Would a google search find someone with a conviction?

Uncertain

getzls wrote: »

Maybe someone will confirm this.

If someone has a spent sentence and does not need to disclose it, and you do.

You can be open to slander or libel charges.

No.

Libel and slander are not criminal matters so there would be no "charge". Any claim would be in the civil courts for damages.

In any case the fact that something is true is a complete defence.

You cannot libel somebody with the truth, however unpleasant or damaging that may be. Equally, you cannot libel the dead, your reputation dies with you - e.g Jimmy Saville.

Other rules may be broken but that is outside my area.

McKneff

Its a rumour, you said so yourself in your OP.

If you think its any of your business, have the courage of your convictions and ask the person you suspect directly.
My money is on the fact that you dare not.


That will either confirm the rumours, or give you the chance to stop the rumours in their tracks.

Nicki

If the conviction is spent, then not only did the employee not have to disclose it when he applied for the job, but he is also allowed by law to deny that he has one, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act if you ask him now about it.

Even if you were able to find some evidence that he had been convicted of an offence in the past, again if that conviction is spent, neither you nor your employer is entitled to act on that information in any way. So you could not dismiss the employee or move him to another position or even supervise him in a different way to other employees.

Finally, as others have said if you accuse him of having a conviction with no evidence, then you do leave yourself open to being sued for defamation. If he doesn't have a conviction, you will be sunk. If he does, and it is spent, you will need to find the evidence between now and trial of it, as although the truth is a defence to a libel action, and you can rely on a spent conviction to prove the truth of a defamatory statement, you are not allowed to ask the claimant in the witness box about any spent convictions they may have, or to require him to disclose documents relating to it (if he even has any) in the run up to trial. So if it is genuinely your job to dig into this, do so very carefully! The only way this can work out well for you is if he does have a conviction and it is sufficiently recent not to be spent under the act.

duchy

Wow
Presumably your company ha an HR dept you could approach and tell them you don't believe they have done their job properly -as you have heard a rumour that you can't prove that they've employed someone with a (possibly spent)unspecified conviction ..... and you've gossiped about it to other people, I'm sure that'll get them noticing you-even if it's for redundancy.

Alternatively you could stop playing Miss Marple (I'm sure you did it in your own time and not the company's )-Concentrate on the job you are paid to do in work .......and get a life out of work ...I bet you're a curtain twitcher too !

getzls

Uncertain wrote: »

No.

Libel and slander are not criminal matters so there would be no "charge". Any claim would be in the civil courts for damages.

In any case the fact that something is true is a complete defence.

You cannot libel somebody with the truth, however unpleasant or damaging that may be. Equally, you cannot libel the dead, your reputation dies with you - e.g Jimmy Saville.

Other rules may be broken but that is outside my area.

I think Nicky two posts below confirm what i suspect. (or now above)

Charge may be the wrong word.:cool:

k12479

There's a lot of hostility towards Davina40 and suggestions to get a life and not to play Miss Marple. Presumably, she knows what her job is and what falls within that remit.

Personally, I'd prefer not to work amongst thieves, crooks, etc. regardless of whether their convictions are 'spent' or not.

PhenoM

duchy wrote: »

Wow
Presumably your company ha an HR dept you could approach and tell them you don't believe they have done their job properly -as you have heard a rumour that you can't prove that they've employed someone with a (possibly spent)unspecified conviction ..... and you've gossiped about it to other people, I'm sure that'll get them noticing you-even if it's for redundancy.

Alternatively you could stop playing Miss Marple (I'm sure you did it in your own time and not the company's )-Concentrate on the job you are paid to do in work .......and get a life out of work ...I bet you're a curtain twitcher too !

I'm sorry, but you got it slightly wrong there.

She IS the HR department :rotfl:

tattycath

k12479 wrote: »

There's a lot of hostility towards Davina40 and suggestions to get a life and not to play Miss Marple. Presumably, she knows what her job is and what falls within that remit.

Personally, I'd prefer not to work amongst thieves, crooks, etc. regardless of whether their convictions are 'spent' or not.

So if the company you work for employed someone who was once a convicted thief (and had served their time or whatever penalty they got), you would either try to get them sacked or hand in your notice then?

Uncertain

k12479 wrote: »

Personally, I'd prefer not to work amongst thieves, crooks, etc. regardless of whether their convictions are 'spent' or not.

So you are happy to break the law to fit in with your prejudices ?

Nicky (in post 24) has explained in detail the position regarding a spent conviction, I quote....

If the conviction is spent, then not only did the employee not have to disclose it when he applied for the job, but he is also allowed by law to deny that he has one, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act if you ask him now about it.

So where do you draw the line. You appear to be suggesting that anybody with a conviction for anything should be banned from working for life!

williacg

k12479 wrote: »

There's a lot of hostility towards Davina40 and suggestions to get a life and not to play Miss Marple. Presumably, she knows what her job is and what falls within that remit.

Personally, I'd prefer not to work amongst thieves, crooks, etc. regardless of whether their convictions are 'spent' or not.

Hostility? perhaps you're right, however, putting the legal implications to one said, I found it most disturbing to think that someone could take some 'water cooler' gossip, a rumour, as she herself admits it is, and is prepared to start a witch hunt against this colleague, and I would certainly hope that any employer worth their salt would look at exactly what her motivation is for doing so.