• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Declaring Convictions to Employers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tarquin88

Member
Joined
26 Jan 2016
Messages
28
Location
Basingstoke
There are often questions on here about the consequences that a (rail-related) conviction may have for one’s future career. Posters may be interested in this article from The Times today which covers (in my view) a very minor offence from 22 years ago and the requirement to declare it annually.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/locum-specsavers-optician-shouldve-kept-his-clothes-on-pjdcbk7qr

Jagdip Dhariwal got a criminal record for indecent exposure in 1998 after joining in a freshers’ week dare at the age of 28. He was arrested for stripping with university friends and running around outside at midnight. Mr Dhariwal, 50, a locum optometrist in Romsey, Hampshire, faced a tribunal last week for failing to tell the General Optical Council about his conviction.

He said that he had not declared it because he viewed the punishment as a slap on the wrist for a student prank. He told the council that he had been celebrating a friend’s engagement. “Five of us had gathered for dinner and a few drinks,” he said. “It was freshers’ week and two of those invited were students . . . everyone was in high spirits. By around midnight three of us were quite drunk and were encouraged by the others to streak into the cold. It was a foolish dare but being silly we decided to strip off and ran outside. We stood outside only briefly, before dashing back inside. There were a few students around outside. A police vehicle pulled up as the students raised their voices to cheer us on. Realising the dare had been inappropriate and stupid we quickly dressed as officers came to the door and demanded to be let in. I was taken to a police station and put in a cell. I was not aware at the time that I was being arrested.”

Mr Dhariwal was released after a few hours. He appeared at Southampton magistrates’ court where he pleaded guilty and answered some “jocular questions” before he was ordered to pay a £100 fine and costs of £45.

Since 2006 the council has required optometrists to file annual retention forms that ask them to declare criminal convictions. The tribunal was told that Mr Dhariwal had always ticked “no” because he believed that his conviction was similar to a speeding or littering fine. However, the council received an anonymous tip-off about the incident in December 2015. Mr Dhariwal admitted the event.

A council report said that Mr Dhariwal must have realised that he had received a criminal conviction. The tribunal concluded: “The committee found it impossible to accept the registrant’s account that he had not realised that . . . he had received a criminal conviction. The registrant’s intentional failures to disclose his conviction on annual retention forms between 2006 and 2015 was a lengthy period of time. His conduct involved active dishonesty.” Mr Dhariwal said: “At the material time I was not aware it was considered criminal behaviour or that it would mean I had a criminal record. In my mind it was a student prank for which I had simply been fined and did not attach any ‘conviction’ to the matter.”

Mr Dhariwal admitted three misconduct breaches and the tribunal suspended him for six months.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
A little bit of a mismatch between the thread title and the content: this is about someone in a profession with a regulator and what they were required (and failed) to reveal to that regulator, not what they should have told their employer.

And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there's nothing in the article that suggests that had the offender openly declared his offence that he would have suffered for it: the punishment appears to be for the failure to declare (presumably for the last three years) not for having been very silly when he was old enough to know better.
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
A little bit of a mismatch between the thread title and the content: this is about someone in a profession with a regulator and what they were required (and failed) to reveal to that regulator, not what they should have told their employer.

And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there's nothing in the article that suggests that had the offender openly declared his offence that he would have suffered for it: the punishment appears to be for the failure to declare (presumably for the last three years) not for having been very silly when he was old enough to know better.
Yes but there will be other professions governing bodies or certain employers who would take this view when most I suspect would either not care or regard it as too far in the past.
Something for those in or about to be in employment to remember.
In the case quoted someone must have really disliked him to go to the bother of reporting it.
 
Last edited:

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,810
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
I presume the offence is considered to be of a sexual nature, and so declarable (not "protected") even if spent under the GOC rules (which are here if someone wants to read them in full...
https://www.optical.org/en/Registration/Making_declarations/index.cfm

There are 3 points to consider. The lack of honesty through non-disclosure suggests poor character and judgement from Jagdip Dhariwal; the act could be construed as sexual in nature and the fact he was a locum will most likely aid probable dismissal. Employers have been cutting right back on locum/agency staff during recent times

Unfortunately for him, Mr Dhariwal is now likely to be unemployable for the forseeable future in his profession - if at all, given age is against him now and Specsavers only appear to be interested in graduates now
 
Last edited:

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,810
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
He may not be employable as an optician, but I think it unlikely that he'd fail to get any kind of job.

Yes, that's kinda what I meant however, having invested huge amounts of time and money training to become an optician, it would be a hard pill to swallow to lose all of that and retrain to do something else at the grand age of 50
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
The reason for convictions becoming spent is to allow convicted people to get on with their lives and not suffer from their mistakes for ever.

As I understand the law he does not have to declare spent convictions regardless of what employers ask.

Normally I would have thought that a claim for unfair dismissal was warranted.

Being a locum muddies the waters however.

Personally, if I was employing I would laugh about this and it would not affect my judgement.
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
He has been suspended for 6 months, surely after that he is able to be employed again.

Only a very prudish employer or customer would object even though 28 is a bit old for student pranks.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
The reason for convictions becoming spent is to allow convicted people to get on with their lives and not suffer from their mistakes for ever.

As I understand the law he does not have to declare spent convictions regardless of what employers ask.

Normally I would have thought that a claim for unfair dismissal was warranted.

Being a locum muddies the waters however.

Personally, if I was employing I would laugh about this and it would not affect my judgement.
The GOC documentation explicitly states that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act doesn't apply to registrations but doesn't quote the authority for this.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,810
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
The reason for convictions becoming spent is to allow convicted people to get on with their lives and not suffer from their mistakes for ever.

As I understand the law he does not have to declare spent convictions regardless of what employers ask.

Normally I would have thought that a claim for unfair dismissal was warranted.

Being a locum muddies the waters however.

Personally, if I was employing I would laugh about this and it would not affect my judgement.

Indecent exposure is a sexual crime and needs to be declared under an enhanced DBS check

Regulators require registrants to be honest, open and transparent

Had Jagdip declared his conviction when asked, probably nothing would have been made of it.

But, knowing he had a conviction for a sexual crime and not disclosing, the GOC decided to suspend him to protect the public

It is no laughing matter. Regulators are very clear in their conduct rules
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
Surely the answer depends on the question asked by the employer:
Have you EVER been convicted of a criminal offence?
or
Do you have a criminal record?

The first would seem to me that any conviction has to be notified, no matter how long ago.
 

Vespa

Established Member
Joined
20 Dec 2019
Messages
1,576
Location
Merseyside
I find the story odd that there was an anonymous tip-off years and years after the event. Someone with a grudge?

Wonder how the Grass found out ?
In pre internet days, we've all done daft things thankfully the only people to know about it would be me and maybe a select few, you kept your mouth shut and no evidence..the Grass could only have known if he was told about it.

Cautionary tale indeed, now all your past indiscretions is online, copied, retrievable and used against you.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
The reason for convictions becoming spent is to allow convicted people to get on with their lives and not suffer from their mistakes for ever.

As I understand the law he does not have to declare spent convictions regardless of what employers ask.

Normally I would have thought that a claim for unfair dismissal was warranted.

Being a locum muddies the waters however.

Personally, if I was employing I would laugh about this and it would not affect my judgement.


Where does unfair dismissal come in to this? Nowhere in the article does it say that Specsavers have dismissed him. We may surmise that they will/have, because his Professional Registration has been suspended and (presumably) he is not in a position to carry out his contracted duties.
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
Surely the answer depends on the question asked by the employer:
Have you EVER been convicted of a criminal offence?
or
Do you have a criminal record?
Usually, the former question is asked on application forms
The first question also has the virtue of being clear. You only have to watch the postings in this subforum to realise that there's no universal understanding of what's meant by 'criminal record'.
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
He has been suspended for 6 months, surely after that he is able to be employed again.
This is a very serious breach of trust and carries zero tolerance in the medical profession

Yes a breach of trust but the suspension is for 6 months not complete removal from the register. Had it been considered a serious enough criminal offence he surely would have been removed permanantly, the 6 months suspension must be for the non declaration of the offence. The 6 months to a degree is like a football player being suspended for a period after a red card.
 

An_Engineer

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2018
Messages
29
The first question also has the virtue of being clear. You only have to watch the postings in this subforum to realise that there's no universal understanding of what's meant by 'criminal record'.

However the first question does run the risk of being an illegal question at interview, as someone previously convicted but who had "spent" their conviction would still have to answer yes (a spent conviction in law is treated as never having a conviction, unless the job requires additional disclosure).

It does seem a bit harsh on the poor optometrist. He was not suspended from his job for failing to declare a conviction (which, as it was just a fine from 22 years ago, must have been spent). He was suspended from his professional body, which have no such restriction (in-deed, they could base part of their entry requirements as being able to sing all songs from the Sound of Music as irrational as that may be), and being suspended from his professional body is what lost him his job.

As to how it relates to railways, from my understanding if a ticket 'case' reaches court then if convicted it goes on your record. A lot of people (as did the optometrist) equate criminal record with a custodial sentence, and equate fines to being equivalent of parking tickets. The implication is also clear that for people in professions that belong to professional bodies, even minor conviction can have undue effect on their career long after a conviction is spent.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,810
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
A suspension for 6 months means he is unable to practice. Along with the seriousness of dishonesty and misconduct, he will struggle to find suitable alternative employment in his profession. These kind of professions (optometry, dentistry, audiology, physiotherapists etc) are very close-knit where almost everyone knows everyone within their speciality.

Your comparison is nothing like a football player being suspended. Firstly, a football player would be likely to be suspended for totally different reasons and likely have the financial resources to survive for 6 months. Then, he can play for his team again.

In medicine, a suspension is far more serious and undermimes patient trust and safety. And I would wager that this chap would face hardship for 6 months.

The two suspensions just aren't comparable

The criminal offence was serious enough but luckily for Mr Dhariwal, he had good service and references that prevented him from being struck off

If, and a big if, Mr Dhariwal is fortunate to find another locum job in his field, it will be under very strict supervisory conditions until he can satisfy the panel that he is fit to practice

My profession is very similar in this respect hence I know how the system works
 

Ell887

Member
Joined
22 Apr 2020
Messages
36
Location
Leeds
I’m not sure how the medical sector vets it’s staff. However I’ve done SC (security clearance) and DV (developed vetting) processes and if anything like this is done, it’s very in depth. Everything has to be declared, although once it’s declared it negates the issues that could arise from it. Open and honest is always best practice, to pass the assessments and to steer clear of any integrity issues should your employer get a look at the report.
 

Rich McLean

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2012
Messages
1,684
As above, with DV, everything is declared, even what restaraunt you ate at on a Saturday night 10 years ago or how many people you have selpt with, cheated on, with places and dates of occurances. They go through everything from the point you were born, to the present and any interactions with the Law, recordable or not, need to be declared along with financial history, and they will find out if you don't tell them. The interviewers often know more about you than you can remember when you walk into the room.

The vetting staff are impartial. What they are looking for is Trust and your suspectibility of being bribed in exhancge for information, so as long as you decalre everything, you will likely pass, but certain things like history of revealing sensitive information or bad financial history (past or present) will prevent you obtaining a DV.

I imagine the Medical profession works very similar. As long as you declare everything, most of the time as long as its well in the past, you shouldn't have any issues. If he declared it every year from the beginning, nothing would have been said or changed.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
When this guy was prosecuted, was the law as it is now concerning spent offences, particularly spent ones, could he have been under the impression that the offence was spent and so not need to be reported, it would certainly be pre sex offenders register days.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
5,810
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
When this guy was prosecuted, was the law as it is now concerning spent offences, particularly spent ones, could he have been under the impression that the offence was spent and so not need to be reported, it would certainly be pre sex offenders register days.

Any job working in healthcare and with children or vulnerable people is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and therefore convictions need to be disclosed whether they are spent or not.

I wouldn't have thought Mr Dhariwal would be on the sex offenders register though
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top