If Charge was struck out would it show on a vetting form?

MarkyMark22

Hi all,

Just a quick question, have gotten some of my coaching badges recently,

And would like to start coaching a team soon.

This may be with kids, I assume I would have to be Garda vetted,

I was once charged Under Section 4 of the Criminal justice act,

However the case against me was struck out.

Will it still show on a vetting form however?

Thanks.


Any information would be appreciated!

MagicSean

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

I was once charged Under Section 4 of the Criminal justice act,

I dont think you were.

MarkyMark22

Why so?

NoQuarter

you would have been arrested under that section as its not an offence, its just a power of arrest. Your actual charge would have been something else so if you tell us what you did we can tell you what charge. s.4 public order maybe?

Either way, if it was struck out then it wont show up, or at least, it shouldnt!

Edit: Criminal Justice Act 1984 is power of detention, Criminal Law Act 1984 is arrets, must study harder!

MagicSean

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Why so?

Section 4 of the criminal justice act is a power of detention.

MarkyMark22

Section 4 of the theft and fraud offences act perhaps ?

MagicSean

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Section 4 of the theft and fraud offences act perhaps ?

That might be it. All prosecutions, successful or not, are disclosed afaik.

Dandelion6

I don't know if struck-out prosecutions always show up, but I can confirm that they sometimes show up.

studdlymurphy

ask the guards for a copy of your criminal record and they will post it to you a couple of weeks later and you will know whats on it.

tuxy

studdlymurphy wrote: »

ask the guards for a copy of your criminal record and they will post it to you a couple of weeks later and you will know whats on it.

Would it really take weeks? It should be like asking for a bank statement.

MagicSean

There isn't really such thing as a criminal record. There are three things you can get. A certificate of clearance is used for visas applications. It can be obtained by making an application to your local Garda station and takes a few weeks to process and be sent out. It states your convictions or lack thereof. A vetting application is done via the central vetting unit and is applied for by your employer. It shows all prosecutions against you wether successful or not. You can also request a disclosure of information under the Data Protection Act. This will disclose all information you request but can be subject some form of censorship depending on the nature of the information on file.

http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=36#FAQ2751

MarkyMark22

Under the new spent convictions bill, will prosecutions be spent too?

As I don't have a conviction, but a prosecution.

Maybe im being biased here, but I think it's unfair to put unsuccessful prosecutions on a vetting form.

MagicSean

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Under the new spent convictions bill, will prosecutions be spent too?

As I don't have a conviction, but a prosecution.

Maybe im being biased here, but I think it's unfair to put unsuccessful prosecutions on a vetting form.

i think it's unfair to steal from people and get off with it.

MarkyMark22

MagicSean wrote: »

i think it's unfair to steal from people and get off with it.

Thanks for proving my point...

BornToKill

tuxy wrote: »

Would it really take weeks? It should be like asking for a bank statement.

It is ... from Ulster bank.

MagicSean

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point...

Court proceeding are public so your case was probably reported in the local rag. In addition, a dismissal doesn't mean you didn't do it. You could have been deemed eligible for an adult caution, the probation act or have donated to the poor box. A lack of a conviction doesn't mean you aren't a thief, you just aren't a convicted thief.

MarkyMark22

MagicSean wrote: »

Court proceeding are public so your case was probably reported in the local rag. In addition, a dismissal doesn't mean you didn't do it. You could have been deemed eligible for an adult caution, the probation act or have donated to the poor box. A lack of a conviction doesn't mean you aren't a thief, you just aren't a convicted thief.

What does my case being reported in 'the local rag' have to do with absolutely anything, other than your own ego?

I know a dismissal doesn't mean that I didn't do it, but you assumed, without knowing absolutely nothing about my case, that I "stole from people and got away with it".

And that "I'm a thief,just not a convicted one"

I asked an original question about garda vetting as I may have to coach kids to play football (you know,actually doing something good for a community) and as suspected, someone goes off topic and gets high and mighty like I'm Adolf Hitler and tried to exterminate a race.

I made a mistake, I learnt from it. I never have nor will do it again. I'm human, I'm flawed.

Does being charged with theft when I was 20 years old mean I'm a terrible person for the rest of my life? perhaps to some.

Anyways, thanks for the advice, Curt Hennig.

MagicSean

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

What does my case being reported in 'the local rag' have to do with absolutely anything, other than your own ego?

I know a dismissal doesn't mean that I didn't do it, but you assumed, without knowing absolutely nothing about my case, that I "stole from people and got away with it".

And that "I'm a thief,just not a convicted one"

I asked an original question about garda vetting as I may have to coach kids to play football (you know,actually doing something good for a community) and as suspected, someone goes off topic and gets high and mighty like I'm Adolf Hitler and tried to exterminate a race.

I made a mistake, I learnt from it. I never have nor will do it again. I'm human, I'm flawed.

Does being charged with theft when I was 20 years old mean I'm a terrible person for the rest of my life? perhaps to some.

Anyways, thanks for the advice, Curt Hennig.

It means that if your employer googles your name they will likely learn of your case and wonder why you did not fully disclose your past and what other things you might be hiding. Not sure where my ego comes in.

i was using the word "you" in a more abstract sense. Perhaps I should have used "one" instead. I appear to have struck a nerve.

I think I answered your original question quite well. You are the one who decided to go off topic and talk about how unfair it is that unsuccessful prosecutions show up. Remember?

Not necessarily a terrible person but perhaps someone who's character should be more closely scrutinised before allowing them to work with children.

You're welcome.

BattleCorp

MagicSean wrote: »

That might be it. All prosecutions, successful or not, are disclosed afaik.

That hardly seems fair.

What if you were 100% innocent and somebody made a ridiculous claim against you of, lets say rape. Supposing half way through the trial it comes out that you couldn't possibly have done it because you were on another continent at the time, what happens then? You'd be found innocent (and rightly so) but the rape prosecution would remain on your file to be disclosed during the vetting procedure. It would black mark against your character through no fault of your own. That doesn't seem right.

Am I misunderstanding the situation here?

MagicSean

BattleCorp wrote: »

That hardly seems fair.

What if you were 100% innocent and somebody made a ridiculous claim against you of, lets say rape. Supposing half way through the trial it comes out that you couldn't possibly have done it because you were on another continent at the time, what happens then? You'd be found innocent (and rightly so) but the rape prosecution would remain on your file to be disclosed during the vetting procedure. It would black mark against your character through no fault of your own. That doesn't seem right.

Am I misunderstanding the situation here?

Why would you not bring up the fact you were on another continent when being questioned?

BattleCorp

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would you not bring up the fact you were on another continent when being questioned?

I was exaggerating to make a point - an extreme example that would prove 100% that you were innocent.

My query is that if you are proven innocent (and are 100% innocent), why is the charge still on your record for a prospective employer or somebody else to view when going through the vetting process?

Our man in Havana

It's the "no smoke without fire" typical Irish mentality at work.

murrayp4

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would you not bring up the fact you were on another continent when being questioned?

You have the right, in most cases, to remain silent when questioned by police.

The right is there for your protection against the state.

A good example of this could be where you happily tell the police you were in one place at a certain time (after all, you've nothing to hide) where a credible witness, unbeknownst to you, has told the police they saw you elsewhere, but has made an honest mistake.

In this instance because you have decided to tell the police your story, they may immediately suspect you are a liar and are hiding the truth from them.

MagicSean

murrayp4 wrote: »

You have the right, in most cases, to remain silent when questioned by police.

The right is there for your protection against the state.

A good example of this could be where you happily tell the police you were in one place at a certain time (after all, you've nothing to hide) where a credible witness, unbeknownst to you, has told the police they saw you elsewhere, but has made an honest mistake.

In this instance because you have decided to tell the police your story, they may immediately suspect you are a liar and are hiding the truth from them.

And if you choose to execute that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences should there be a case for you to answer.

murrayp4

MagicSean wrote: »

And if you choose to execute that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences should there be a case for you to answer.

Yes that's true but that will be done in a court, not an interrogation room.

My point is that sometimes people who are not guilty will inadvertently make themselves appear guilty when all they want to do is 'sort out this silly misunderstanding'. There is the possibility you'll occidentally add fuel to the case against you. This is why any decent criminal solicitor will advise you not to talk when being questioned.

MagicSean

murrayp4 wrote: »

Yes that's true but that will be done in a court, not an interrogation room.

My point is that sometimes people who are not guilty will inadvertently make themselves appear guilty when all they want to do is 'sort out this silly misunderstanding'. There is the possibility you'll occidentally add fuel to the case against you. This is why any decent criminal solicitor will advise you not to talk when being questioned.

My point is that you can't hold out for your day in court and then complain that you had to go to court.

murrayp4

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would you not bring up the fact you were on another continent when being questioned?

Were you not asking why you wouldn't tell the police where you were when being questioned?

Anyway,we're probably straying off-topic from the OP..

MarkyMark22

I'm sure there have been instances were people have been completely innocent, and been found innocent in court...

Gardai are human after all, mistakes can and will be made...

I can understand why my record of being charged would show on a vetting check when attempting to work with children. As I am volunteering and not being paid I'm hoping it won't be held against me, and from what I've read it won't. As it wasn't a child related or violent crime.

I can also understand why someone who was completely innocent, and was found innocent in court, would be absolutely furious that it would show up if they wanted to get a job were Garda Vetting is a requirement...

I assume with the new Spent Convictions Bill that Prosecutions will become spent after a certain time also.

Surely non-convictions wouldn't continue to show up when convictions won't.

Finnbar01

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would you not bring up the fact you were on another continent when being questioned?

Why would you?

BornToKill

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Why would you?

So as to end the misunderstanding and not get charged and not have to go through a court appearance to face criminal charges?

Our man in Havana

You are under no obligation to assist the prosecution.

MarkyMark22

Isn't it for them to prove your guilt, rather than for you to prove your innocence?

Our man in Havana

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Isn't it for them to prove your guilt, rather than for you to prove your innocence?

Yes. There is no obligation to assist them in doing so.

BornToKill

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Isn't it for them to prove your guilt, rather than for you to prove your innocence?

Sure, but at that stage you are in court. There's no obligation on a suspect to assist the investigation (bar some particular obligations mainly under the Offences Against the State Acts) but it can certainly be in the interests of an innocent accused to establish at an early stage that he/she could not have committed the offence so as to preclude a prosecution proceeding to trial. Again, though, no obligation.

Finnbar01

BornToKill wrote: »

So as to end the misunderstanding and not get charged and not have to go through a court appearance to face criminal charges?

So after all that you stil have a record?

BornToKill

Finnbar01 wrote: »

So after all that you stil have a record?

No you do not. What would be the point of charging someone with a crime when they can show they were out of the country at the time? So there would be no prosecution and no subsequent acquittal.

MarkyMark22

BornToKill wrote: »

Sure, but at that stage you are in court. There's no obligation on a suspect to assist the investigation (bar some particular obligations mainly under the Offences Against the State Acts) but it can certainly be in the interests of an innocent accused to establish at an early stage that he/she could not have committed the offence so as to preclude a prosecution proceeding to trial. Again, though, no obligation.

Completely understand that. And I'm sure thats what happens.

Just seems surprising that someone who genuinely is completely innocent, and has been found completely innocent, can still have some blotches on their record.

Maybe it's different for people who plead not guilty, then are proven innocent.

Rather then having plead guilty and have a case struck out.

It's an interesting one though.

I for one don't feel hard done by it, as I was extremely grateful to have my case struck out.

But if someone was genuinely innocent and had been charged etc, they have every right to be outraged by it.

MarkyMark22

BornToKill wrote: »

No you do not. What would be the point of charging someone with a crime when they can show they were out of the country at the time? So there would be no prosecution and no subsequent acquittal.

As the person who posted that said, he was exaggerating to make a point.

I'm sure people have been charged and then found innocent in court before?

BornToKill

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Just seems surprising that someone who genuinely is completely innocent, and has been found completely innocent, can still have some blotches on their record.

I have never heard of someone being found completely innocent. I believe the finding is 'not guilty'.

MarkyMark22

BornToKill wrote: »

I have never heard of someone being found completely innocent. I believe the finding is 'not guilty'.

Well I'm sure completely innocent people have been found not guilty.

BornToKill

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Well I'm sure completely innocent people have been found not guilty.

I'm sure they have too. Not 'completely innocent' though.

Finnbar01

BornToKill wrote: »

So as to end the misunderstanding and not get charged and not have to go through a court appearance to face criminal charges?

Oops, got my posts mixed up. Sorry.

BattleCorp

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

Just seems surprising that someone who genuinely is completely innocent, and has been found completely innocent not guilty, can still have some blotches on their record.

.

This is my point exactly. Why would such a thing be placed on your record if you did nothing wrong? It could seriously harm your chances of being hired etc etc.

Our man in Havana

Being not guilty does not mean you didn't do it.

Dandelion6

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Being not guilty does not mean you didn't do it.

Legally, that's exactly what it means. So why should a legal record show a charge for which the person was acquitted?

MagicSean

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Legally, that's exactly what it means. So why should a legal record show a charge for which the person was acquitted?

Because it happened. It happened in a public court. Like I already said, there are three records you can apply for. A certificate of clearance is used for foreign travel and employment. It only shows successful convictions. The second is the vetting form which is available only by application through your employer and is required for particular jobs. It shows all prosecutions in public courts. So there is already a public record of these. The third is a data protection application which shows all your dealings with the gardai. It is sometimes requests by employers too.