criminal record clearance

[didds]

22 year old pleads guilty to GBH, given fine but no jail sentence.

Does that criminal record ever "clear" - or does that 22 year old have it for life eg until he dies aged 95 ?

cheers

didds

Moderator Message:
As this thread is (quite reasonably) turning into a wider discussion, I'll move it to Legal where that is more appropriate (chas49)

[chas49]

22 year old pleads guilty to GBH, given fine but no jail sentence.

Does that criminal record ever "clear" - or does that 22 year old have it for life eg until he dies aged 95 ?

cheers

didds

https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment

Other punishments Rehabilitation period (from end of sentence)
Community order (such as unpaid work) 1 year
Fine 1 year (from date of conviction)
Absolute discharge (you were not given a punishment) None

Also (same page):

The length of your rehabilitation period depends on how long you were in prison or young offender institution, or what sort of punishment you got. After that, your crime (also known as your ‘conviction’) is ‘spent’. This means you do not need to tell anyone about it.

Before your conviction is spent, you only have to tell the employer about your past crime if they ask you.

[didds]

cheers chas49...

so in terms of fine and 1 year... that is irrelevant as to charge? eg same as for drunk and disorderly, and GBH ? (trying toc ome nup with a "minor" v "major" conviction) ?

ta

didds

[jfgw]

Police records will persist, normally for life. I am not aware that the police check for when people die but there may be a policy, for example, of deleting records when someone reaches 100.

In most cases, spent convictions may be disregarded and need not be declared. In some cases, however (such as an application for a job working with children or vulnerable people), a conviction must be declared even after it is spent.

Julian F. G. W.

[didds]

Cheers aga9in - so its the "spent" scneraio I think I am thinking of.

So - just to check etc etc... the time before being "spent" is the same for GBH as it would be for any other crime IF the penalty was a fine only (and not a jail term?)

cheers

didds

[UncleEbenezer]

Aren't there exceptions to this? Like sex offences never getting spent? So if you get a caution for finding yourself hypnotised by a lady's cleavage, you're tarred for life. Whereas if you apply a meat-cleaver to the lady and inflict severe damage but in an entirely non-sexual context, your conviction will be duly spent.

[Lootman]

Police records will persist, normally for life. I am not aware that the police check for when people die but there may be a policy, for example, of deleting records when someone reaches 100.

In most cases, spent convictions may be disregarded and need not be declared. In some cases, however (such as an application for a job working with children or vulnerable people), a conviction must be declared even after it is spent.

The police record will persist but will not be revealed - that's the important distinction. Where that record would be used is if the offender re-offends - in that case the previous conviction can be taken into account for sentencing. So it might be more accurate to describe the record as "sealed" rather than "spent".

But the important thing is that you can legally "lie" to employers and others, and can legally claim to have no criminal record. Moreover a search or background check will not reveal the conviction. Of course in some cases there may be newspaper reports of the case which can be found online. It's easier to get a criminal record removed than it is a google search result

There are more generous rules for juveniles who offend. And stricter rules for some types of sex offences.

[chas49]

Incidentally, pretty sure you can't just get a fine for GBH?

[DrBunsenHoneydew]

Incidentally, pretty sure you can't just get a fine for GBH?

Technically you can inflict GBH on yourself, so imprisonment might be inappropriate.
In fact, some GBH may be classed as lawful. This covers those who are acting in self defence or prevention of crime and where the injury results from properly conducted games and sports.

[DrBunsenHoneydew]

Topical note from the Supreme Court handed down today:

Minor historic convictions no longer have to be disclosed during background checks after the government was defeated in a landmark ruling at the Supreme Court today.

The Home Office lost appeals against a human rights ruling won by some individuals who say that their lives have been unfairly blighted by reprimands or minor offences committed years ago when they seek work with children.

Judges in the Supreme Court ruled that a revised criminal records disclosure scheme was “disproportionate” in requiring that all previous convictions should be disclosed however minor when a person has more than one conviction.

[Lootman]

Incidentally, pretty sure you can't just get a fine for GBH?

Technically you can inflict GBH on yourself, so imprisonment might be inappropriate.

In fact, some GBH may be classed as lawful. This covers those who are acting in self defence or prevention of crime and where the injury results from properly conducted games and sports.

The sports example is an interesting one, because it could be claimed that you consented to the "assault", e.g. in a boxing or wrestling match.

Has a footballer ever been convicted of assault or GBH for a bad tackle?

[kiloran]

The sports example is an interesting one, because it could be claimed that you consented to the "assault", e.g. in a boxing or wrestling match.

Has a footballer ever been convicted of assault or GBH for a bad tackle?

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... edge.sport

--kiloran

[didds]

My limited understanding of the sports scenario (via being invoilved with rugby for over 40 years) is that eg a rugby tackle if enacted "out of the bloue" on the street is assualt. However as part of the game, participants accept that they will be assaulted in this standard practise . However, I also understand that eg punches and kicks to the body are not permitted in the laws of rugby (union or league) and so anybody doing so in a gake is still open to charges of assault as they are not part of the gakme and participants should not accept them as occurring.

I cant find references these days but back in the early 90s (Id guess at 1994) ISTR a welsh top level player (not an international though I don;t think) that was prosecuted "successfully" for assault from punches thrown in a match. His defence being its part of the game but it was held that it wasnt a permissable rugby action so was not part of the game etc.

Im happy to be wrong!

didds

[Generali]

I have a very vague recollection of a player throwing a punch in a soccer/football match and a copper marching onto the pitch and arresting him in about the very early 80s. ISTR it being shown on MoTD when I was a kid and my parents had gone out (thus me being able to stay up late enough ). It might have been in a cup match...? I can't find any details via a quick Google.

[bungeejumper]

This is the most recent one I can remember (2010). https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... n-leg.html .

Nasty business. Whereas most of the sportsmen who develop a GBH habit seem to have the good sense to do it outside a nightclub.

BJ