Crb checks

[POSTMAN]

Every cloud.

[kalpaz]

hi everyone i wish you all a happy new year.
i have a question about crb check!
i served a 3 months prison sentence back in 2005, i applied to work for RM and its at is last stage, i did not mantion this as i was told this would only effect my work life for 5 years.
will this cause a problem with my application ?

[keithposty]

i doubt it unless they did an enhanced crb check

these are normally done for teachers, health workers etc, in other words vulnerable people

ill be corrected if wrong but you do not have to declare a conviction if SPENT under the rehabilitation of offenders act

Prison for six months or less - 7 years and These periods are reduced by half if the offender was under eighteen at the date of conviction.

Once a conviction becomes spent you are not normally required to disclose it. only for nurses teachers etc

royal mail are one of the few organisations that have a direct link with the police national computer

[MinisterofCucumber]

On the 21st November 2011 Baroness Byford asked the Government who has access to the Police National Computer and it was confirmed that Royal Mail have access.

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/L ... rt056.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 18&t=40646" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RM can access "names files" - "full disposal history is also included which will show the sentence handed-down for each offence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_National_Computer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last Autumn, all the staff in my Unit were asked to complete a Security Checks Consent Form and we were told that these forms needed to be filled out every 3 years.

The form stated that the CRB check would be carried out by Disclosures Scotland and asked the applicant to reveal details of spent convictions despite the fact that, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, RM are only allowed to have access to information provided by a Basic Disclosure which will not reveal spent convictions.

Why did RM state that Disclosures Scotland would be doing CRB checks if RM had access to names files on the Police National Computer?

Why did RM ask applicants to reveal spent convictions?

[MinisterofCucumber]

"Royal Mail Group Ltd will undertake a criminal record check on your behalf using information held on the Police National Computer (PNC). Unless instructed otherwise you do not need to take any further action."

http://www.royalmail.com/royal-mail-job ... ity-checks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RMG have access to information about an individual's spent convictions but RMG are not exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Even a Police Caution is reportable despite the fact that legally it isn't a conviction.

"Cautions (including reprimands and warnings) are covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). This means that if you are asked on an application form if you have a caution you can reply 'no'. For conditional cautions it would be after 3 months since the caution was issued, up until that time you would have to reply 'yes'.

This applies retrospectively so applies to anyone who has ever had a caution (including reprimands and warnings), regardless of when it was given.

If the application form says that the post is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 then the caution must be disclosed, no matter how long ago it was given.

However, this does not mean that it will not be disclosed on a CRB check. Under the current system all cautions, reprimands and final warnings are disclosed on both Standard and Enhanced CRB disclosures no matter how far back they go. If a caution / reprimand / warning is on record then it will be disclosed."

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/q562.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RM posts are not exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This is the reason that RMG can only ask Disclosures Scotland to provide a Basic Disclosure, not an Enhanced Disclosure. However, RMG have access to all the information that an Enhanced Disclosure would give and, instead of asking,

"Do you have a caution?"

the form asks, "Have you ever received a caution?"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6412637/Royal ... ation-Pack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MinisterofCucumber]

"Lord Henley: Access to police national computer by non-police organisations is governed by the PNC Information Access Panel (PIAP), whose membership is comprised of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Home Office, and the National Policing Improvement Agency."

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/L ... rt056.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Royal Mail have access to everyone's full criminal record history, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Home Office, and the National Policing Improvement Agency have allowed Royal Mail access to information they have no right to.

"Unauthorized disclosure of spent convictions.

(2)Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (5) below, any person who, in the course of his official duties, has or at any time has had custody of or access to any official record or the information contained therein, shall be guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that any specified information he has obtained in the course of those duties is specified information, he discloses it, otherwise than in the course of those duties, to another person.

(5)The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as appears to him to be appropriate for excepting the disclosure of specified information derived from an official record from the provisions of subsection (2) above in such cases or classes of case as may be specified in the order."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Home Office, and the National Policing Improvement Agency broken the law?

[fishtank]

Since 2007 Royal Mail have used Disclosure Scotland to do their CRB checks.http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Royal Mail do not have direct access to the PNC database.

[keithposty]

Non-police organisations with access to PNC:

Access Northern Ireland
Charity Commission for England and Wales
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Criminal Records Bureau
Defence Vetting Agency
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
Disclosure Scotland
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Environment Agency
Financial Services Authority
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Gangmasters Licensing Authority
G4S
Health and Safety Executive
Highways Agency
Her Majesty's Prison Service
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Home Office
Independent Police Complaints Commission
States of Jersey Customs and Immigration Service
Mersey Tunnels Police
Ministry of Justice
National Air Traffic Service
National Health Service
Office for Civil Nuclear Security
Office of Fair Trading
Royal Mail
United Kingdom Border Agency
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

[fishtank]

To clarify.
In relation to CRB checks Royal Mail does not have direct access to the PNC database,they use Disclosure Scotland for UK wide CRB checks.

Royal Mail Legal Services, the successor to the Post Office Solicitor’s Office prosecutes on Royal Mail’s
account in England and Wales.
They obviously have access to the PNC for "(for investigatory/prosecution purposes)".

[sparkx]

Since 2007 Royal Mail have used Disclosure Scotland to do their CRB checks.http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Royal Mail do not have direct access to the PNC database.

Royal Mail HR has no access to PNC hence the need to use disclosure Scotland for vetting.

The Royal Mail Investigation Branch however do have one PNC terminal but it can only be used to search for any criminal background of anybody they are investigating for committing a criminal offence against Royal Mail.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Lord Henley doesn't state that only Royal Mail Investigation Branch has access to the Police National Computer, he states "Royal Mail" has access to the Police National Computer.

G4S doesn't have its own historical police force but the Home Secretary has presumably agreed G4S to have access to the PNC.

How can we be sure that this data is not shared widely within RMG?

The old Security Checks Form was changed last Autumn. It used to ask applicants to reveal spent convictions.

Why?

[MinisterofCucumber]

Say, for example, management in a unit were breaking policies and say, for example, they were worried that an outspoken member of staff might find them out. Would it be possible for the unit's management to ask one of their friends in the IB to do a PNC check on the 'trouble maker'?

Would it also be possible that if any spent convictions were revealed, management might persuade their friends in the IB to investigate a bogus theft that gave them a legitimate excuse to investigate the 'troublemaker' and have a legitimate reason to access the Police National Computer?

Would it then be possible for the IB to share this information with the unit's management legitimately?

Would it be possible for management to sack the 'troublemaker' for dishonesty if the 'troublemaker' lied on their Security Checks Form because they did not reveal the information that the form asked for?

This is just one example of how easy it would be to sidestep data protection if an institution has access to the Police National Computer. I'm sure you could all come up with more ways.

What was the purpose of the questions on the old Security Checks Form that asked applicants to reveal spent convictions and why are Christmas casuals still asked if they have ever had a Police Caution?

Either we're protected by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 or we're not.

[fishtank]

Anything is possible minister but misuse of the PNC is a criminal offence so they would have to be pretty desperate and equally stupid.
It would be much easier and far less risky to sack them using the normal weapons of the conduct code and attendance procedure.

[flaminmoses]

Say, for example, management in a unit were breaking policies and say, for example, they were worried that an outspoken member of staff might find them out. Would it be possible for the unit's management to ask one of their friends in the IB to do a PNC check on the 'trouble maker'?

Would it also be possible that if any spent convictions were revealed, management might persuade their friends in the IB to investigate a bogus theft that gave them a legitimate excuse to investigate the 'troublemaker' and have a legitimate reason to access the Police National Computer?

Would it then be possible for the IB to share this information with the unit's management legitimately?

Would it be possible for management to sack the 'troublemaker' for dishonesty if the 'troublemaker' lied on their Security Checks Form because they did not reveal the information that the form asked for?

This is just one example of how easy it would be to sidestep data protection if an institution has access to the Police National Computer. I'm sure you could all come up with more ways.

What was the purpose of the questions on the old Security Checks Form that asked applicants to reveal spent convictions and why are Christmas casuals still asked if they have ever had a Police Caution?

Either we're protected by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 or we're not.

thats ossible but where there is a search there is a trail left.
so if RM mail did a search it would show up royal mail and that would look seriously dodgy.

if you did suspect this you can contact someone.....do a bit of googling.