DBS shows criminal record

[GreyBlossom]

It's someone I hope to employ working with children. You don't need a clear DBS I.e. a conviction for fraud wouldn't necessarily exclude you, but we have to do a risk assessment where there is any conviction.

This conviction is for owning an out of control dog. The dog attacked candidate's own son. Dog was destroyed, candidate mortified. My reaction was it sounds awful, but doesn't affect the work.

The colleague I was discussing it with (joint decision required) said "well it might not be relevant, but it could very much speak to who she is".

What do you think?

I've been on preschool hiring committees.
Am pretty sure I would argue the case that it's not relevant enough conviction. I might not convince anyone else on committee, tbf.

I really don't like "Never Forgive" attitudes. It must be lovely to have never misjudged a situation or screwed up in one's life.

Useful info here- unlock.org.uk/can-employment-law-help-youre-refused-job-badly-treated-employer-result-criminal-record/

If the job involves children I definitely wouldn't hire her, shows she is careless and takes risks.

You may as well say you won't employ dog owners. It's a risk with any dog.

Or it could be that she is now more vigilant and takes no risk at all.
So hard to say without exploring it further with her. We all respond to things differently.

I don’t understand your response here, your OP says the job is working with children?

I'd not be comfortable hiring her.
For it to have got to the stage where this is on her record it must have been worse than she's told you.
I'd worry about honesty.

Also they wouldn’t have convicted her if the child wasn’t badly hurt if she hadn’t done something wrong or neglectful here, it sounds like she’s not telling you everything.

She was convicted ‘for owning an out of control dog’. I would say this is more than just an otherwise lovely dog suddenly snapping.

I would be wary that you are not getting the whole truth.

I would also be wary of posting on here.

If she's applying to be a dog handler, then it's relevant.

If she's applying to be a childminder then it might well be relevant.

If she's applying to work in a nursery, then I can't see the relevance.

I agree there might be more too it than she is letting on. Also how long ago was this, I am in my fifties now but I can think of people I knew in their 20s who did some truly irresponsible and criminal things who are absolutely model citizens now.

A dog can snap without any previous indications. She dealt with the situation appropriately. She answered your questions about it well. I don't think it's an issue, personally. Poor woman.

I just wanted to agree with this and other comments. You have to remember that the police do not charge (and CPS do not prosecute? or did she accept it as a caution or is a trial etc?) unless there is a good case, good evidence and a good reason to where someone "deserves" it in their eyes if you see what I mean. If it was just a child getting bitten from a family dog as a fluke crazy one off then I don't believe she would have this record. There is more to the story..

Now whether this is enough to not hire her is a diff matter ofc..

Any dog can suddenly turn, it could have been ill, had a tumour, anything. Just because a dog is a breed usually placid and great with kids doesn't mean it won't turn and bite.

According to the Kennel Club labs are the biggest biters. Makes you think twice about that Andrex puppy doesn't it?

It would not stop me employing someone.

Would they prosecute for the Andrex puppy suddenly snapping scenario though? Sounds like there must be more to it and makes me wonder if she’s been dishonest with you, which to me would be a bigger red flag than the DBS.

Labs are also one of the most popular breeds , is that taken into account in that stat?

Apparently you can be prosecuted for a one off attack.

Princess Anne was convicted under the
Dangerous Dogs Act. It hasn't stopped her!

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3345585.stm

Depends on job. You need more context of the conviction how long ago. Had they had the dog long, age of child, what actually happened. What's she learned from it and possibly a work based risk assessment.

Oh dear, guess she shouldn't be going near children without a clean DBS!

You can be prosecuted for a lot of things that people generally are not prosecuted for without further reason. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a case where an otherwise friendly family pet has totally out of the blue injured a family member and the owner be prosecuted. There would need to be some kind of negligence

Totally irrelevant

All the points above are right, if the assumptions are correct. However, what still seems unclear is why she was prosecuted. If it's a 'strict liability offence' (ie dog injured someone, therefore out of control, therefore guilty) then fair enough and I believe in second chances. If it's not such an offence (ie she has been convicted because she should have known dog was out of control - it wasn't just a one off) then yes, that would have me questioning her ability to safeguard and asses and manage risks and would tell me some outing about her that I would not want to take a risk on in a childcare setting.

I am not at all sure of your suitability to employ people given you are discussing the details of someone's confidential situation on here!

Indeed. You should have a policy on this and follow the policy.