Standard DBS Check at Interview

da_rule

I interviewed someone the other day who produced a standard DBS check certificate.

It is the first time that I, or anyone else in the interview panel, has seen a DBS check that actually had an entry on it. It would appear that the candidate received a caution a couple of years ago for abstracting electricity. He gave us an account there and then about what happened.

My question is, is there anyway to corroborate his story? The DBS check just says what the offence was, when it was and that he received a caution. Should the check have revealed more information (i.e. has it been 'doctored')? Would an enhanced check (if the role is applicable - which I need to check) reveal any more information?

Savvy_Sue

I don't think that an enhanced check would show any more, even supposing you are entitled to carry one out. I sometimes see checks at work and ours are legitimately enhanced and there's no detail.

I'd just say that he's been up front about it, so you 'just' need to decide if it's a problem or not. It is 'just' a caution, so there's no way now of knowing if he would have been found guilty if it had gone to court or not.

What you must be careful about - IMO - is that what's on his DBS remains confidential to those who already know about it. If you have to check with someone who wasn't on the interview panel, you need to do so in general terms and not explicitly naming the applicant. and if you decide to employ him, what's on that check shouldn't become common knowledge to his colleagues, supervisors or managers.

BTW, I'm presuming you know what an original DBS certificate looks like. You'd have to go to a lot of effort to 'forge' one: there are colours and wavy lines of text, and it's not on A4 paper but a longer size. I'd never accept a photocopy.

usefulmale

Thats the trouble with employers wanting to be judge, jury and executioner. You will only ever hear one side of the tale, so stop trying to be Perry Mason / Judge John Deed and accept that this person has a caution and has declared it upfront.

If they are the best for the job, employ them.

As an aside, I thought cautions these days were immediately spent? They shouldn't show up on a standard DBS, should they?

da_rule

Thanks for the advice Savvy_Sue. The role would only be suitable for a standard check. We'll get another one done just to check there hasn't been any changes if we go ahead with this candidate. The question was just a general one really, as it seems odd to a certain extent that they tell you the person has committed an offence but don't tell you what they did, which makes it very hard to risk assess the situation when you only have one side of the story.

usefulmale - No one is trying to be judge, jury and executioner. The person has admitted their guilt in accepting the caution. The offence is a dishonesty offence, therefore we have to risk assess it. This is hard when the only information you can get is from the person with the caution, who by their own admission and acceptance of the caution has a history of dishonesty. Cautions are spent as soon as they are issued but standard and enchanted checks show spent convictions/cautions (a basic check doesn't). There is a thing called 'filtering' now which means that after certain periods of time certain cautions and convictions are removed.

I don't have an issue hiring the right person for the job, and everyone deserves a second chance and chance to be 'reformed'. But, it just seemed like a bit of a flaw in the system where we can only find out what he is willing to tell us as he obviously has a vested interest in making the situation seem as 'innocent' as possible.

usefulmale

da_rule wrote: »

usefulmale - No one is trying to be judge, jury and executioner. The person has admitted their guilt in accepting the caution. The offence is a dishonesty offence, therefore we have to risk assess it. This is hard when the only information you can get is from the person with the caution, who by their own admission and acceptance of the caution has a history of dishonesty. Cautions are spent as soon as they are issued but standard and enchanted checks show spent convictions/cautions (a basic check doesn't). There is a thing called 'filtering' now which means that after certain periods of time certain cautions and convictions are removed.

I don't have an issue hiring the right person for the job, and everyone deserves a second chance and chance to be 'reformed'. But, it just seemed like a bit of a flaw in the system where we can only find out what he is willing to tell us as he obviously has a vested interest in making the situation seem as 'innocent' as possible.

You already have the 'other sides' story via the disclosure on the DBS certificate.

Two years ago, this 'offence' wasn't deemed important (or proveable) enough to bother a qualified judge with. Why are you seemingly put-out that you don't have all the details? Are you SURE you don't want to judge this person?

For what its worth, my poxy caution was almost a decade and a half ago and I STILL come across people like you wanting to know all the juicy details, especially since my caution appears to be lumped into such 'offences' as 'knowingly causing a nuclear explosion' or 'destroying a channel tunnel train'. Do you really think that they would hand out cautions for such offences? Why wasn't I hauled up before a judge in crown court if my 'offence' was so serious?

As I have said. If they are the best for the job, hire them. Don't hide behind 'risk assessments' if you are prejudiced.

theoretica

da_rule wrote: »

I The DBS check just says what the offence was, when it was and that he received a caution.

Surely that is enough? You know what the offence was (so also what it was not, such as violence, drugs, drunk and disorderly) and that it was considered minor enough to only merit a caution.

How many of your staff do you think have done similar without being caught? Taken stuff from faceless organisations without paying - travelled without a ticket, done a few jobs cash in hand and not paid income tax?

da_rule

usefulmale wrote: »

(or proveable) enough to bother a qualified judge with.

I think there has been a misunderstanding here. You realise that a caution is an admission of guilt and the evidential part of the test used when deciding to prosecute must still be met. If the person refuses a caution then they would be charged. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416068/cautions-guidance-2015.pdf

My question was never meant to be about judging someone per se, but the role does involve being in a position of trust, so therefore evidence to suggest that he has been 'dishonest' enough to warrant criminal proceedings is relevant in our decision making. This is further compounded as there is a risk that he is again being dishonest in his explanation of what actually happened. I'm not for one minute suggesting that he is, buy without being able to corroborate his story we aren't able to fully confirm what he's saying.

We are willing to take what he's saying at face value. However, I was simply trying to find out whether the certificate should have contained the information relating to the offence (which has now been answered) and whether there was any way of legally obtaining such information so that we can make an informed decision (it would appear that there isn't and we have to take what is said at face value and risk assess it accordingly).

usefulmale

da_rule wrote: »

I think there has been a misunderstanding here. You realise that a caution is an admission of guilt and the evidential part of the test used when deciding to prosecute must still be met. If the person refuses a caution then they would be charged. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416068/cautions-guidance-2015.pdf

My question was never meant to be about judging someone per se, but the role does involve being in a position of trust, so therefore evidence to suggest that he has been 'dishonest' enough to warrant criminal proceedings is relevant in our decision making. This is further compounded as there is a risk that he is again being dishonest in his explanation of what actually happened. I'm not for one minute suggesting that he is, buy without being able to corroborate his story we aren't able to fully confirm what he's saying.

We are willing to take what he's saying at face value. However, I was simply trying to find out whether the certificate should have contained the information relating to the offence (which has now been answered) and whether there was any way of legally obtaining such information so that we can make an informed decision (it would appear that there isn't and we have to take what is said at face value and risk assess it accordingly).

I have not admitted guilt in regards to my caution and the paperwork I (eventually) received from the police also suggests so. This was obtained long after the 3 months challenge period so I could not apply to have the caution quashed as wrongly administered.

Also, if a person refuses a caution, they can either be charged, or no further action taken.

A caution is a lazy way for the police to 'solve' a crime and I would urge anyone that is offered a caution to refuse it and make the police do the work if they want to take the matter to court and have the evidence robustly cross-examined.

You seem to very ignorant in what a DBS certificate would show, considering you are on an interview panel.

Once again, with you wishing to be able to corroborate his 'story' suggests to me that you DO want to judge this person. What other 'information' do you want, apart from the fact that this person has a caution for 'abstracting electricity'?

What do you do when someone in front of you offers a degree certificate? These are easily forgeable. Do you contact the university and insist that they send over all the written work they have done to 'corroborate' their claims? Or do you just take the certificate at face value?

Gavin83

usefulmale wrote: »

You already have the 'other sides' story via the disclosure on the DBS certificate.

Two years ago, this 'offence' wasn't deemed important (or proveable) enough to bother a qualified judge with. Why are you seemingly put-out that you don't have all the details? Are you SURE you don't want to judge this person?

For what its worth, my poxy caution was almost a decade and a half ago and I STILL come across people like you wanting to know all the juicy details, especially since my caution appears to be lumped into such 'offences' as 'knowingly causing a nuclear explosion' or 'destroying a channel tunnel train'. Do you really think that they would hand out cautions for such offences? Why wasn't I hauled up before a judge in crown court if my 'offence' was so serious?

As I have said. If they are the best for the job, hire them. Don't hide behind 'risk assessments' if you are prejudiced.

It's nothing to do with being prejudice, it's about being cautious. Besides, you freely admit you have a vested interest and therefore you are likely to be biased towards the person with the caution. I too see it as no different to being found guilty in court, the person is free to refuse the caution if they feel they have a case. Saying that I'd be more likely to hire you with your caution than the person in the OP. Theft is just about the worst police record you can have from a business perspective.

OP you won't find out anything else about the caution. Only you can decide if what basically amounts as theft is too much of a risk for your business. Personally I'd only consider them if they were perfect in every other way, it would be a massive negative for me but not necessary a deal breaker.

OP, when he brought it up did he seem like he was remorseful in any way for his crime?

theoretica

Any company which asks for DBS certificates is required to have a policy about the recruitment of ex-offenders. And it can't say only 'we don't'. What does yours say?

Savvy_Sue

usefulmale wrote: »

and I would urge anyone that is offered a caution to refuse it and make the police do the work if they want to take the matter to court and have the evidence robustly cross-examined.

That's good advice, especially if you're being offered a caution but do not accept your guilt.

theoretica wrote: »

Any company which asks for DBS certificates is required to have a policy about the recruitment of ex-offenders. And it can't say only 'we don't'. What does yours say?

Ah yes! Ours says it won't necessarily be a bar to employment.

OP, if this isn't a particularly recent DBS check I would ask for another, just as a matter of good practice. If the person now registers for the Update Service when completing the application for this one, or has registered in the past, then checking at suitable intervals becomes much easier.