Can i work in a school with a criminal record?

tigeress289 · 13 August 2011 at 10:22PM

Hello I need some advice and unbiased opinions. I recently started work in a local school where my wife has worked for over 20 years. I was taken on as caretaker and filled in a CRB form which I ticked as having a criminal record. The offence was in 1994 when I had a computer company, that had a turnover of £1.6m. It was found that I had sold £50K of stolen equipment which was less than 3% of my turnover. I was convicted of handling stolen goods and given 3 years and a £33426 fine as well as a forfeit order where £45000 of equipment was destroyed even when there was no proof it was stolen. Also over £150000 worth of computer equipment was returned to me after I was convicted with a value of less than £10000 as it had been in police storage for over 18 months from the day of my arrest to conviction.
17 years later I get a job in the school for 4 months and then get sacked by the HR for the record. All the law says is it can only be used if relevant to the job, as a conviction of over 2 years 6 months is never spent. The CRB is clear before that date and since. Quotes from staff and parents have been best caretaker the school has ever had, as I am also a qualified builder and made vast improvements in a short space of time. I declared the CR and most of the staff knew about it anyway.I was never asked about it but would freely talk about. HR instructed the school to dismiss me but the Head and Governors did not want too but were threatened by HR that they would be on their own if I was not dismissed. I am lost to how HR can make such a decision without a fair hearing. Any views please?

SarEl · 14 August 2011 at 12:45AM

It will never be "spent" if you choose to work in any area where an eCRB is required - no conviction ever is. HR do not have to hold a hearing - the court case was the hearing. The employer has a right in law to decide whether or not they will disregard the conviction - whether it is relevant, or whether you think it isn't, does not matter, and the law does not say that is can only be used if relevant, because the law does not dtermine what is and isn't relevant. Employers receive guidance on these matters but what they decide is up to them. As is the liability if they make an incorrect decision. I do not take very seriously any comment about HR treatening that they were on their own if they continued to employ you. HR are not the employer, but they do advise the employer, and if they feel stromgly that the employer is making a mistake they have a responsibility to make their advice and position clear. But the employer makes the decision, and so it was the employer who made the decision, not HR. In fact, I am more seriously concerned that someone was allowed to work in a svhool with access to children for 4 months before their eCRB came through - this should never happen and is a serious lapse on the part of the school. In some employments staff whose checks have not come through can have supervised access to vulnerable clients - in schools this is not the case, and I thought that schools had got this point by now. If the Huntly case showed schools anything it should be that any school employee is accessible to children and trusted by children.

I know the conviction was some time ago, but a sentence of more than two and a half years for a first offence is a powerful long sentence. Amd to be honest - you do appear to be still justifying why what you did wasn't really all that important. How much of your stock was stolen property isn't really relevant to anything - none of your stock should have been stolen property, and a forfeit order is only possible if there is reason to believe that property is stolen. You complain that they couldn't prove it was stolen - a company with a £1.6m turnover should have been able to prove that it wasn't.And none of your property would have been in the police station if you hadn't had stolen property in the first place. You seem to be placing the blame for your conviction and the loss of your stock on the police, and passing it off as something that really isn't all that important because it was "only 3% of the stock". At what percentage would it have been wrong? Perhaps the truth is that the employer felt that your attutude showed little sense of responsibility, and a poor attitude towards committing crime, and that this was an inappropriate role model for children. It is easy to say "it weren't me guv, it were HR" - but this was a decision the Head and the Governors made, not HR.

Savvy_Sue · 14 August 2011 at 1:23AM

I agree with SarEl (as I usually do), but especially the bit about being allowed to start work before the disclosure has been received - 4 months is a long time to have been on the premises without it!

All I can suggest for the future is that you take advice from NACRO or any local support scheme about how to disclose your conviction: it's possible - but I only say possible - that IF those doing the checking know a) what to expect when the disclosure comes back, and b) there are no surprises, and c) there is an expression of regret / mitigation, THEN they may decide that you are a suitable person to employ, despite the criminal record.

If you just gave your form in with the box ticked to say you had a record, but without saying what it was for, that does mean they don't know whether to expect a caution for shoplifting when you were 13, or something much more serious and recent.

But you now have a dismissal to contend with as well, which isn't going to make things any easier. See if NACRO can advise on that as well.

clairec79 · 14 August 2011 at 12:41PM

The way it has always been presented to me was if you say you have a clea record (including spent convictions) and something comes back on your CRB then you'd be dismissed/wouldn't get the job.

If you admitted it before hand you had the chance to explain and each case considered on its own merits

Foggster · 14 August 2011 at 12:53PM

I totally agree with SarEl. To add, schools who buy back into the services of their local authority will have the full backing and support of HR, Legal and Children's services in general. This gives them unlimited access to advice, experience and knowledge which no single school could have on its payroll. I wouldnt be surprised if the school in question wont have their knuckles wrapped in no uncertain terms by employing someone without a eCRB in place, it goes against all the hard work that has been put into Safeguarding.

HR didnt make the final decision but the Headteacher and Governors will have been seriously advised against the appointment once the CRB showed up the conviction. Sadly the grape vine would have soon be alive with gossip had it ever been discovered that you have a conviction against you and schools cannot take the risk of attracting this kind of bad publicity especially in a period of falling numbers and squeeze on budgets.

t0rt0ise · 14 August 2011 at 12:55PM

clairec79 wrote: »

If you admitted it before hand you had the chance to explain and each case considered on its own merits

I expect it was considered but it's a serious offence and they've decided that they don't someone who's been involved in theft working for them. Seems reasonable to me.

Nicki · 14 August 2011 at 1:11PM

I have chaired the personnel committee of the board of governors for my childrens school for many years. The advice we have been given by our local authority (and it may be different for each one, so you should check) is that a criminal conviction is not a bar to employing anyone unless it is for an offence against children. We are expected to use our discretion for other offences, and for example an old offence of dishonesty would not normally for us be a bar to employing someone unless it was for, for example, the role of bursar!

Whilst I agree with SarEl that your original offence was a serious one, I would expect 17 years of a clean record to be taken into account, and I do sympathise with your situation. How can we expect people to be rehabilitated if we continue to punish them for something which happened a whole lifetime ago, never repeated, and for which a prison term has been completed?

I can't give much practical advice, as there is no legal remedy open to you. All I can suggest if you wish to work in this kind of field is to be completely up front at interview about the offence and it's seriousness and your rehabilitation from then on, so that they are aware of the exact circumstances before the CRB comes back and get no nasty shocks.

Good luck.

Oldernotwiser · 14 August 2011 at 1:20PM

Nicki wrote: »

Whilst I agree with SarEl that your original offence was a serious one, I would expect 17 years of a clean record to be taken into account, and I do sympathise with your situation. How can we expect people to be rehabilitated if we continue to punish them for something which happened a whole lifetime ago, never repeated, and for which a prison term has been completed?

.

Surely a major part of rehabilitation is acknowledging your crimes and taking responsibility for your actions, neither of which seem to be the case in the OP's post.

churchrat · 14 August 2011 at 1:25PM

I agree with SarEl, ( I do not have a legal background, but work in probation where work problems come up a lot) Of course you can work in a school with a criminal record, but I doubt you will find one willing to employ you. I have been a school governor and would not have employed you.
If you have tried NACRO and have not had much help ask about local charities. These often have local contacts that are more useful than country wide schemes.

poet123 · 14 August 2011 at 1:31PM

Nicki wrote: »

I have chaired the personnel committee of the board of governors for my childrens school for many years. The advice we have been given by our local authority (and it may be different for each one, so you should check) is that a criminal conviction is not a bar to employing anyone unless it is for an offence against children. We are expected to use our discretion for other offences, and for example an old offence of dishonesty would not normally for us be a bar to employing someone unless it was for, for example, the role of bursar!

Whilst I agree with SarEl that your original offence was a serious one, I would expect 17 years of a clean record to be taken into account, and I do sympathise with your situation. How can we expect people to be rehabilitated if we continue to punish them for something which happened a whole lifetime ago, never repeated, and for which a prison term has been completed?

I can't give much practical advice, as there is no legal remedy open to you. All I can suggest if you wish to work in this kind of field is to be completely up front at interview about the offence and it's seriousness and your rehabilitation from then on, so that they are aware of the exact circumstances before the CRB comes back and get no nasty shocks.

Good luck.

I agree, I also chair the Staffing Committee, and we are given the same advice. However, we are a VA school and as such have more autonomy than council operated schools.

That said, there will always be those on any committee who will want to err on the side of caution and see a conviction for dishonesty as not compatible with the relatively autonomous role of a Caretaker. Their views probably won out when it was discussed.

Re the CRB, the school is seriously wanting to have an employee on the premises for 4 months without having one. I am astounded that they are so lax.

DVardysShadow · 14 August 2011 at 1:37PM

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Surely a major part of rehabilitation is acknowledging your crimes and taking responsibility for your actions, neither of which seem to be the case in the OP's post.

That is the same argument that keeps wrongly convicted people in prison for the whole sentence without remission because they won't admit the crime they were convicted of.

Now, OP has not specified where the stolen goods came from, so we are unable to speculate. Some people choose not to fight their convictions after their sentence because it can presumable be a life draining experience.

OP is trying to move on. His story needs to be told insofar as it is relevant to his dismissal, but as the question is not about the conviction, we don't need now, 17 years on to needle him over whether there is any remorse. Perhaps we should allow him to move on and it is a shame that the school could not do this too.

If people are not allowed to put their pasts behind them and live honest lives, like OP is trying to do, then we are creating a system where they may find little alternative to returning to crime.

I think that the CRB here has been misused for something way beyond the original intent. It does no one any favours.

Can i work in a school with a criminal record?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free