Worried about an upcoming CRB check...

ribbon_2

Hi guys,
I am looking for some solid advice on this as it's been really worrying me over the past few months.

Here's the story... (I'm gonna try and make this as logically easy to follow as possible)

I started a new job last month which is in the IT Security Field for a company in which part of their procedures involve a fair amount of background checks and vetting. Part of my probabation period is with regard to "providing satisfactory criminal record checks."
I recently received documents through the door which are for a Standard CRB. I am fully aware that this type of CRB check searches for cautions, convictions, warnings and reprimands etc. This form needs to be completed and returned next week.

However,I am worried because I made a mistake last year which resulted in me being given a simple caution at my local police station. The caution was for "Alleged Harrassment."

With the Standard CRB check asking me whether I have ever received any cautions, convictions, warnings and reprimands etc... I know that I have to tick yes.

I have come to terms that I need to tell my manager about the caution because he is going to find out when I hand the form back to him anyway.
I guess the question that I am posing here is whether anyone knows if I will be "judged" in a different way, have my contract instantly terminated, lose my job at the end of the probabation period or offer me any kind of advice that can probably ease my worry at this present time.

I really don't want to lose this job over some stupid mistake which I feel still haunts me!

Thanks in advance guys - I will be checking

ribbon_2

Also, I am struggling on what to actually say to my manager. By this I mean how and what to tell him so he doesn't think the worse in me.

browneyedbazzi

It really depends on the employer - does it say anything in your introductory paperwork about what sort of things would rule someone out as an employee?

In a job that involves information security I would expect them to be most concerned about any offences that involve deception/dishonesty (fraud, theft etc).

Best_Auntie

Hi Ribbon,

Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your new job.

I used to work in the civil service where my job involved checking enhanced CRBs for people working with children. The enhanced ones reveal everything going back to offences committed as a minor and "spent" offences. You would be shocked at how many respecatable people have offences show up for silly acts they committed in the past. So don't feel ashamed we are all human and we all make mistakes.

I currently work in a role where I am responsible for making decisions regarding continuing employment for people where offences have shown up on CRB checks. The decisions I make are not simply based upon whether an offence has been committed but rather the seriousness and type of offence. In my experience a caution for an alleged offence does not usually result in a dismissal although occasionally an employer will extend the probationary period just to make sure, but obviously I cannot speak for all employers.

This does depend very much on your employers own policy and there are some who are very strict and will not accept anything and the only way to know for sure is to tell them.

My company is care based dealing with children so anything involving assault or violence would be viewed seriously and would likely result in dismissal. However as no money changes hands and no valuables are kept on site, minor offences for fraud or theft like shoplifting especially if only resulting in a light sentance or a caution are viewed less seriously especially if the person is open and honest about what happened. I am guessing that in your field something like harrassment would not be viewed as seriously as something like fraud. The procedure we follow when something shows up on a check is to ask the person in for an interview and give them an opportunity to explain their side of the story. The problems really arise when someone has not declared something which later shows up as this brings into question the persons integrity and what else they might hide.

In IT security I would imagine (although I am obviously no expert) that integrity - honesty relibility and trustworthyness are important qualities and my best advice to you would be to demonstrate this by going straight to your employer and telling them everything.

Firstly make sure you fill in the CRB form accurately and declare the offence. Then when you hand it in to your employer ask so speak confidentially to your manager or HR person. Explain exactly what will show up on your record, give them your version of events including any mitigating circumstances. Explain how silly you feel and that you have learned from your mistakes and that this will never happen again. Say that you hope this will not effect your employment and that you are enjoying your job and want to prove what an asset you will be to the company. They are likely to say that they cannot make a decision until they have seen the check but at least you will have got in first and proved how honest you are and they should respect you for that.

When your check comes back check it for accuracy as they do make mistakes, if it does not list your offence correctly appeal and get it put right. If your employer asks you for another meeting to discuss the offence then repeat everything you said initially and stress that you know what a mistake this was and that you are anxious to have the chance to prove what an honest hard working person you are.

Unless your comany is very small yours is unlikely to be the first they have seen with offences listed so try not to be embarrassed they will have seen it before.

You are very brave to make one of your first posts on such a tricky subject. Good luck and let us know how you get on.

browneyedbazzi

nitapet wrote: »

In my experience a caution for an alleged offence does not usually result in a dismissal although occasionally an employer will extend the probationary period just to make sure, but obviously I cannot speak for all employers.

I just felt a need to clarify that part of accepting a caution for an offence is that you accept that you did commit the offence. People who don't accept guilt are not eligible for a caution (their guilt/innocence and sentence would then have to be determined by the courts). An offence can only be dealt with by way of caution if the investigating officer believes there is enough evidence to prove the case.

If you continue to refer to the caution as for something that is 'alleged' it will look like you have not taken responsibility for your actions/learned from it - I don't know about your industry, but in my line of work that would make it look worse!

DVardysShadow

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

I just felt a need to clarify that part of accepting a caution for an offence is that you accept that you did commit the offence. People who don't accept guilt are not eligible for a caution (their guilt/innocence and sentence would then have to be determined by the courts). An offence can only be dealt with by way of caution if the investigating officer believes there is enough evidence to prove the case.

If you continue to refer to the caution as for something that is 'alleged' it will look like you have not taken responsibility for your actions/learned from it - I don't know about your industry, but in my line of work that would make it look worse!

While I would agree with that as the formal legal position, the truth can be very different. Cautions are for trivial matters - but the state is prepared to bring disproportionate resources to 'prove' their case. For matters at the trivial end of the scale, the investigation starts with the availability of a suspect rather than with whether a crime actually happened.

Add to that the fact that the slashing of legal aid means a legal defence is beyond the reach of all but the poorest and the richest, accepting a caution may be a pragmatic decision to limit the damage. I view them as information degraded to the point of uselessness.

browneyedbazzi

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I view them as information degraded to the point of uselessness.

Different industries would view them differently. I work in law enforcement so if I said I had accepted a caution and also that I didn't commit the offence then it would most definitely call into question my integrity (because either the admission of guilt at the time of accepting the caution or the later statement that I didn't do it would necessarily be a lie).

That in turn would cast a shadow over my suitability to appear as an expert witness.

DVardysShadow

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Different industries would view them differently. I work in law enforcement so if I said I had accepted a caution and also that I didn't commit the offence then it would most definitely call into question my integrity (because either the admission of guilt at the time of accepting the caution or the later statement that I didn't do it would necessarily be a lie).

That in turn would cast a shadow over my suitability to appear as an expert witness.

Precisely. You presumably would not get legal aid. So you would have to make a choice to accept a caution or take let a court spin the wheel of justice. So you might accept the certainty of a caution which you might admit to later as being less damaging than the risk of conviction over something for which you were innocent.

So it is degraded information.

browneyedbazzi

There are a lot of reasons why people may choose to lie in any given situation. For some people accepting a caution when they are innocent may be a very attractive option - that doesn't change that doing so is a lie (and actually an offence in itself because you would be perverting the course of justice).

The mitigating circumstances around the choice to lie doesn't change fact that choosing the lie over the truth will cast a lingering shadow over your integrity. It implies that in the right circumstance, where it is to your benefit, you will lie.

DVardysShadow

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

There are a lot of reasons why people may choose to lie in any given situation. For some people accepting a caution when they are innocent may be a very attractive option - that doesn't change that doing so is a lie (and actually an offence in itself because you would be perverting the course of justice).

The mitigating circumstances around the choice to lie doesn't change fact that choosing the lie over the truth will cast a lingering shadow over your integrity. It implies that in the right circumstance, where it is to your benefit, you will lie.

Actually, this might be described as justice perverting itself. The idea of a prosecution for falsely accepting a caution is entertaining.

browneyedbazzi

The letter of the law and it's possible application is often entertaining! (and occasionally quite ridiculous)


eta -just a small point in defence of the law on this one - the reason falsely accepting a caution would be perverting the course of justice is that it could mean the person who is actually guilty of the offence walks free. There are plenty of instances where a guilty person (who perhaps has a record and would be dealt with more harshly for a subsequent offence) gets someone else (without a record, knowing they're likely to be dealt with by caution) to front for them.