By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
RG - try not to look at rehabilitation periods as "second sentences" (although I know they feel like it sometimes).
It would be wrong, in my view, if we had a system which differentiated between different "types" of crime. The important thing is that a universal barometer is used - that being the sentence handed down - as being the litmus test for the rehabilitation period. That may mean that once person sentenced to ABH and one sentenced to GBH get the same disclosure period, but that's because they received the same sentence, which follows from the "seriousness" of the specific circumstances (not necessarily the "title" under which someone was convicted)
Need information/advice?
1. Is your question already answered? Check our online Information Hub, Frequently Asked Questions, Publications, Links & Members Forum
2. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Ask the community a question
3. Still don’t know the answer? Ask UNLOCK
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
CS
I don't disagree with anything you've said. My point was simply that the exceptions have been there for 37 years, so based on your argument, the issue is not with the legislation, but rather to take up of it (i.e. employers attitudes to vetting etc). That isn't the same as disagreeing with the principle of exceptions to the act.
However, you'd be looking at this from a slightly skewed perspective if you think that the ROA changes won't help anybody, or that all jobs require standard or enhanced checks. I agree, too many do, and indeed too many professional ones, but not all.
Need information/advice?
1. Is your question already answered? Check our online Information Hub, Frequently Asked Questions, Publications, Links & Members Forum
2. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Ask the community a question
3. Still don’t know the answer? Ask UNLOCK
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
turbo - that's great to hear. Bet you can't wait for the changes to come in.
cmoorejnr83 - no date available yet. Still 'Spring 2013' - sign up to Unlock's magazine, theRecord, and keep an eye out on our homepage/Twitter for when date is announced!
Need information/advice?
1. Visit our online Information Hub, including Frequently Asked Questions, Publications, and Links at www.unlock.org.uk
2. Ask the community at forum.unlock.org.uk
3. Contact our Helpline
Use our online form: www.unlock.org.uk/staticpage.aspx?pid=160
Email us: advice@unlock.org.uk
Call us: 01634 247350 (Tuesdays & Thursdays, 9am to 5pm)
Write to us: IAS, Unlock, 35a High Street, Snodland, Kent, ME6 5AG
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
Congrats Turbo. What experience do you have with investment banks; are they now increasingly performing basic checks instead of enhanced?
Id also be interested to hear of your experience in obtaining SC. Was this a difficult process?
Cheers xl
|
By AJH - 20 Aug 10 5:04 PM
Actually I think the reforms apply only to England and Wales. But it is very likely that the Scottish Parliament will follow suit on this pretty swiftly.
|
By AJH - 20 Aug 10 5:04 PM
Just to confirm here - on page 8 of the MoJ business plan, the LASPO Act provisions on the ROA are to be commenced in May 2013:
www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MOJ-2012-Business-Plan.pdf
The way change occurs to begin with, if you come up with a good idea...you're ignored. If you go on you must be mad, absolutely stark-staring bonkers. If you go on after that you're dangerous. Then, if the pressure keeps up there's a pause. And then you can't find anyone at the top who doesn't claim to have thought of it in the first place. That's how progress is made (Tony Benn).
|
By AJH - 20 Aug 10 5:04 PM
It is actually going to be 24 months on the end of the sentence expiry date for custodial sentences of less than 6 months. So the full term here with the 'buffer period' added on is anything up to 30 months.
Now granted, that isn't the same a 3 year community order followed by 12 months but it is worth bearing in mind that those who get short custodial sentences are probably much more likely to lose their home and their job (if they have one). Plus they have to spend time in a grotty local prison - so I'd say it's not really a better situation!
The way change occurs to begin with, if you come up with a good idea...you're ignored. If you go on you must be mad, absolutely stark-staring bonkers. If you go on after that you're dangerous. Then, if the pressure keeps up there's a pause. And then you can't find anyone at the top who doesn't claim to have thought of it in the first place. That's how progress is made (Tony Benn).
|
By d211q2 - 17 Jan 11 8:32 AM
I must say that firstly I appreciate that for some members the ROA reform proposals don't provide any improvement. For those in that category, I'm genuinely sorry - it must be very difficult, particularly considering that you by implication will also likely have served some long sentences.
Notwithstanding that, I do believe that any reform at all is a significant step forward. ROA reform cannot possibly at the forefront of many parties' political agenda. It is not something that enjoys wide public support, one only needs to look at the popular press's reaction to appreciate that. For a small organisation like UNLOCK to have pressed for reforms, of which a significant proportion seem currently likely to be acted upon, I feel is a good thing, and will make a difference to a great many former offenders. It undoubtedly is a pity that they don't go as far as they might, but I do strongly believe that any reform, particularly in the context of no changes at all in the last four decades, is a result that should not be regarded as a disappointment.
|
By d211q2 - 17 Jan 11 8:32 AM
Captain Sensible said...
Hi Christopher Stacy
The difference pre-96/7 was that the CRB question was rarely if ever asked by employers (eduction and training). In some cases you had to sign a Consent Form on acceptance of a job but this was not necessarily followed up. Perhaps they just wanted the option if you turned out to be a "problem".
The absolutely huge difference was that in those "golden" days your "Spent" convictions did not show up!!! Can you even begin to imagine how joyous that was? I happened to work in education and training (with young and vunerable people) pre conviction; during the time the conviction was live, and then with the "spent" convictions for over a decade, without incident. I was employed in FE until I left in 2002 to raise a family. It was some 5 years later when I tried to return to work that I realised it was now impossible to even secure an interview if you ticked the "yes I have spent convictions" box. If however you answered "no" to that question, you would get an interview, and you'd then go through the charade of explaining it when you were offered the job.
My gripe is that the 96/7 change has effectively ruined my otherwise successful and blemish-free career. Even though I have good references etc etc I feel like I am just not prepared to go through the "game" with employers, and have to drag up and relive something that happened over 25 years ago. The Taxpayer has subsidised my part-time education up to Masters level, and yet this small change in the law prevents me from putting something back into the community. I would not "volunteer" on principle. And I will not accept a "Mac Job". So it looks like I will be a burden on the Taxpayer for life. I just don't care any more. I could not have done more to establish myself as a good, hard-working trustworthy person. My record of promotions at work supports this. So to be suddenly "written off" halfway through your working life, 25 years post-conviction is really hard to stomach. I have zero faith in the State and almost wish I hadn't bothered with wasting my life studying and working.
In some ways, however, your circumstances aren't necessarily a result of CRB legislation, but of your own actions as response to it.
This brings up a wider issue for me, is that in some cases, ROA/CRB etc. though it is undeniably a barrier to employment in some cases, it isn't the only one. I worry that many members think there will be a huge variety of opportunities available once the amendments pass, but realistically that won't necessarily happen. Folk are going to have to be very pro-active in terms of seeking a job - just because one barrier has been removed, doesn't make it a cakewalk.
Notwithstanding the above, I think the amendment is an absolutely huge achievement by UNLOCK and its members. For a small charity to be able to influence the political agenda and make a difference really is very well done indeed.
I'd like to finish by saying I'm aware how precarious UNLOCK's financial situation is. I would like to urge fellow members to donate regularly - it's an important cause.
|
By Richard - 12 May 12 12:55 PM
ROA ,Rehabitation Of Offenders Bill2010, This Bill was about to be passed in the last parliament session as all parties agreed, but unfortunately there was no time left to make the Bill into Law in the last Parliament so the Bill is dead, Its now up to me and you to write to our MPs and campaign through the E partition for the Bill to be brought into this new session of Parliament. This Bill will reduce spend Convictions in a shorter time than the 1974 Bill been used at the moment.
|
By RD - 15 Apr 11 3:35 PM
Hi all,
It looks like someone with a 2 or 3 year community order (12M from end of order) will have longer to wait than someone who is imprisoned for 6 months (12M from end of sentence)! Is seems ludicrouse that an offence not deemed suitable for imprisonment remains declareable for longer than one that is!
Any thoughts?
|
By RG - 18 Sep 11 9:58 AM
Dear Andy,
Thank you. I expected it. Thats the reason I decided to scoot. Can earn wonderfully elsewhere than wait for these tossers! I will be back. I will get my passport without a doubt. But I take this as a challenge. Again being on a lucrative post overseas will do no harm on return. Rather than live with a stigma of a CRB check and worry.
cheers
RG
|
By RG - 18 Sep 11 9:58 AM
Dear Captain Sensible,
Yes but atleast they are thinking change now after 37 years. Unless spent convictions are wiped clean and strict rules to prevent employers from using conviction info to discriminate for posts which do not involve working directly with children and vulnerable adults happens its pretty much the same story.
Talking of violence there is no distinction between summary sentences and ABH and GBH . All attract the same rehab periods even though the law says summary offense should carry their own rehabilitation periods.
Take my case for disciplining my son, I was accused of Battery u/s 39 but the consequences are as bad as any other. I found a person who received a community sentence, I know another who received a fine, another a suspended sentence for similar ''Offence''. Until serious change comes about we have to endure.
cheers
RG
|
By RG - 18 Sep 11 9:58 AM
Dear Peter,
Thank you for agreeing with it. Its incredible, this country. I am not criticizing. On the one hand they say people have to get back into jobs and today there was a headline highlighting the huge number of households without any working individuals as the cause of the recession and gloom.
Then red tape, new rules, health and ****ty (apologies for the pun), so many direct and indirect hurdles prevent people from leading a free life. It has been an eye opener. Necessity is the mother of all invention. The system is what it is. The lack of a sense of urgency speaks for itself. I do not expect any major changes to be ushered in. After these rules kick in May 2013, maybe they will wait for a few years to analyze the changes before even thinking of what needs to be done. By that time a generation would have lost their earning potential and prime time.
cheers
RG
|
By RG - 18 Sep 11 9:58 AM
Rash,
You can count yourself amongst the lucky few. Since you are due to apply for ILR in APR 2013, the fine would be spent based on the amendments to the ROA 1974 which became law through the LASPO bill which is expected to become applicable from Apr-2013.
Yes ''No Rehabilitation for certain immigration decisions'' is tricky. You have no right of appeal against immigration decisions. So if a jobs worth decides you were of bad character because of a single conviction which was spent, you are done. All the National Insurance and Taxes you paid are usurped in one shot. It remains to be seen the aftermath of this change. Previously ROA was being used as the basis for deciding whether a person was of good character and in making the immigration decisions on whether to grant FLR,ILR and citizenship. Now the red tape powers are increased by this. It has the potential to open a pandora's box in the interim. For new people who migrate to this country (if at all) they have no recourse should this piece be used to deny them their legitimate expectations. So I will not be surprised to see litigations on this sentence bleeding the tax payer in the days ahead.
Since this is becoming the law in April-13, people that are already in this country as migrants and have contributed can sue the Home office on the grounds of legitimate expectations and for breach of Human rights should this change be used to deny them their dues.
Its all politics sans common sense m8. Count your blessings. If you had to apply for your ILR in Feb-2013, I would not be sure if they would have granted it to you.
RG
|
By Captain Sensible - 2 Feb 12 8:58 AM
Hi Christopher Stacy
The difference pre-96/7 was that the CRB question was rarely if ever asked by employers (eduction and training). In some cases you had to sign a Consent Form on acceptance of a job but this was not necessarily followed up. Perhaps they just wanted the option if you turned out to be a "problem".
The absolutely huge difference was that in those "golden" days your "Spent" convictions did not show up!!! Can you even begin to imagine how joyous that was? I happened to work in education and training (with young and vunerable people) pre conviction; during the time the conviction was live, and then with the "spent" convictions for over a decade, without incident. I was employed in FE until I left in 2002 to raise a family. It was some 5 years later when I tried to return to work that I realised it was now impossible to even secure an interview if you ticked the "yes I have spent convictions" box. If however you answered "no" to that question, you would get an interview, and you'd then go through the charade of explaining it when you were offered the job.
My gripe is that the 96/7 change has effectively ruined my otherwise successful and blemish-free career. Even though I have good references etc etc I feel like I am just not prepared to go through the "game" with employers, and have to drag up and relive something that happened over 25 years ago. The Taxpayer has subsidised my part-time education up to Masters level, and yet this small change in the law prevents me from putting something back into the community. I would not "volunteer" on principle. And I will not accept a "Mac Job". So it looks like I will be a burden on the Taxpayer for life. I just don't care any more. I could not have done more to establish myself as a good, hard-working trustworthy person. My record of promotions at work supports this. So to be suddenly "written off" halfway through your working life, 25 years post-conviction is really hard to stomach. I have zero faith in the State and almost wish I hadn't bothered with wasting my life studying and working.
|
By m_rash - 8 Feb 12 3:02 PM
Hi All
i have a question regarding Rehabilitation of Offenders ammendmnts. sorry if it's been answered already. actually i have a conviction which i got on 26th, August 2009. i was fined by court 300 pounds. it had to be spent on 26th August 2014. but due to new ammendments in ROA, it wd' have been spent on 26th August 2010.(New Rehablitation period of 1 Year for fines when it will apply).
But i have read as well that " no rehabilitation for certain immigration decisions"
now i have to apply for ILR next year in April 2013. can i apply for ILR or i will have to wait for 2014 when this conviction will be spent after 5 years please?
thanks for your respnse in advance
Rash
|
By reformedhacker - 4 Mar 12 3:31 PM
As a reformed criminal who has served a sentence of over 4 years I'd dearly like to be able to have my conviction spent one day.
My last offence was in 1996, I was sentenced in 1997 (after being on remand for nearly a year) and released in late 1999 just in time for the millennium. I have never offended since.
Despite nearly 15 years since conviction, and 12+ years since release, I have to expect to be classed as a criminal till the day I die. Where is the justice in that?
Andy
|
By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM
What's this guy going on about??
|
By gogo - 12 Mar 12 9:46 PM
would this affect scotland?
and also if it does get implemented will it only affect future convictions or all ongoing convictions?Post Edited (gogo) : 14/03/2012 01:51:24 GMT
|
By gogo - 12 Mar 12 9:46 PM
this might save me, so if i get convicted now it will still affect me? both region and time wise?
|
By gogo - 12 Mar 12 9:35 PM
just to clarify will the ROA changes also be implemented in Scotland once it commences in 2013
|
By ridgeback - 12 Apr 12 10:53 PM
I agree with so many that the proposals don't go far enough but on a purely selfish view I welcome them.
I was sentenced to 3 years in 1969. Until the CRB came in it was never a real problem. Now I am retired so work isn't a problem. At present the only problem is car insurance and I am looking forward to next year being able to tick the "no convictions" box. Mind you, I expect the convictions are on the insurance database so may not make much difference.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
It wont make much of a difference for the vast amount of people with criminal records. It will still come up on a CRB check.
|
By turbo - 2 May 12 5:18 PM
These upcoming changes WILL have a massive effect on my life.
I was sentenced to 3.5 years for assault back in 1989 (19 years old!) and have managed to build up a career working with blue chip companies and successfully becoming Security Cleared to work on MOD sites etc. I woked in Investment banking until 2004 and whilst obviously I cannot pass an enhanced and standard CRB check at the moment, being able to have a basic check (which is becomign the normal process in most recruitment now) without worries will make a massive difference to my life.
this was the only stumbling block for me and now I will be able to know that my past discrepancies (1 x theft, 1 x criminal damage and 1 x assault) 3 offences all committed 23-25 years ago will be spent..
Thansk Unlock...
|
By turbo - 2 May 12 5:18 PM
SC was the fairest process I have ever come across.
Basically if you dont try and hide anything they look upon it as honesty, which is all they really want to know about you, that you can be trusted.
Also you dont disclose to your company but a vetting agency.
Investment banks wll do standard or enhanced I believe now. But increasingly i am seeing BPSS which ony includes a Basic Check.
due to the assault ALL my convictions show up on a check, so this will really effet me in a positive manner. Looking further ahead I do still feel we 'ex offenders' are penalised for life due to the fact that our offences will ALWAYS come up on a CRB check (standard or enhanced). There really should be logical ad attainable step downs if clean sheet kept, not the current 100 year of age or death before these are wiped...
Keep up the great work Unlock....
|
By peter - 2 May 12 8:51 PM
Charh777
Yes your right but let us concentrate on working a way around this. For now we must all accept that some progress has been made and we need to reflect on this and work around other barriers. A door has opened so me personally will try to walk through it! I may have to come back through that door but every time I attempt the hinges are not as squeeky! Everyone needs hope in their life and further options so lets not forget whats been achieved so far and all the support from unlock on this matter regarding pressure to change any old outdated laws.
Thanks
Peter
|
By peter - 2 May 12 8:51 PM
I've already commented on this and asked Richard to take a look at the recent reforms passed in parliament on May 1st 2012. Main forum LASPO reforms to be implemented in spring 2013 after commencement order. It's a shame people don't read the forum properly before they ask questions as most times it has already been covered and the answers found.
Thanks
Peter
|
By cmoorejnr83 - 9 Dec 12 6:12 AM
I have 18 months left until my conviction is classed as unspent but recently read that this won't be the case come Spring time (only a few months away) I am looking at getting a car and totally forgot about having to declare it to the insurance, now I am so relieved as in a few months I can move on with my life without this weight hanging over me.
Anybody know the exact date the lew legistation comes into play or where we can fond out the date?
Thanks in advance guys 
|
By Billp - 15 Feb 14 5:24 PM
I received a three year prison sentence in the late 1960's. Once released it didn't actually make a lot of difference to me. It wasn't until Blair introduced CRB checking that I had any issues. I am now retired so work isn't a problem any more. The only day to day issue for me is car and household insurance. It is a good feeling that from March I will be able to legally tick the no unspent convictions box on proposal form at long last. I think it disgusting that after nearly half a century I am still being penalised for a crime committed so long ago. I am so in agreement with Turbo above that there should be some mechanism to allow people to clear all their record somehow.
|
By mas444 - 2 Sep 14 10:54 PM
Billp said...
It wasn't until Blair introduced CRB checking that I had any issues.
Oh the irony ...the same Blair that quite a groundswell of people are calling to be prosecuted for starting an illegal war...?
|
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM
Yes, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head Captain. I noticed the change in attitudes around ’95 whilst working in mental health. I jumped before I was pushed. Don’t agree with the education and life experience though; having plenty of both made you realize you’re banging your head on the wall, whilst those without are still struggling to convince the various HR departments that according to section blah blah they’re reformed and generally getting nowhere.
In the ROA stakes some won whilst the majority lost; back to the declaring v not debate then.
With all due respect
Regards
Marmite
|
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM
Ditto Andy.
The reforms didn’t span everybody as some hoped, but a few got something out of it. People like us lost, (big sentences), as did more than a few on the SOR.
There’s justice and there’s politics; the two are often incompatible, but at the end of the day, is justice is in the eye of the beholder? Those having been sentenced to 3.5 years will now consider justice to have been done, whist those given 4.5 years won’t. Swings and roundabouts. In the absence of justice that suits all, we just have to get on with it.
With all due respect
Regards
Marmite
|
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM
I would assume its a national thing and yes, ongoing convictions.
With all due respect
Regards
Marmite
|