someone a dig in a football match.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120077913#Comment_120077913

Absolutely, the point I was making was that the conviction will be disclosed and it’s a matter for the employer to carry out a risk assessment to determine if it has any material impact on the individuals suitability for employment.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120077243#Comment_120077243

What you wrote was misleading. The word relevant in the legislation refers to the type of work a vetting subject is to be engaged in, not the relevance of any previous conviction.

You then seemed to refer to specified information (which has a very specific process) and the appeals process surrounding it, was treated similarly to criminal convictions. This isn’t the case.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, there is no mystique surrounding the vetting process - it is very clearly set out in legislation, and applicants should have a clear understanding of what they are engaging with. The process and systems aren’t perfect, but it is straightforward.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/act/47/enacted/en/html