Remanded in Custody, Implications for Employment?

Scuffer

Hi harrys dad, i just read this and after being in prison myself i know how difficult it is. He will probably be on remand in a category C prison which was what i was in. Many of the people on remand got out on bail. I knew 1 guy who got bailed but was sent back a couple of weeks later for breaching his bail. If you can find a family member who will let him stay at their house and this person speaks to his solicitor, they will be able to get him a bail application and there is a good chance he will get out on bail by residing with a family member until he is sentenced.

harrys_dad

Scuffer wrote: »

If you can find a family member who will let him stay at their house and this person speaks to his solicitor, they will be able to get him a bail application and there is a good chance he will get out on bail by residing with a family member until he is sentenced.

That is what the family are trying to do, but it is complicated in that the charge is for assaulting the family member they currently live with!

It appears the only reason they have not been bailed is that they have nowhere to reside currently, but hopefully this can be sorted quickly. We can then see what work says.

antrobus

BillJones wrote: »

Can I ask, then....

Well you can, but I haven't the faintest idea of why you would want to ask such a thing. This is the Employment forum, not DT.

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I do not think you are correct re. contempt of court. Totally different legal system (civil law vs criminal law), different legal issues, different burdens of proof....

I think you're missing the point. We're discussing here the circumstances where someone has been charged with a crime and remanded in custody. Any employer who decided in such circumstances to dismiss someone because they thought they'd committed the crime would (potentially) be in contempt of court.

Once the criminal legal process has been concluded, the employer is perfectly free to disagree with that conclusion, but not before.

antrobus

Yorkie1 wrote: »

...I agree that the issue for the employer is whether there is a legal basis for dismissal without it being unfair. I don't know whether being charged with an offence (this requires sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction) in itself might, for example, be enough for dismissal on the grounds of bringing the employer into disrepute.

It was in the case of Kearney v Royal Mail Group Ltd. But that was murder. The answer is that it depends on what the offence is, and the nature of the employment.

Burns v Santander UK Plc is an interesting example. Burns was arrested and charged with various criminal offences, remanded into custody for 6 months until he was found guilty of 2 of the offences, bailed and then given a non-custodial sentence.

Santander suspended Burns without pay when he was in custody. Then suspended him on full pay when he was bailed pending a disciplinary hearing, at which he was dismissed. All of which was held to be perfectly fair and reasonable.

http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed8366

tomtontom

antrobus wrote: »

Well you can, but I haven't the faintest idea of why you would want to ask such a thing. This is the Employment forum, not DT.



I think you're missing the point. We're discussing here the circumstances where someone has been charged with a crime and remanded in custody. Any employer who decided in such circumstances to dismiss someone because they thought they'd committed the crime would (potentially) be in contempt of court.

Once the criminal legal process has been concluded, the employer is perfectly free to disagree with that conclusion, but not before.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of contempt of court? This would be a private matter between employer and employee, in no way would it influence the criminal case. It is like a wife leaving their husband prior to the trial, a completely separate issue.

An employer can investigate the conduct of the employee according to their disciplinary process, which is entirely separate from the criminal process. The employer would be on thin ground if they dismissed solely on the basis of the employee being charged, but they would be ok if they conducted their own investigation and on the basis of that were satisfied the employee had committed gross misconduct.

tomtontom

Nice explanation here, including the potential for dismissal prior to a conviction.

http://www.hrreview.co.uk/analysis/analysis-health-safety/emilie-bennetts-how-to-cope-with-employees-who-have-been-arrested/44353

antrobus

tomtontom wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand the concept of contempt of court? This would be a private matter between employer and employee, in no way would it influence the criminal case. ....

And would it have been a 'private matter' had William Roache been dismissed by his employer on the grounds that they thought he was probably guilty? It would be a silly employer who took the risk.

See the actions of Santander referred to above.

Besides which most employers aren't equipped to make decisions on criminal cases. What are they gonna do, ask the DPP to see the case file? :rotfl:

tomtontom wrote: »

... It is like a wife leaving their husband prior to the trial, a completely separate issue.

No it isn't. Wives are perfectly free to leave their husbands, and vice versa. Disciplinary procceedings on the other hand, are subject to the law on such things.

phill99

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

You should have the right to return to your job once proven innocent. The employer cannot dismiss until then. Did Micheal Levell or William Roache get dismissed? Their allegations are serious.

You will find that Michael Levell and Bill Roache are not employed. Like 99% of actors, they are self employed or operate via their own Limited Companies. So your analysis is incorrect.

Yorkie1

tomtontom wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand the concept of contempt of court? This would be a private matter between employer and employee, in no way would it influence the criminal case. It is like a wife leaving their husband prior to the trial, a completely separate issue.

An employer can investigate the conduct of the employee according to their disciplinary process, which is entirely separate from the criminal process. The employer would be on thin ground if they dismissed solely on the basis of the employee being charged, but they would be ok if they conducted their own investigation and on the basis of that were satisfied the employee had committed gross misconduct.

antrobus wrote: »

Besides which most employers aren't equipped to make decisions on criminal cases. What are they gonna do, ask the DPP to see the case file? :rotfl:

Sorry Antrobus but you are misunderstanding the concept of contempt of court.

Wikipedia summarises it nicely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#England

An employer making a decision to suspend or dismiss an employee is not contempt of court in itself. The cases you cite relate to employment law and fairness of process etc.

None of those issues are capable, in themselves, of being contempt in the face of the criminal trial.

unlikelyheroine

antrobus wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. We're discussing here the circumstances where someone has been charged with a crime and remanded in custody. Any employer who decided in such circumstances to dismiss someone because they thought they'd committed the crime would (potentially) be in contempt of court.

Once the criminal legal process has been concluded, the employer is perfectly free to disagree with that conclusion, but not before.

Dismissing someone pending, or during, a criminal trial, is in no way a contempt of court. It makes no public statement that interferes with proceedings. It may, depending on the facts, be something the employee can take action for if employment rights have been breached.