# Has your criminal record Just been wiped clean?



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

Yesterday the law changed in regard to criminal records.

If as an adult you had a minor conviction (only one) that resulted in a non-custodial sentence more than 11 years ago, it should have now been removed from the records of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formally the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and will not show up if your employers applies for a check on you. (five and a half years for young offenders).

If as a adult you have been given a police caution, that will also be filtered from the records after 6 years (two years for young offenders).

What this means is that old and minor cautions and convictions will no longer appear on DBS (CRB) checks, which employers may request when you start a new job. 

So if you find a question like this on a job application form, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense or received a caution, reprimand or warning?" you only need to record non-spent convictions, cautions, reprimands or warnings?


----------



## RubyBlue (May 30, 2013)

I found out recently that if you have been sentenced to 3 months or less in a juvenile facility (that means the old DC's) it is wiped after 3.5 years!

Spent years being worried about that in the Civil Service only to find out it didn't matter!


----------



## JHE (May 30, 2013)

For quite a lot of jobs, those dealing with children or vulnerable adults, there have been enhanced CRB checks.  When you are going to have one of these, you are asked to declare all offences, including spent ones going back to the year dot.  If the account given in the opening post is accurate, the difference will now be that even in the case of enhanced CRB checks (some) spent convictions will not show up.


----------



## stuff_it (May 30, 2013)

1%er said:


> Yesterday the law changed in regard to criminal records.
> 
> If as an adult you had a minor conviction (only one) that resulted in a non-custodial sentence more than 11 years ago, it should have now been removed from the records of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formally the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and will not show up if your employers applies for a check on you. (five and a half years for young offenders).
> 
> ...


 
Those are longer than the old periods.

(((self employment)))

Have you got a link?


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

JHE said:


> For quite a lot of jobs, those dealing with children or vulnerable adults, there have been enhanced CRB checks. When you are going to have one of these, you are asked to declare all offences, including spent ones going back to the year dot. If the account given in the opening post is accurate, the difference will now be that even in the case of enhanced CRB checks (some) spent convictions will not show up.


If they fall into the above category they will be removed from the records so will not appear on an enhanced check.

This came in a judgement from the ECHR. Three judges earlier in the year said that the disclosure provisions in the Police Act 1997 and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 were not compatible with Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to private and family life.

"The move will affect thousands of volunteers and workers who apply for jobs that require a DBS check each year including teachers, doctors, nurses and care home workers".


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Those are longer than the old periods.
> 
> (((self employment)))
> 
> Have you got a link?


They may have been spent before 11 years but were not automatically removed from the records, this removes them completely from the record.
Sorry I thought I added a link with the quote above 
DBS


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2013)

1%er said:


> Yesterday the law changed in regard to criminal records.
> 
> If as an adult you had a minor conviction (only one) that resulted in a non-custodial sentence more than 11 years ago, it should have now been removed from the records of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formally the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and will not show up if your employers applies for a check on you. (five and a half years for young offenders).
> 
> ...


warnings? reprimands?


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> warnings? reprimands?


Here

In the UK, anybody above the ages of 10 can receive a reprimand. It is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a young person who admits they are guilty of a minor first offence. To receive a reprimand, the young person must have admitted the offence and shown that they are sorry for the harm that may have been caused.
The police will pass on the details to the local Youth Offending Team who may contact the young person's parents or carers and talk about the young person, their family and the events that led up to the reprimand.
Sometimes the young person can be referred to the YOT to take part in a voluntary programme to help them address their offending behaviour.
Once the young person has been bailed from the Police Station, they will have been given a date and a time to return to a "Restorative Justice Clinic" (RJ Clinic) to receive a Reprimand or Final Warning from a specially trained officer. The purpose of this is to discuss what happened, why it happened and also to find out how the person can repair any harm that has been caused. The officer will also discuss ways to dissuade any future reoffending. The RJ Clinic usually takes place at the local Police Station. The parents or carers will also be expected to attend. The young person does not have to accept advice or YOT assistance. Any activity or assistance offered by the YOT is voluntary.
If the young person breaks the law again, they will more than likely be sent to the Youth Court. This can lead to them being found guilty and sentenced.
Reprimands and Final Warnings are a statutory disposal, created by sections 65-66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to replace cautions for offenders aged 17 and under.[1] Guidance on the scheme is available for Police and Youth Offending Teams through joint Home Office/Youth Justice Board guidance published in November 2002.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2013)

1%er said:


> Here
> 
> In the UK, anybody above the ages of 10 can receive a reprimand. It is a formal verbal warning given by a police officer to a young person who admits they are guilty of a minor first offence. To receive a reprimand, the young person must have admitted the offence and shown that they are sorry for the harm that may have been caused.
> The police will pass on the details to the local Youth Offending Team who may contact the young person's parents or carers and talk about the young person, their family and the events that led up to the reprimand.
> ...


i had a written warning at work once but as that was more than 11 years ago - it was back in '95 or '96 - i suppose the warning's now been expunged.


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i had a written warning at work once but as that was more than 11 years ago - it was back in '95 or '96 - i suppose the warning's now been expunged.


That's criminal 

The case was brought by someone who had a warning from the police when he was 11 years old.

Liberty and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) intervened in the case of T, a 21-year-old man who received warnings from Manchester Police when he was 11 years old in connection with two stolen bikes. This information was disclosed on two occasions: when he applied for a part-time job at a local football club at the age of 17 and later when he applied for a university course in sports studies.


----------



## cdg (May 30, 2013)

RubyBlue said:


> I found out recently that if you have been sentenced to 3 months or less in a juvenile facility (that means the old DC's) it is wiped after 3.5 years!
> 
> Spent years being worried about that in the Civil Service only to find out it didn't matter!


 
When did this start? Last time I saw my criminal record all my convictions as as youth were on there.


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

cdg said:


> When did this start? Last time I saw my criminal record all my convictions as as youth were on there.


I think he is mixing up spent convictions and removal of records. You do not have to tell your employer if you have a spent conviction, but if the employer does a check they will see it, as it remains on record. (unless it comers under the new law as posted in the OP). It was possible in some circumstances, after a period of time to request that it is removed from your record, but now that should happen automatically.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Spent convictions)

Under the Act, following a specified period of time which varies according to the disposal
administered or sentence passed, all cautions and convictions (except those resulting in
prison sentences of over 30 months) are regarded as ‘spent’.
As a result the offender is regarded as rehabilitated.
For most purposes the Act treats a rehabilitated person as if he or she had never committed
an offence and, as such, they are not obliged to declare their caution(s) or conviction(s), for
example, when applying for employment or insurance.


----------



## RubyBlue (May 30, 2013)

Last time I heckled if you we're convicted - and sentenced - to the equivalent to less then 6 months in a YO institution - including DC - it was wiped after 3 years - probation after 5 years - after working in the civil service and never declaring it I could be wrong but that is what the rehabilitation of offenders act told me ... Could be wrong ...


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (May 30, 2013)

So does it effect those of with cautions who have to take an ecrb?


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> So does it effect those of with cautions who have to take an ecrb?


Yes, from what I have read, it will effect enhanced checks the most (because they did show spent convictions, cautions etc.). After the periods in the OP it will be deleted from the records kept by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), (formally the Criminal Records Bureau) so there will/should be no access to it from their system (you can be sure a record will be kept by some departments dealing with intelligence matters).


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (May 30, 2013)

1%er said:


> Yes, from what I have read, it will effect enhanced checks the most (because they did show spent convictions, cautions etc.). After the periods in the OP it will be deleted from the records kept by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), (formally the Criminal Records Bureau) so there will/should be no access to it from their system (you can be sure a record will be kept by some departments dealing with intelligence matters).



Well I'll declare them next just to be safe, but be nice if your correct. Just having one looks better than two.


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> Well I'll declare them next just to be safe, but be nice if your correct. Just having one looks better than two.


If you are not sure apply to the Disclosure and Barring Service yourself and see what they hold on you.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (May 30, 2013)

1%er said:


> If you are not sure apply to the Disclosure and Barring Service yourself and see what they hold on you.



I didn't know you could do that.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 30, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> I didn't know you could do that.


 
You can't.


----------



## renegadechicken (May 30, 2013)

I disclose all my convictions/cautions and charges always as there is nothing worse than trying to explain why you failed to disclose something when it appears on the DBS/CRB checks...i have always found it easier to disclose and explain rather than be thought of as trying to mislead. However any employment i have applied for has always required the 'enhanced' checks, so perhaps that's different.


----------



## Stig (May 30, 2013)

I always assumed mine was clean as there were only a few arrests in my youth, and they were all road protest £50 fine type gigs. But I was in the position of being an HR office recruiter type recently, I did a DBS check on myself and there they were!

Now that I know that, I just need to market them positively on my job apps from now on.


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

I think everyone in the UK who thinks they have a police record should apply to the Disclosure and Barring Service. My reason for saying this is, a number of years ago police records were all put on one central computer system. iirc many police forces didn't have compatible software and I believe millions of records were added manually, of these about 22% were incorrectly added or had incorrect information. (this came from an audit by the home office, could be worth a FOI request).

An interesting fact: In 2005 the only back-up server was located next to Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal, Buncefield which was the scene of a major civil emergency when it burned to the ground in December 2005. According to the Home Office the location had been assessed as low-risk notwithstanding that the site was 100 yards (91 m) from a disaster hazard and the site and its surrounding were burned to the ground.  lol


----------



## Maurice Picarda (May 30, 2013)

1%er said:


> I think everyone in the UK who thinks they have a police record should apply to the Disclosure and Barring Service.


 
They can't. Part of the reason that they can't is that otherwise they might.


----------



## 1%er (May 30, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> You can't.


Yes you are right, it is for registered employers only, but an individual can apply to the police who hold the same information. I think it cost about 10 UK pounds and used to be called "basic disclosure".

I wonder how an individual can challenge the information held by the Disclosure and Barring Service?

ETA found it


----------



## xslavearcx (May 30, 2013)

1%er said:


> Yesterday the law changed in regard to criminal records.
> 
> If as an adult you had a minor conviction (only one) that resulted in a non-custodial sentence more than 11 years ago, it should have now been removed from the records of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formally the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and will not show up if your employers applies for a check on you. (five and a half years for young offenders).
> 
> ...


 
Sure that would depend on what time of disclosure an employer is undertaking. Im not sure its the same in england but in scotland spent convictions will appear on an enhanced disclosure. My crappy attempts at being a car theif at 15-16 still shows up on my disclosures for the jobs i do working with vulnerable people.

ETA can see this has already been covered in the thread.


----------



## bignose1 (May 30, 2013)

What about an on the spot £80 fine......3 years ago for holding a smoke flare outside a pub that somebody gave me...i was looking for a bin to ditch it.  ( Flare cop guv) The chitty said under summat 18blah blah Explosives Act. I went back to pub..( footy related and the lads had a whip round...got £140 in the hat) I did put the surplus into the 'love Utd hate glazer' campaign.


----------



## Hollis (May 30, 2013)

I will be having a big party on 29 Dec 2013.


----------



## Red Storm (May 31, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> What about an on the spot £80 fine......3 years ago for holding a smoke flare outside a pub that somebody gave me...i was looking for a bin to ditch it. ( Flare cop guv) The chitty said under summat 18blah blah Explosives Act. I went back to pub..( footy related and the lads had a whip round...got £140 in the hat) I did put the surplus into the 'love Utd hate glazer' campaign.


 

I would have thought you'd have more pressing things on your record than a fine!


----------



## youngian (Jun 2, 2013)

I had a 20+ year old minor dope charge bought up on a CRB, that did not feel good as I've kept my nose clean for over two decades and has no relevance to weeding out sex offenders.

My employers had the good sense to let it pass but it struck me at the time this was in violation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I am sure there are many good people put off doing community work with young people because they do not want their past being dragged up and are entitled to move on and forget. This is very good news.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 3, 2013)

If your records are wiped off & a DNA sample was taken at time of caution is the DNA sample disposed of as well? I got a form from my local cop shop & sent £10 off to the ACPO & it came back that there was no information about me on the police national computer but I recall at the time of caution in the mid 90s a DNA sample was taken & I was wondering if that could still be held on a separate register or something?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2013)

SaskiaJayne said:


> If your records are wiped off & a DNA sample was taken at time of caution is the DNA sample disposed of as well? I got a form from my local cop shop & sent £10 off to the ACPO & it came back that there was no information about me on the police national computer but I recall at the time of caution in the mid 90s a DNA sample was taken & I was wondering if that could still be held on a separate register or something?


 
I think they keep DNA samples indefinitely unless you are not charged or not convicted, in which case you can ask them to destroy the DNA record of you which, tbh, they probably won't.


----------



## skampino (Jun 27, 2014)

oops


----------



## skampino (Jun 27, 2014)

In 2006 records were deleted. It applied to all of an individual's convictions (not just the one) if they were considered to be minor offences and had occurred a long time in the past.






1%er said:


> Yesterday the law changed in regard to criminal records.
> 
> If as an adult you had a minor conviction (only one) that resulted in a non-custodial sentence more than 11 years ago, it should have now been removed from the records of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formally the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and will not show up if your employers applies for a check on you. (five and a half years for young offenders).
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Jun 27, 2014)

Blimey!


----------



## skampino (Jun 27, 2014)

This is what is on the NACRO (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders) website:

_'Prior to 2006, police were able to delete records entirely after a certain period, depending on the nature of the offence, the disposal and the age of the person at the time of the offence. The police were not obliged to delete records, however, and many records that may have been eligible for deletion did not get deleted. If you had cautions or convictions before 2006 that do not appear on standard or enhanced DBS checks, it is likely that they have been deleted under the old 'weeding' guidelines'._

So, basically yours may or may not have been deleted!


----------



## 1%er (Jun 27, 2014)

skampino said:


> This is what is on the NACRO (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders) website:
> 
> _'Prior to 2006, police were able to delete records entirely after a certain period, depending on the nature of the offence, the disposal and the age of the person at the time of the offence. The police were not obliged to delete records, however, and many records that may have been eligible for deletion did not get deleted. If you had cautions or convictions before 2006 that do not appear on standard or enhanced DBS checks, it is likely that they have been deleted under the old 'weeding' guidelines'._
> 
> So, basically yours may or may not have been deleted!


But it goes on to say "As of 29 May 2013, the DBS introduced a filtering system*" 

*On 29 May 2013, an amendment to the Police Act 1997 was implemented that allows certain minor offences to be removed or ‘filtered’ from the certificates. Offences that are eligible to be filtered no longer need to be disclosed for jobs that are eligible for standard or enhanced DBS checks.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 27, 2014)

youngian said:


> I had a 20+ year old minor dope charge bought up on a CRB, that did not feel good as I've kept my nose clean for over two decades and has no relevance to weeding out sex offenders.
> 
> My employers had the good sense to let it pass but it struck me at the time this was in violation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I am sure there are many good people put off doing community work with young people because they do not want their past being dragged up and are entitled to move on and forget. This is very good news.


This is why I don't volunteer in my kid's school. I don't want the who town know I've got a conviction for possession. So will that not show up any more? 

I could pretend I'd forgotten if it does. It was  very long time ago


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 27, 2014)

would it really impact negatively on you to have been done for possession many years ago?  wouldn't that make you look a big gangster, like?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 27, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> would it really impact negatively on you to have been done for possession many years ago?  wouldn't that make you look a big gangster, like?


I think the issue is more, ‘if you don't tell anyone, no one will know’, and you maintain a degree of control over the information.

Whereas, if you do disclose that information, even if to a data controller who is obliged handle that information in a clearly prescribed, confidential manner, you have no control over their competence, discretion or professional ability to actually do so.

And should that information - imparted confidentially and in good faith - not be handled in the right way, either by poor records handling, poor chain of custody, inappropriate circulation (eg circulated to person or persons not legally entitled to have that information, by accident or oversight), or plain old gossiping, what _should_ have happened is irrelevant: the information, for good or bad, is out there, and cannot be retrieved.

In small communities such as within a school leadership, the effects of that unauthorised circulation of confidential information could be reputationally catastrophic, for the individual concerned, for those close to the individual, and for the school as a whole.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 27, 2014)

my three 3 counts of petty theft from 1985 (when i was aged 17-18 and a bit of a twat) will continue to come up everytime i apply for a job for the rest of my life. 

Although it hasn't stopped me getting permanent work in the community sector - im pretty sure its why i've had zero work through housing/community sector employment agencies over the past three years.

However my caution from 1997 for saying "fuck off pig"  to a copper at a RTS street protest no longer comes up.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 27, 2014)

1%er said:


> Yesterday the law changed in regard to criminal records.
> 
> If as an adult you had a minor conviction (only one) that resulted in a non-custodial sentence more than 11 years ago, it should have now been removed from the records of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formally the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and will not show up if your employers applies for a check on you. (five and a half years for young offenders).
> 
> ...




What counts as a minor conviction?  The whole point about CRB disclosures was that nothing was ever spent.  Have you a link to the law changes?


Sorry, just notice the OP is a year old.


----------



## skampino (Jun 28, 2014)

Yes there is a filtering system under the DBS but if prior to 2006 your record has already been deleted it can't possibly show up.



1%er said:


> But it goes on to say "As of 29 May 2013, the DBS introduced a filtering system*"
> 
> *On 29 May 2013, an amendment to the Police Act 1997 was implemented that allows certain minor offences to be removed or ‘filtered’ from the certificates. Offences that are eligible to be filtered no longer need to be disclosed for jobs that are eligible for standard or enhanced DBS checks.


----------



## stereoisomer (Jun 28, 2014)

I was convicted of intent to supply MDMA in 2007. I was completely off my head psychotic at the time (I thought angels were telling me to do it ffs). It's not really been an issue since then, but now as part of my PhD course I have to do this thing where I go into schools and give talks about science- and that requires an enhanced DBS. I was really pissed off to find out that my 'offence' (hate that word- implied someone was offended against) is considered to be in the same league as being a rapist or a paedophile- because it was class A drugs. I only got probation because of the mental health thing- but it's still considered a 'serious offence' I guess. 

I've been wondering if I can appeal. At the time my only concern was not being sent back to hospital- so I didn't tell the police anything, and I pleaded guilty. Perhaps if I had told my solicitor about the angels etc he would have advised me to plead insanity. That is a thing in English law, I checked.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 28, 2014)

I live in a very small community. It's very gossipy and I don't have a lot of faith in people's ability to maintain professional confidentiality


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2014)

Both my convictions (possession of a class B controlled substance and disobeying a court bailiff) still show up. Never stopped me getting a job though.


----------



## RubyBlue (Jun 28, 2014)

doledosser2 said:


> Not true.


It's no use saying 'not true' without providing correct or updated information.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...9916/rehabilitation-of-offenders-guidance.pdf

According to the above guidance the period until the conviction is considered spent appears to have been reduced since I wrote my previous post.  Also, perhaps I should have written 'spent' rather then 'wiped' in the post you referred to.
_

" A 6 month sentence of detention given to a young person may become spent after 2 years: the rehabilitation period is the period of the sentence plus a further ‘buffer period’ of 18 months, giving a total of 2 years. "_


----------



## RubyBlue (Jun 28, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> my three 3 counts of petty theft from 1985 (when i was aged 17-18 and a bit of a twat) will continue to come up everytime i apply for a job for the rest of my life.
> 
> Although it hasn't stopped me getting permanent work in the community sector - im pretty sure its why i've had zero work through housing/community sector employment agencies over the past three years.
> 
> However my caution from 1997 for saying "fuck off pig"  to a copper at a RTS street protest no longer comes up.



Why?  What sentence did you get?  My 3 month sentence at a Detention Centre when I was 19 never, ever comes up, (including when I applied to the Civil Service 6.5 years later). I regularly have to provide an updated CRB check and it's always been clean as a whistle - it has long since been seen as spent and wiped.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 28, 2014)

RubyBlue said:


> Why?  What sentence did you get?  My 3 month sentence at a Detention Centre when I was 19 never, ever comes up, I regularly have to provide an updated CRB check and it's always been clean as a whistle - it has long since been seen as spent and wiped.



fine, community service and probation. Your spell in DC should come up under an enhanced CRB. 

An enhanced check will always show up your previous. As i understand it - they've tweaked it a bit so if you've got one minor offence and cautions get wiped after a few years. There's also a long list of offences which are exempt - sexual offences and violence.


----------



## RubyBlue (Jun 28, 2014)

Oh I understand now - I don't think I've ever had an enhanced check, just the general standard - don't think I would ever need an enhanced though and it was 30 years ago 

eta:  But under the Guidance on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 that I linked to above seems to suggest that it would be 'spent' after 2 years?  Do 'spent' convictions still appear on an enhanced check and not on a 'standard' one?


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2014)

Yes, that's the whole point of CRB checks. Nothing is spent.


----------



## skampino (Jun 28, 2014)

The only way to find out exactly what is on your record is to complete a Subject Access Request (SAR). It costs about £10 but will tell you what's held on the Police National Computer/Database (PNC or PND).


----------



## stowpirate (Jun 28, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, that's the whole point of CRB checks. Nothing is spent.


It is how they use the information that needs to be changed?


----------



## RubyBlue (Jun 28, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, that's the whole point of CRB checks. Nothing is spent.



Well not really, most application forms only ask you to list 'unspent' convictions.  It seems (from what I have just read here) 'spent' convictions only appear on an enhanced check and not standard checks and as most jobs don't require an enhanced disclosure most people should be fine.

I've never had an enhanced check, only standard and I come up with a clean record - but I get the point you make.

As an aside - I changed my name 12 years after my last conviction - I wonder if that has made a difference?  I always assumed not and with the plod unable to update databases correctly perhaps so.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 28, 2014)

My understanding is that all convictions appeared on CRB checks, both standard and enhanced. Jobs that require a CRB being exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. 

The difference between enhanced and standard disclosures being that enhanced can also include comments and extra information from senior officers as well as convictions.

Some of this may have changed however with the change from CRB to DBS.


----------



## RubyBlue (Jun 29, 2014)

doledosser2 said:


> I'd love to see spent convictions wiped from a basic disclosure but at present that doesn't happen.



Except mine - guess I'm the luckiest crim in the UK then


----------



## skampino (Jun 30, 2014)

doledosser2 said:


> I didn't need to elaborate. No conviction is ever wiped or erased. Everything shows up on a crb check. It's upto the hr department wether or not that conviction is truly spent.
> 
> I'd love to see spent convictions wiped from a basic disclosure but at present that doesn't happen.


 
Actually not everything shows up on an Enhanced Disclosure. Its up to the Chief Of Police as to how old the offence is, whether its spent BUT whether it is relevant to the job.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 30, 2014)

skampino said:


> Actually not everything shows up on an Enhanced Disclosure. Its up to the Chief Of Police as to how old the offence is, whether its spent BUT whether it is relevant to the job.



I don't think that's accurate. The difference between standard and enhanced is the extra information the senior police can include. It's that where the discretion is, not the offences.


----------



## jusali (Jun 30, 2014)

How does this relate to visa applications?
I got possession for weed back in the early 90's


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 30, 2014)

"Takes about four weeks" (from that link)

Ha ha ha! More like four months!


----------



## Combustible (Jun 30, 2014)

doledosser2 said:


> https://www.gov.uk/disclosure-barring-service-check/overview
> Basic disclosure checks for spent and unspent convictions. It makes a mockery of the rehabilitation of offenders act.



That is for a standard disclosure isn't it?

According to this, spent and unspent convictions appear on  standard and enhanced checks. Only unspent convictions show up on a basic disclosure.


----------



## Liljohn (Aug 24, 2014)

I had a caution for call hoax aged 15 (2010) and another caution possession of offensive weapon aged 18 (2012) will these show up on the enhanced check as of august 2014? I'm 19 now.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 24, 2014)

Liljohn said:


> I had a caution for call hoax aged 15 (2010) and another caution possession of offensive weapon aged 18 (2012) will these show up on the enhanced check as of august 2014? I'm 19 now.


I think so 
Enhanced disclosures: also discloses all convictions, cautions, final warning and reprimands (that are not protected) held on the Police National Computer. Enhanced disclosure may also reveal local police information (e.g. details of allegations, arrests, not guilty verdicts etc.) that is felt to be relevant to the job.


----------



## Liljohn (Aug 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> I think so
> Enhanced disclosures: also discloses all convictions, cautions, final warning and reprimands (that are not protected) held on the Police National Computer. Enhanced disclosure may also reveal local police information (e.g. details of allegations, arrests, not guilty verdicts etc.) that is felt to be relevant to the job.



Cheers for clearing that one out but what I find rather strange is that I've applied to join the army in february 2014 and two weeks later I was told that I've passed the criminal checks which is very weird because as I said before I've got two cautions. I never continued my application with the army as I only wanted to check if I'd pass the criminal checks. 


Is the checks the the army do and the enhanced checks the same? I would have thought joining the army with caution would be a lot harder then getting a warehouse job with a caution, considering I would be in total charge of a live weapon in the army.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 24, 2014)

Liljohn said:


> Cheers for clearing that one out but what I find rather strange is that I've applied to join the army in february 2014 and two weeks later I was told that I've passed the criminal checks which is very weird because as I said before I've got two cautions. I never continued my application with the army as I only wanted to check if I'd pass the criminal checks.
> 
> 
> Is the checks the the army do and the enhanced checks the same? I would have thought joining the army with caution would be a lot harder then getting a warehouse job with a caution, considering I would be in total charge of a live weapon in the army.


I have no idea what check the army do, but if you want to know what info the DBS holds on you do a "subject access request"

A glib response may be, possession of offensive weapon is a good thing for joining the army


----------



## Liljohn (Aug 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> I have no idea what check the army do, but if you want to know what info the DBS holds on you do a "subject access request"
> 
> A glib response may be, possession of offensive weapon is a good thing for joining the army



Thanks for the info. Yes lol I was surprised by the army as well.


----------



## bmd (Aug 24, 2014)

Liljohn said:


> Thanks for the info. Yes lol I was surprised by the army as well.


 
It's an Enhanced check for the military.


----------



## Liljohn (Aug 24, 2014)

bmd said:


> It's an Enhanced check for the military.


 So is the army just a standard check?


----------



## kenny g (Aug 24, 2014)

Here we go again. The NACRO website is out of fucking date. DBS enhanced checks WILL NOT list a raft of offences from the past. (Surprisingly cultivation of a Class B will always show up but possession will not show up after a certain time frame.) Everything stays on your Police National Computer record but this CAN NOT legally  be disclosed for DBS purposes.  The law changed a few years back as a result of a supreme Court ruling. This link https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-filtering-guidance is from the DBS and is correct.

If you apply for GCHQ/Mi5/ The Police they will do a security vet which will allow them full access to loads of records including PNC checks. I don't have a clue about the army procedures.


----------



## savoloysam (Aug 25, 2014)

Accoriding to that info if you have have more than one conviction (for anything it seems) then it will be disclosed at any time

_where the individual has more than one conviction all convictions will be included on the certificate 
(noconviction will be filtered)_

Does that mean if you have say two convictions for minor crime such as shop lifting if will never be spent?


----------



## kenny g (Aug 26, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> Accoriding to that info if you have have more than one conviction (for anything it seems) then it will be disclosed at any time
> 
> _where the individual has more than one conviction all convictions will be included on the certificate
> (noconviction will be filtered)_
> ...



That is my understanding of it. I don't know whether two convictions for different minor offences show up.

Another issue is how should you respond to out of date job application forms that ask you outright if you have ever been cautioned for a crime. The caution may not show up on an enhanced DBS but are you committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 by falsely representing you have not been cautioned? The guidance seems to be clear that you can , in effect, lie in this case and respond in the negative.


----------



## Chipboard (Apr 30, 2015)

In 1993 I served 3 months of a 6 month prison sentence for handling stolen goods. Long and boring story but the long and short, I took the wrap for my now ex wife who was storing stolen items in our home for her brother. Police gave us a choice of who had to be arrested, as we had a 3 year old son at the time it had to be me. 22 years on I have a fantastic job offer working for a national organisation that will involve a Criminal Records as there are security interests involved. I have never committed any crime before or since other than the odd motoring offence. I'm guessing this will show up on a CRB check or whatever they are called these days? If so I will have to turn down the job offer. I'd appreciate any advice.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 30, 2015)

If it relates to security it's more likely to be SC or DV than DBS. And in that case a prison sentence is likely to come up, I'm afraid.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 30, 2015)

Chipboard said:


> In 1993 I served 3 months of a 6 month prison sentence for handling stolen goods. Long and boring story but the long and short, I took the wrap for my now ex wife who was storing stolen items in our home for her brother. Police gave us a choice of who had to be arrested, as we had a 3 year old son at the time it had to be me. 22 years on I have a fantastic job offer working for a national organisation that will involve a Criminal Records as there are security interests involved. I have never committed any crime before or since other than the odd motoring offence. I'm guessing this will show up on a CRB check or whatever they are called these days? If so I will have to turn down the job offer. I'd appreciate any advice.



It will come up. It doesn't mean you won't get the job. It was over 20 years ago, you are remorseful (aren't you), you learnt your lesson (didn't you) and you won't do it again (will you).


----------



## jakethesnake (Apr 30, 2015)

Chipboard said:


> In 1993 I served 3 months of a 6 month prison sentence for handling stolen goods. Long and boring story but the long and short, I took the wrap for my now ex wife who was storing stolen items in our home for her brother. Police gave us a choice of who had to be arrested, as we had a 3 year old son at the time it had to be me. 22 years on I have a fantastic job offer working for a national organisation that will involve a Criminal Records as there are security interests involved. I have never committed any crime before or since other than the odd motoring offence. I'm guessing this will show up on a CRB check or whatever they are called these days? If so I will have to turn down the job offer. I'd appreciate any advice.


It will be embarrassing as your potential employers will probably want to discuss it with you but there is every chance that they will still give you the job - a clean record since shows that it was only a blip and that you learnt from the experience.


----------



## kenny g (May 1, 2015)

Chipboard said:


> In 1993 I served 3 months of a 6 month prison sentence for handling stolen goods. Long and boring story but the long and short, I took the wrap for my now ex wife who was storing stolen items in our home for her brother. Police gave us a choice of who had to be arrested, as we had a 3 year old son at the time it had to be me. 22 years on I have a fantastic job offer working for a national organisation that will involve a Criminal Records as there are security interests involved. I have never committed any crime before or since other than the odd motoring offence. I'm guessing this will show up on a CRB check or whatever they are called these days? If so I will have to turn down the job offer. I'd appreciate any advice.



Have you done a DPA check to see if it does show up on your PNC? From that far back it may have completely dropped off the radar. Good Luck


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 1, 2015)

Liljohn said:


> Cheers for clearing that one out but what I find rather strange is that I've applied to join the army in february 2014 and two weeks later I was told that I've passed the criminal checks which is very weird because as I said before I've got two cautions. I never continued my application with the army as I only wanted to check if I'd pass the criminal checks.
> 
> 
> Is the checks the the army do and the enhanced checks the same? I would have thought joining the army with caution would be a lot harder then getting a warehouse job with a caution, considering I would be in total charge of a live weapon in the army.



i imagine the army would say experience of carrying an offensive weapon comes under relevant experience


----------



## ffsear (May 1, 2015)

When i was charged under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, i was told it was 6 years.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2015)

Just realised my conviction was spent four years back, and I've still been declaring it on application forms 

I thought it would be spent after five years, but they seem to have changed the rules back in 2014 and retrospectively applied them to older convictions.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2015)

Chipboard said:


> Police gave us a choice of who had to be arrested



This is equal parts oddly kind of them and utterly ridiculous.

e2a: Really classy stuff from your brother in law there. Putting a family with a young kid at risk like that. Was he even gonna cut you in?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 1, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> It will come up. It doesn't mean you won't get the job. It was over 20 years ago, you are remorseful (aren't you), you learnt your lesson (didn't you) and you won't do it again (will you).



I learnt my lesson guv I swear. Never got married again, not once.


----------



## Blagsta (May 1, 2015)

ffsear said:


> When i was charged under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, i was told it was 6 years.



It depends on the sentence received, not the offence.


----------



## Diego Jerez (May 23, 2015)

Showing results for in 1976 when i was 21 years of age i was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for robbery/ *mugging* but since then i have been out of *trouble* for 38 years. would i still have a criminal record when applying for a job.


----------



## Melissa Scott (May 21, 2017)

i was in a bad situation,and i really need to wipe my name from the website cause it could've have brought problem to me and my family. I saw a post by a users and i contacted CuntySchizzleFace, at first i doubted if he could handle the job, he did it with a success. I owe CuntySchizzleFace my all. And thanks to Cuntyfor this important info, i will advice you to check my profile for his contact email

(ed: slight edit)


----------



## ddraig (May 21, 2017)

Melissa Scott said:


> i was in a bad situation,and i really need to wipe my name from the website cause it could've have brought problem to me and my family. I saw a post by a users and i contacted Zeus Haines, at first i doubted if he could handle the job, he did it with a success. I owe Zeus Haines my all. And thanks to robert for this important info, i will advice you to check my profile for his contact email


nothing on there
crap spambot!


----------



## editor (May 22, 2017)

Melissa Scott said:


> i was in a bad situation,and i really need to wipe my name from the website cause it could've have brought problem to me and my family. I saw a post by a users and i contacted CuntySchizzleFace, at first i doubted if he could handle the job, he did it with a success. I owe CuntySchizzleFace my all. And thanks to Cuntyfor this important info, i will advice you to check my profile for his contact email


I 'advice you' to fuck off.


----------



## Ariadne1491 (May 29, 2017)

stereoisomer said:
			
		

> I was convicted of intent to supply MDMA in 2007. I was completely off my head psychotic at the time (I thought angels were telling me to do it ffs). It's not really been an issue since then, but now as part of my PhD course I have to do this thing where I go into schools and give talks about science- and that requires an enhanced DBS. I was really pissed off to find out that my 'offence' (hate that word- implied someone was offended against) is considered to be in the same league as being a rapist or a paedophile- because it was class A drugs. I only got probation because of the mental health thing- but it's still considered a 'serious offence' I guess.
> 
> I've been wondering if I can appeal. At the time my only concern was not being sent back to hospital- so I didn't tell the police anything, and I pleaded guilty. Perhaps if I had told my solicitor about the angels etc he would have advised me to plead insanity. That is a thing in English law, I checked.


Hello 
I was in a similar situation: got a caution for mdma with intent to supply (when I only had about one bomb!) when going into a festival on my 21st birthday no less! I have a tefl qualification and so every time I apply for a new job it requires an enhanced crb which is humiliating and has lost me more than a few jobs. I recently applied to get my caution deleted however and I was successful! I used a solicitor and the whole thing came to about £800, costly but in my opinion worth it. I used someone called David Wacks crbproblems who did everything over phone and email but feel free to search around and good luck!


----------



## Ceej (May 29, 2017)

It's all so bloody random - I have three cautions from the late 70's marching, protesting, public disorder stuff - I work in a school and have now had 3 three-yearly edbs and they've never shown.


----------



## keybored (May 29, 2017)

Ariadne1491 said:


> Hello
> I was in a similar situation: got a caution for mdma with intent to supply (when I only had about one bomb!) when going into a festival on my 21st birthday no less! I have a tefl qualification and so every time I apply for a new job it requires an enhanced crb which is humiliating and has lost me more than a few jobs. I recently applied to get my caution deleted however and I was successful! I used a solicitor and the whole thing came to about £800, costly but in my opinion worth it. I used someone called David Wacks crbproblems who did everything over phone and email but feel free to search around and good luck!


First time I've ever heard of anyone getting off with a caution for intent to supply a class A drug.


----------



## girasol (May 29, 2017)

keybored said:


> First time I've ever heard of anyone getting off with a caution for intent to supply a class A drug.



Maybe it was a first offence + a very small amount + good solicitor + luck?


----------



## keybored (May 29, 2017)

girasol said:


> Maybe it was a first offence + a very small amount + good solicitor + luck?


Maybe. For my first offence (1 pill, aged 18) the prosecution pushed it to crown court for trial, then dropped it to simple possession (result: 190 hours community service).


----------



## girasol (May 29, 2017)

keybored said:


> Maybe. For my first offence (1 pill, aged 18) the prosecution pushed it to crown court for trial, then dropped it to simple possession (result: 190 hours community service).



Unless they have hard evidence of intent to supply (text messages, witnesses, or very large quantities) it's hard to prove intent.

My son (under 18) got done for PWITS - he didn't have a large amount but there were video and text messages.  Without this evidence it would only have been possession.


----------



## ice-is-forming (May 29, 2017)




----------



## Gromit (May 29, 2017)

ice-is-forming said:


>


Not good enough. I say make them promise to do the dishes for a year.


----------



## ice-is-forming (May 29, 2017)

Gromit said:


> Not good enough. I say make them promise to do the dishes for a year.



 It's a bit like that hey! i reckon they should all have their phones taken away.

Nah.. i dunno.. Qld (or Aus in general) we seem to be very good at saying sorry but not actually _doing _sorry. For anything. Last week my town was the only one regionally who's council didn't have a process for raising a the rainbow flag! I'm a gonna go ninja and raise an Anarchy flag next week  nah.. i probably won't   We've been making it all about the process and not the issue. It'll be raised next year.

This happened in the town over from me in 2008..

_A CONVICTED killer could be freed in a little more than two years despite being jailed for the brutal bashing death of a man he claims made homosexual overtures towards him._

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

This happened last week..

_Queensland's so-called "gay panic" defence for murder has been scrapped following a vote in state parliament.
_
‘Gay panic’ defence thrown out in Qld

it took them a while.


----------



## ice-is-forming (May 29, 2017)

> i was in a bad situation,and i really need to wipe my name from the website cause it could've have brought problem to me and my family. I saw a post by a users and i contacted Zeus Haines, at first i doubted if he could handle the job, he did it with a success. I owe Zeus Haines my all. And thanks to robert for this important info, i will advice you to check my profile for his contact email





Ariadne1491 said:


> Hello
> I was in a similar situation: got a caution for mdma with intent to supply (when I only had about one bomb!) when going into a festival on my 21st birthday no less! I have a tefl qualification and so every time I apply for a new job it requires an enhanced crb which is humiliating and has lost me more than a few jobs. I recently applied to get my caution deleted however and I was successful! I used a solicitor and the whole thing came to about £800, costly but in my opinion worth it. I used someone called David Wacks crbproblems who did everything over phone and email but feel free to search around and good luck!





Hello new members


----------



## ice-is-forming (May 29, 2017)

Blagsta said:


> It will come up. It doesn't mean you won't get the job. It was over 20 years ago, you are remorseful (aren't you), you learnt your lesson (didn't you) and you won't do it again (will you).



This x 1000. This is exactly what they need to hear on an enhanced check (or whatever you call it) like the army or first responders .. it ticks all the boxes. I've found this out from experience through department of correctional services, who it has to be said are a rule unto themselves at the best of times. 

it pisses me off tbh. There are so many people who'd like to work in the community sector who have convictions that stop them from being able to  I believe there should be some basic filters and then filtered on a needs and individual basis.


----------



## Gromit (May 29, 2017)

ice-is-forming said:


> This x 1000. This is exactly what they need to hear on an enhanced check (or whatever you call it) like the army or first responders .. it ticks all the boxes. I've found this out from experience through department of correctional services, who it has to be said are a rule unto themselves at the best of times.
> 
> it pisses me off tbh. There are so many people who'd like to work in the community sector who have convictions that stop them from being able to  I believe there should be some basic filters and then filtered on a needs and individual basis.


Do you mean like ex addicts being valuable assets able to council addicts from a place of experience... providing they were never caught. 

Whereas those that were caught, well we can't have you working with vulnerable people.


----------



## ice-is-forming (May 29, 2017)

Gromit said:


> Do you mean like ex addicts being valuable assets able to council addicts from a place of experience... providing they were never caught.
> 
> Whereas those that were caught, well we can't have you working with vulnerable people.



Exactly


----------



## steven Mitchell (Jan 26, 2019)

1%er said:


> Yesterday the law changed in regard to criminal records.
> 
> If as an adult you had a minor conviction (only one) that resulted in a non-custodial sentence more than 11 years ago, it should have now been removed from the records of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formally the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and will not show up if your employers applies for a check on you. (five and a half years for young offenders).
> 
> ...





When I was 16 in 1982 I had been in trouble twice  1 cautions on one and a fine of £5.00 on the other I am now 52years old and they still appear on my DBS they Don't get removed


----------



## 1%er (Jan 26, 2019)

steven Mitchell said:


> When I was 16 in 1982 I had been in trouble twice  1 cautions on one and a fine of £5.00 on the other I am now 52years old and they still appear on my DBS they Don't get removed


This has been in the courts for years because the UK government challenged the 2013 ruling, but last year the UK Supreme Court declared that the current system was incompatible with Art.8, I haven't looked to see if their full judgement has been published yet.

In early 2013, a court case known as ‘T’ found that the automatic disclosure of all convictions and cautions, therefore including both spent and unspent ones, in standard and enhanced checks was disproportionate, and therefore incompatible with the right to private life under article 8 of the UK Human Rights Act. After initial resistance, the Government responded to this case by introducing a so-called filtering system by means of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) Order 2013. The 2013 Amendment Order identified which convictions and cautions can no longer be disclosed in standard and enhanced checks.

In a nutshell, the 2013 Amendment Order established the following: single convictions (meaning that the person has no other conviction on record) for listed non-violent, non-sexual offenses that did not lead to a custodial sentence or a suspended sentence are currently filtered out after 11 years (or after five years and six months if the offender was a minor at the time of the offense) since the date of the conviction. In regard to cautions, the filtering mechanism applies if the caution does not relate to a listed violent or sexual offense and if six years or more (for adults) or two years or more (for minors) have elapsed since the date on which the caution was given

There are three levels of criminal background checks administered by the Disclosure and Barring Service which depend on the type of job a person is applying for and related duties.
(1)	Basic level checks: this type of check contains only details of all unspent convictions. Any person one can apply for a basic check and employers can ask all job applicants to apply for a basic check during the hiring process. It potentially applies to each and every position and it is commonly used for jobs in the retail and hospitality industry as well as office work.

(2)	 Standard level checks: A standard check discloses an individual’s spent and unspent convictions, cautions (a strong formal warning where you have to admit an offense and agree to be cautioned), and simple police warnings. This more in-depth check is often required for careers such as medical practitioners, lawyers, and accountants.

(3)	Enhanced level checks: this level of check discloses an individual’s full criminal record, reporting spent and unspent convictions, cautions, police warnings and also information held by the Disclosure and Barring Service (for positions in regulated activity) and by the police that is relevant to the role applied for. Enhanced checks are normally required for individuals who wish to work with vulnerable populations such as children, people with disability, and the elderly.

If I come across the full Judgement I'll post a link.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 26, 2019)

I am sure I saw a tweet this morning about it being a current Supreme Court case. I will have a look & get back.


----------



## 1%er (Jan 26, 2019)

MrSki said:


> I am sure I saw a tweet this morning about it being a current Supreme Court case. I will have a look & get back.


I thought I read that the case has been heard and is awaiting the publication of the full Judgement, the case was brought by the charity "Unlock" and was ruled on in 2018, I could be wrong as I haven't followed UK law much since I retired, but I'm sure I read that the UK Supreme Court said that the current system is incomparable with article 8 of the Human Rights Act


----------



## Badgers (Jan 26, 2019)

I have ten or twenty a few misdemeanours from a mispent youth (13-35ish) and got a thorough check from King's Hospital and EVERY single thing (cautions from the 80s, driving offences and other stuffs) was listed on the CRB  that includes a few drugs/public order offences that I was told (by London's finest) that they would 'disappear' after a few years.

I look forward to work asking me to fly to the US


----------



## nogojones (Jan 26, 2019)

Badgers said:


> I have ten or twenty a few misdemeanours from a mispent youth (13-35ish) and got a thorough check from King's Hospital and EVERY single thing (cautions from the 80s, driving offences and other stuffs) was listed on the CRB  that includes a few drugs/public order offences that I was told (by London's finest) that they would 'disappear' after a few years.
> 
> I look forward to work asking me to fly to the US


I think there might a be a short thread on how to do that somewhere here


----------



## Badgers (Jan 26, 2019)

nogojones said:


> I think there might a be a short thread on how to do that somewhere here


I might start a new thread to make sure


----------



## MrSki (Jan 26, 2019)

1%er said:


> I thought I read that the case has been heard and is awaiting the publication of the full Judgement, the case was brought by the charity "Unlock" and was ruled on in 2018, I could be wrong as I haven't followed UK law much since I retired, but I'm sure I read that the UK Supreme Court said that the current system is incomparable with article 8 of the Human Rights Act


You are probably right. I just remember seeing a tweet about it. It could be the full judgement is about to be released.  I follow various Chambers & other legal sites & can't even remember who tweeted it. If it pops up again I will let you know. Sorry.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 26, 2019)

Ah. My two convictions under the IIRC 1886 Explosives Act will have been wiped then. It was 45 years ago. 
You should have seen the recruiting sgt's face when I joined the army in 1976. 

'Any convictions?' 'Two' 'What for?' 'Explosives Act' 'WHAT!'

First was for having 150lbs of gelignite where ten was permissible. The second was for 500lbs of gelignite on a public ferry.

Fined £50.00 both times, the company paid the fines.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 26, 2019)

To be honest most coppers are very relaxed about this as they come accross so many people with records. It is arse coverers in other responsible roles who are willing to worry about tedious shite from years in peoples past. Madness to be honest especially when it comes to cautiins where the people who signed them never expected them to be part of a permanent record and just wanted to be released from custody.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 26, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ah. My two convictions in 1886 will have been wiped then


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 26, 2019)




----------



## Gromit (Jan 26, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ah. My two convictions... will have been wiped then.



Not wiped as such. It's just that the papyrus scrolls are illegible.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 26, 2019)




----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 26, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Not wiped as such. It's just that the papyrus scrolls are illegible.



My skill with explosives has not been forgotten.


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 26, 2019)

anyone ever used the Acro service

would be interesting to see what pop up without an enhanced discloser

or is that asking for trouble


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 26, 2019)

I have an enhanced DBS and neither my spent conviction nor police cautions came up on it.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Jan 27, 2019)

Awesome! I can now stop telling my employers about those drugs. 
I thought that the last time it came up clear the procurator fiscal was just being nice.


----------

