What goes on your record if your not convicted in court?

random1337

Basically Im going to court over 1.5grams of cannabis....
If you're fined you get a conviction
but if you pay into the poor box u get what?
will there still be some 'flag' on my record or...?
so what happens in this situation?

can someone enlighten me please

Sala

No. If the Judge applies the probation act and tells you to make a donatio to charity you will not have a conviction.

random1337

Sala wrote: »

No. If the Judge applies the probation act and tells you to make a donatio to charity you will not have a conviction.

but if you apply for a job at some global company lets say, and they perform a background check, will they be able to 'see' this
Does having the probation act leave a mark on your record?

Cody Pomeray

random1337 wrote: »

but if you apply for a job at some global company lets say, and they perform a background check, will they be able to 'see' this

Yes, because a prosecution will have been brought to completion, even if it was unsuccessful.

Does having the probation act leave a mark on your record?

It is not a conviction, but its prosecution will still be visible.

random1337

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes, because a prosecution will have been brought to completion, even if it was unsuccessful.

It is not a conviction, but its prosecution will still be visible.

so do you think this will affect me in the future in getting work?
i cant believe all this, this is my first and only offence by the way

Cody Pomeray

random1337 wrote: »

so do you think this will affect me in the future in getting work?

I'm afraid I have no idea. I agree that it seems unjust that unsuccessful prosecutions should remain visible.

Proponents would argue that recording unsuccessful prosecutions protects the public against technical acquittals, and point out that justice is conducted in public anyway, but I don't consider these particularly strong points.

insignia33

random1337 wrote: »

so do you think this will affect me in the future in getting work?
i cant believe all this, this is my first and only offence by the way

I know some IT company's have a zero tolerance for that kind of thing, but at the end of the day its really down to that particular companies policies. Some places wont bat an eyelid over it, other places wont entertain the idea of hiring someone with a drugs history.

Also, the longer ago it happened the better. Obviously now its only a fresh mark, but in 4 years time, providing you dont get caught again, it wont look as bad.

NoQuarter

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It is not a conviction, but its prosecution will still be visible.

Are you sure about this? It goes completely against what I had previously thought. Have you a source?

Cody Pomeray

NoQuarter wrote: »

Are you sure about this? It goes completely against what I had previously thought. Have you a source?

Which part, the part about it not being a conviction, or the part about it going on vetting?

Re convictions, here is a link I cam across on this forum recently
http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/gardai-told-to-stop-calling-probation-act-a-conviction-27890365.html

re prosecution,
http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=36#FAQ2735

What details are disclosed as a result of Garda Vetting?
Within current disclosure policy, details of all convictions and/or prosecutions, successful or not, pending or completed, in the State or elsewhere as the case may be are disclosed to the authorised liaison person in the registered organisation.

NoQuarter

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Which part, the part about it not being a conviction, or the part about it going on vetting?

Re convictions, here is a link I cam across on this forum recently
http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/gardai-told-to-stop-calling-probation-act-a-conviction-27890365.html

re prosecution,
http://www.garda.ie/FAQ/Default.aspx?FAQCategory=36#FAQ2735

Just about the vetting. That is a surprise. Perhaps what I was thinking is do you have to disclose it, to which the answer is no. Unless, of course, the question on any application form is "have you ever been arrested/prosecuted?". Which, I suppose is a pretty unfair question.

dharma200

I have no advise, I just have to say who,ever brought you to court over 1.5 Gramms of canabis deserve to be in court themselves. That such a stupid law can ruin someone's life reputation and potential travel over that amount of canabis is truly shocking. I really feel for you mate and hope the judge has half a brain and throws the whole thing out the window. Don't let them get you down.

Cody Pomeray

NoQuarter wrote: »

Just about the vetting. That is a surprise.

I could be wrong but I think the prosecution element of vetting only came in in recent (maybe 5?) years.

dharma200 wrote: »

I really feel for you mate and hope the judge has half a brain and throws the whole thing out the window. Don't let them get you down.

Well the judge did effectively throw it out (the OP was effectively acquitted); the issue is the episode doesn't necessarily end there.

Marcusm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm afraid I have no idea. I agree that it seems unjust that unsuccessful prosecutions should remain visible.

Proponents would argue that recording unsuccessful prosecutions protects the public against technical acquittals, and point out that justice is conducted in public anyway, but I don't consider these particularly strong points.

Surely that's a natural aspect of justice being seen to be done; in the absence of public courts the issue would be the absence of prosecution of persons of influence. What would be unjust would be any employer taking account of a prosecution which resulted in a not guilty verdict. A person accepting a sanction or diversion under the Probation of Offenders Act has neither been found guilty nor not guilty but has accepted that the case is effectively proved but that a conviction will not be recorded. It's a bit of an Irish solution to an Irish problem in that it does not amount to a not guilty verdict or a finding of innocence.

Finnbar01

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm afraid I have no idea. I agree that it seems unjust that unsuccessful prosecutions should remain visible.

Proponents would argue that recording unsuccessful prosecutions protects the public against technical acquittals, and point out that justice is conducted in public anyway, but I don't consider these particularly strong points.

Yep, it's like burying the hatchet but marking the spot where it's buried.

Cody Pomeray

Marcusm wrote: »

What would be unjust would be any employer taking account of a prosecution which resulted in a not guilty verdict.

If it would be unjust for the employer to take account of a prosecution which resulted in a finding of innocence or where the probation act was applied in favour of that defendant (and lately job candidate), what is the point of routinely disclosing unsuccessful prosecutions?

A person accepting a sanction or diversion under the Probation of Offenders Act has neither been found guilty nor not guilty but has accepted that the case is effectively proved but that a conviction will not be recorded. It's a bit of an Irish solution to an Irish problem in that it does not amount to a not guilty verdict or a finding of innocence.

Well, the British authorities have maintained that the probation act, although not a conviction, remains a finding of guilt. I do not know of any Irish authority which rejects this proposition. It's effectively a finding of "guilty and discharged", so the appropriate word is simply "unsuccesful".

As for being an Irish solution to an Irish problem, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, is British by birth, even though they have since abandoned it.

Marcusm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If it would be unjust for the employer to take account of a prosecution which resulted in a finding of innocence or where the probation act was applied in favour of that defendant (and lately job candidate), what is the point of routinely disclosing unsuccessful prosecutions?

Take the instance described by the OP, if he did not have the money to avail of the PoO, he would have a conviction. I would find it hard to justify a policy which tarred less wealthy members of society but not those able to afford a "donation".

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well, the British authorities have maintained that the probation act, although not a conviction, remains a finding of guilt. I do not know of any Irish authority which rejects this proposition. It's effectively a finding of "guilty and discharged", so the appropriate word is simply "unsuccesful".

As for being an Irish solution to an Irish problem, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, is British by birth, even though they have since abandoned it.

Clearly I misspoke when I said neither guilty nor not guilty. In fact, the fact that it is effectively "proved" to my mind means that it's equally valuable information as a conviction.

I appreciate the Edwardian introduction but it does read as late Victorian social policy. It's retention in Ireland is an anachronism represented throughout Irish society, clientelism, the power of money etc.

Lest you worry that I am some card carrying Trostkyite or malcontent who was unable to obtain a PoO benefit (I'm going to TM that one), I've never found myself in this position and could easily avail of it if available. I just find it all a bit sleazy.

Cody Pomeray

Marcusm wrote: »

Take the instance described by the OP, if he did not have the money to avail of the PoO, he would have a conviction. I would find it hard to justify a policy which tarred less wealthy members of society but not those able to afford a "donation".

You can see the probation act applied in the district court without any donation being ordered. DJs can be fairly responsive to taking account of the unwaged, even though strictly speaking they shouldn't be.

It's retention in Ireland is an anachronism represented throughout Irish society, clientelism, the power of money etc.

Well we could say the same thing for the entire fines process. All the "Poo" act realizes is that not all findings are so serious as to justify a potentially permanent blot on your character; although as we have seen, the existence or not of a conviction may be meaningless when it comes to vetting.

kopfan77

Please bear in mind that Garda Vetting cannot be done/requested willy nilly. It can only be done in specific circumstances where the organisation is registered with the Garda Vetting unit and in respect of personnel working in a position where they have unsupervised access to children and/or vulnerable adults. It is not possible, for example, for the company that I work for (manufacturing) to carry out a background check on any existing or potential new employee

insignia33

kopfan77 wrote: »

Please bear in mind that Garda Vetting cannot be done/requested willy nilly. It can only be done in specific circumstances where the organisation is registered with the Garda Vetting unit and in respect of personnel working in a position where they have unsupervised access to children and/or vulnerable adults. It is not possible, for example, for the company that I work for (manufacturing) to carry out a background check on any existing or potential new employee

I dont think this is true.

I say this because I know a few companies I have worked for and they were able to do background checks. Im not sure what exact check it was but it definitely would have been for a criminal record of some sort.

A company cant afford to employ you and then you get refused a visa/stopped from entering the USA because of past record that you didnt bother to mention during the interview.

Spook_ie

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/court_poor_box.html

Until new legislation is introduced however, the following information describes the current situation with regard to the Court Poor Box in Ireland.

The most common reason for making a decision such as this is that, in the opinion of the judge, while the prosecution has proven its case, it is not appropriate to enter a conviction. For example, the judge may anticipate that the defendant will not commit any other offence.

For example, on the one hand, it could be argued that the prospect of appearing in court is a significant deterrent from crime for some citizens. The fact that details of their personal lives and activities may become public knowledge can sometimes be enough to deter them from committing a crime again. In addition, having a conviction registered against you can significantly affect your life (i.e., employment prospects, career, business and social relationships, etc.). For this reason, where the court feels that the citizen will not re-offend, the judge can choose to impose a donation to the Court Poor Box.

It's all very airy fairy and the sooner it's done away with the better, if for no other reasoning than this

On the other hand, however, concerns have been expressed in Ireland as to the need to ensure equal treatment for offenders from different economic backgrounds. There is also a significant question as to the lack of accountability regarding the use of funds. For example, some people feel that having a Court Poor Box is a way out of conviction for some citizens who can afford to pay the fine. Other individuals who cannot afford the fine may have no option but to have their conviction registered against them. There are also concerns that donations to the Court Poor Box deprives the Irish Government of fines that should in ordinary circumstances be imposed.

Justice should NEVER be about the ability or otherwise to escape punishment because you have money

Cody Pomeray

insignia33 wrote: »

I dont think this is true.

I say this because I know a few companies I have worked for and they were able to do background checks. Im not sure what exact check it was but it definitely would have been for a criminal record of some sort.

Possibly they required the employee to access their personal data in accordance with s.4 of the Data Protection Acts.

This is illegal according to the text of the Data Protection Acts, but the section making it illegal has not yet commenced. So for now, employers who are not registered for vetting can make these requests.

insignia33

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Possibly they required the employee to access their personal data in accordance with s.4 of the Data Protection Acts.

This is illegal according to the text of the Data Protection Acts, but the section making it illegal has not yet commenced. So for now, employers who are not registered for vetting can make these requests.

That could well be what was happening alright Pomeray.

Hypothetical question. What happens if those companies are prevented from finding out this information (as you suggest they will) and then they hire someone that turns out has a record after a few months of employment and is no longer suitable for the job as he cant travel. Surely thats good grounds for companies to be able to register for some level of garda vetting/clearence for new employees?

lukepaddy2

I got that probation act thingy around 7 years for being drunk and disorderly at 18:o:o:o during college . I was a tool. Would this be gone off my record. I'm currently working and no employer ever asked to check this. Not worried just wondering as 95% of employers in my area would have no need for this

ibebanging

I was arrested and charged with a road traffic offence in the early 1980s. I was drunk and walked in front of a car, was fined 50 pound in court.
I now work in health care and have gone through Garda vetting several times for promotions etc.
This still shows up on my record and I still have to give an explanation of the event every time. I explain no one was hurt, I was a teenager at the time and am heading towards 50 now.

Cody Pomeray

insignia33 wrote: »

Hypothetical question. What happens if those companies are prevented from finding out this information (as you suggest they will) and then they hire someone that turns out has a record after a few months of employment and is no longer suitable for the job as he cant travel. Surely thats good grounds for companies to be able to register for some level of garda vetting/clearence for new employees?

Vetting revolves around child safety, and that of other vulnerable people. Apart from that, I don't know what the internal Garda requirements are before an organization is admitted.

I don't think it should be a function of the Gardaí to release this data in order to make life easier for firms who want to avoid expensive HR mistakes.

It should be sufficient for a firm to ask a prospective employee to admit any previous convictions, pending prosecutions, or other grounds for ineligibility. If a candidate is dishonest, but is hired and causes trouble, then the firm should pursue him personally.

lukepaddy2 wrote: »

I got that probation act thingy around 7 years for being drunk and disorderly at 18:o:o:o during college . I was a tool. Would this be gone off my record.

Unfortunately not. But as was mentioned earlier, it is not recorded as a conviction. It's the same as if the prosecution were dismissed.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Dexdustinbury

The matter is clear - if you've been put on a criminal trial and acquitted, you're innocent. If the Probation Act has been applied, you've been proven guilty but the judge has ordered that no sentence arise (like jail or a fine).

It is unconstitutional for Garda Vetting to demand consent to disclosure of "prosecutions unsuccessful" and applicants should refuse this. The only record that should be disclosed about an applicant is CONVICTIONS.

Dexdustinbury

See this ...

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-06-25a.1059

Cody Pomeray

Dexdustinbury wrote: »

It is unconstitutional for Garda Vetting to demand consent to disclosure of "prosecutions unsuccessful" and applicants should refuse this. The only record that should be disclosed about an applicant is CONVICTIONS.

"Unconstitutional"? No.

The 2012 Act has not commenced. However, you are correct to say that it ought to relieve those given the probation act for very petty offences from any data being released about them. That is a very welcome change.

For the moment, however, unsuccessful prosecutions that may seem to be irrelevant can still be released.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surely that depends on the individual concerned. It's an data access request, not a run down of court decisions.

Dexdustinbury

It would be nice if trolls groomed by Alan Shatter and the Gardaí would stop putting their propaganda on this thread.

Garda vetting explicitly allows the Gardaí to invoke "unsuccessful prosecutions" against applicants. So, there's no need for criminal courts any more because even if you're acquitted a public record will still exist.

Put it like this: if you've been out through a criminal trial and acquitted, would you consider its unending mention on your employment record to be:-
(1) a reward, or
(2) a punishment

Stick to the simple and obvious

Dexdustinbury

*** PUT through

Put it like this: if you've been out through a criminal trial and acquitted, would you consider its unending mention on your employment record to be:-
(1) a reward, or
(2) a punishment

Stick to the simple and obvious[/quote]

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cody Pomeray

Dexdustinbury wrote: »

It would be nice if trolls groomed by Alan Shatter and the Gardaí would stop putting their propaganda on this thread.

Garda vetting explicitly allows the Gardaí to invoke "unsuccessful prosecutions" against applicants. So, there's no need for criminal courts any more because even if you're acquitted a public record will still exist.

Put it like this: if you've been out through a criminal trial and acquitted, would you consider its unending mention on your employment record to be:-
(1) a reward, or
(2) a punishment

Stick to the simple and obvious

"Trolls groomed by Alan Shatter"?

Listen, you've asserted that the current situation is "unconstitutional". Wrong.

You've cited the 2012 act. It hasn't commenced.

It's been well known that companies are trying to get around vetting constraints by requiring candidates to make s.4 requests. This has been commented upon (criticized, rather) by the Date Protection Ombudsman. There is no source that I know of which indicates that s.4 requests only include a list of convictions. It seems entirely possible to me - likely, in fact - that 'unsuccessful' court appearances might be recorded.

Stick to the simple and obvious yourselves guys.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cody Pomeray

Do Gardaí sign off "Yours, etc"?

Personal data... obviously... is not just that data which relates to convictions.

If Gardaí do not release any data under s.4, it may be that the Gardaí simply do not have any further data, or it may be that that data is deemed sensitive.

The meaning of personal data, as relevant to and interpreted by the gardaí :

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=136&Lang=1

Personal data in the context of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003, means data relating to a living individual who is or can be identified either from the data or from the data in conjunction with other information that is in, or is likely to come into, the possession of the data controller. Examples of this are any report, statement, file or electronically recorded entry from which a living individual can be identified. An individual may also be identified by a unique pseudonym, a nickname, or some other characteristic or feature unique to them. In addition, it may also include a car registration held by An Garda Síochána and relating to a person. It also includes communications data (excluding content) and IP addresses held by An Garda Síochána and relating to a person. The Data Protection Acts do not apply to data that is anonymised to remove any personal data from it.

Access Request is where a person makes a request to An Garda Síochána for the disclosure of their personal data under section 4 of the Acts. Responses issued under the Data Protection Acts to Data Subjects should not be construed as Garda Vetting, Character Reference, Security Clearance or any interpretation of same.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a bit of a qualified response, isn't it? I've no idea what information they might have on you BUT if you had previously been arrested, charged and bailed but not convicted, their response would seem to be cogent. HOWEVER, it would not be a complete report of the data held and thus not an adequate response for DP Act purposes.

usernamegoes

Interesting case in the UK on their Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Our act is being delayed until this is studied.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/25.html

Dexdustinbury

To return to topic: Garda vetting is unambiguous - the Gardaí will disclose any "prosecution unsuccessful" they want. The 2012 Act, according to the previous poster, has not yet been signed into action by the Minister but all that this new law will do is extend what may be disclosed beyond (1) convictions and (2) acquittals into (3) absolutely anything the Gardaí feel like disclosing

Despite all its bull****, the 2012 Act makes it effectively impossible for a dissatisfied subject to challenge the disclosure other than by (1) agreeing to retrial by a kangaroo court or (2) taking the Gardaí to the High Court with all the ruinous risk of cost involved.

Garda vetting stinks folks, get wise.