If You Had The Choice To Live Anywhere...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Security Clearance And Recent Arrests/charges
Within the past year, I have had charges brought up against me, the charges were either dismissed or discontinued. No charges made it to trial, however, for one of the charges i was found formally not guilty in a crown court before trial as there was no evidence, and the other three summary only offences were discontinued a month later before trial at a magistrates court. None of the charges were qualifying offences.
I am wondering if this could be used against for security vetting?
The most upsetting part is that the police came over for a completely different minor reason which would not have resulted in an arrest, however as I was working on a harmless electronics project, they immediately got scared, evacuated the building and called the B-squad... It was a nuisance type charge which did not make any sense at all, as my lawyer did say that the public nuisance was caused by the police themselves and it was not a crime in itself... (this was the charge that I was found not guilty of at a crown court, it was formally dismissed, not discontinued, whereas the other summary only offences were discontinued before trial at a magistrates court)
It is a very worrying situation, as I am seeking work in the public sector now that I have graduated, but I can't help to worry that the allegation will destroy my chances at any level of government security clearance...
My question is, will the vetting agency use an allegation by the police that resulted in a not guilty verdict at a crown court against me and think that I am a risk?
I am wondering if this could be used against for security vetting?
The most upsetting part is that the police came over for a completely different minor reason which would not have resulted in an arrest, however as I was working on a harmless electronics project, they immediately got scared, evacuated the building and called the B-squad... It was a nuisance type charge which did not make any sense at all, as my lawyer did say that the public nuisance was caused by the police themselves and it was not a crime in itself... (this was the charge that I was found not guilty of at a crown court, it was formally dismissed, not discontinued, whereas the other summary only offences were discontinued before trial at a magistrates court)
It is a very worrying situation, as I am seeking work in the public sector now that I have graduated, but I can't help to worry that the allegation will destroy my chances at any level of government security clearance...
My question is, will the vetting agency use an allegation by the police that resulted in a not guilty verdict at a crown court against me and think that I am a risk?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mhtu111. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We've been here before, of course:
https:/
Nobody here will know exactly what's recorded on police records or, possibly more importantly, exactly how it's been recorded. (The wording used in police records could affect the way that it's read by anyone who reviews it).
I fully recognise that your question is about security clearance and not about DBS checks but I believe that there are analogies between the two (and that those analogies might not bode at all well for you). So I'll refer you to a couple of things which I think might still be relevant (even if somewhat indirectly):
1. In the investigation which took place after the Soham murders it was found that the police in one part of the country had failed to pass on their concerns about Ian Huntley (who had been accused of sexual offences) to the Cambridgeshire force, so that nothing untoward was flagged up in his DBS check when he applied for a job as a school caretaker. Since then there has been a massive tightening up in the way things are done, so that even the slightest hint of inappropriate behaviour (even though totally unproven) now appears in DBS checks. I suspect that it's highly likely that a similar line is taken with checks for security clearance, meaning that the allegations against you WILL show up and might well count against you.
2. About a decade ago we had a post on AB from a teacher who'd fallen foul of the tightened rules that I've just referred to. He'd been working as a teacher for many years, with no problems at all with CRB checks (as they were then). However when he came to apply for a new job he found that the police had mentioned on his enhanced CRB check that he'd been accused of grooming a child for sex. That was despite the fact that nobody had ever put such an allegation to him. He knew nothing about the matter at all. He didn't know who'd made the accusation, he didn't know which child it referred to and he'd never been questioned by the police, or by anyone else, about the allegation. So he'd had no chance whatsoever to defend himself but his career was totally ruined. (At that time there was no way of challenging information presented on a CRB check. There is now such a mechanism for DBS checks).
So I've got a nasty feeling that you're going to find yourself in a somewhat similar situation with regard to seeking security clearance. i.e. the police will follow a policy of mentioning every allegation made against you in order to 'play safe'. (If they were thinking of charging you with something else, but they didn't think that there was enough evidence to obtain a conviction, they might mention that too. So, like the teacher above, something might show up which you're currently totally unaware of).
Then the person making an assessment based upon that information will also follow a policy of 'playing as safe as possible' (if only to cover their own back if anything were to go wrong), meaning that your application will be refused.
I hope that I'm wrong but I fear that I'll be proved right. Sorry!
https:/
Nobody here will know exactly what's recorded on police records or, possibly more importantly, exactly how it's been recorded. (The wording used in police records could affect the way that it's read by anyone who reviews it).
I fully recognise that your question is about security clearance and not about DBS checks but I believe that there are analogies between the two (and that those analogies might not bode at all well for you). So I'll refer you to a couple of things which I think might still be relevant (even if somewhat indirectly):
1. In the investigation which took place after the Soham murders it was found that the police in one part of the country had failed to pass on their concerns about Ian Huntley (who had been accused of sexual offences) to the Cambridgeshire force, so that nothing untoward was flagged up in his DBS check when he applied for a job as a school caretaker. Since then there has been a massive tightening up in the way things are done, so that even the slightest hint of inappropriate behaviour (even though totally unproven) now appears in DBS checks. I suspect that it's highly likely that a similar line is taken with checks for security clearance, meaning that the allegations against you WILL show up and might well count against you.
2. About a decade ago we had a post on AB from a teacher who'd fallen foul of the tightened rules that I've just referred to. He'd been working as a teacher for many years, with no problems at all with CRB checks (as they were then). However when he came to apply for a new job he found that the police had mentioned on his enhanced CRB check that he'd been accused of grooming a child for sex. That was despite the fact that nobody had ever put such an allegation to him. He knew nothing about the matter at all. He didn't know who'd made the accusation, he didn't know which child it referred to and he'd never been questioned by the police, or by anyone else, about the allegation. So he'd had no chance whatsoever to defend himself but his career was totally ruined. (At that time there was no way of challenging information presented on a CRB check. There is now such a mechanism for DBS checks).
So I've got a nasty feeling that you're going to find yourself in a somewhat similar situation with regard to seeking security clearance. i.e. the police will follow a policy of mentioning every allegation made against you in order to 'play safe'. (If they were thinking of charging you with something else, but they didn't think that there was enough evidence to obtain a conviction, they might mention that too. So, like the teacher above, something might show up which you're currently totally unaware of).
Then the person making an assessment based upon that information will also follow a policy of 'playing as safe as possible' (if only to cover their own back if anything were to go wrong), meaning that your application will be refused.
I hope that I'm wrong but I fear that I'll be proved right. Sorry!
I understand that, and maybe if there is a case where something is discontinued then there was no proof that the individual didn't do what he was accused of, meaning that there's a chance that the case could be reopened as there was not enough evidence to close it completely or there is some doubt on the individual's innocence.
However, if I was formally found not guilty, is that not different at all? Would the investigation's conclusion not make any difference at all as to how they treat that?
I have in fact also reviewed the evidence that my lawyer sent me, and they do say that once the b-squad arrived they analysed it and it was not viable at all and was just electronics which had been opened up (it is something you can just buy from Argos, something every single one of us has as a normal household item) they don't seem to word it out in too much of a scary way but it just doesn't make sense how they even charged me for a nuisance that they have caused themselves, which is precisely why they later just dropped the whole thing rather than discontinuing it...
I really do appreciate you taking the time to give those examples, however it does leave me with no hope... If the police really did have a suspicion that it actually was what they thought it was (It was NOT)... Would I not have been remanded to prison until court? would I really be allowed to walk freely on the streets until court?
I cannot make any sense as to why I would have been released until court if they had any suspicion that it was actually something serious? We aren't talking about something small here if the B-squad showed up..
My thought here is that this was not just an investigation with no further action, this was a completely ridiculous charge that was probably thoroughly investigated and was deemed to not be a crime at all... would this not be different from your examples?
However, if I was formally found not guilty, is that not different at all? Would the investigation's conclusion not make any difference at all as to how they treat that?
I have in fact also reviewed the evidence that my lawyer sent me, and they do say that once the b-squad arrived they analysed it and it was not viable at all and was just electronics which had been opened up (it is something you can just buy from Argos, something every single one of us has as a normal household item) they don't seem to word it out in too much of a scary way but it just doesn't make sense how they even charged me for a nuisance that they have caused themselves, which is precisely why they later just dropped the whole thing rather than discontinuing it...
I really do appreciate you taking the time to give those examples, however it does leave me with no hope... If the police really did have a suspicion that it actually was what they thought it was (It was NOT)... Would I not have been remanded to prison until court? would I really be allowed to walk freely on the streets until court?
I cannot make any sense as to why I would have been released until court if they had any suspicion that it was actually something serious? We aren't talking about something small here if the B-squad showed up..
My thought here is that this was not just an investigation with no further action, this was a completely ridiculous charge that was probably thoroughly investigated and was deemed to not be a crime at all... would this not be different from your examples?
The problem with a 'not guilty' verdict is that it doesn't prove that the defendant was actually innocent. All it shows is that the prosecution couldn't convince the court that there was sufficient evidence to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the person was guilty.
Indeed (having read court reports for over half a century and having done a bit of court reporting myself), I'd suggest that the majority of people who're found 'not guilty' in our courts have actually committed the offences with which they were charged. The only reason that they've not been convicted is that the evidence put forward by the prosecution hasn't met the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard. The person examining your application for security clearance might similarly be tempted to assume that you were actually guilty (or, at least, unprepared to take the risk that you might have been).
Indeed (having read court reports for over half a century and having done a bit of court reporting myself), I'd suggest that the majority of people who're found 'not guilty' in our courts have actually committed the offences with which they were charged. The only reason that they've not been convicted is that the evidence put forward by the prosecution hasn't met the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard. The person examining your application for security clearance might similarly be tempted to assume that you were actually guilty (or, at least, unprepared to take the risk that you might have been).
The problem with a 'not guilty' verdict is that it doesn't prove that the defendant was actually innocent. All it shows is that the prosecution couldn't convince the court that there was sufficient evidence to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the person was guilty.
Ok if that does not prove that the person is actually innocent, the expert from the B-squad that actually says that whatever is found is not viable at all and is just an electronic item that has been taken apart... is that not enough proof?
Ok if that does not prove that the person is actually innocent, the expert from the B-squad that actually says that whatever is found is not viable at all and is just an electronic item that has been taken apart... is that not enough proof?
I could have a sackful of castor beans, purchased legally from a garden centre, in my garage. Any 'expert' asked to examine them would be bound to conclude that they weren't a viable weapon but that couldn't prevent a suspicion that I was planning to produce ricin from them.
Similarly an expert examining electronic components might be forced to conclude that they weren't a viable weapon but that couldn't prevent a possible suspicion that they might have been intended as part of a bomb-making project (especially if there was already such a suspicion in place to cause the examination to occur in the first place).
Similarly an expert examining electronic components might be forced to conclude that they weren't a viable weapon but that couldn't prevent a possible suspicion that they might have been intended as part of a bomb-making project (especially if there was already such a suspicion in place to cause the examination to occur in the first place).
That being said, the police could go to some electrician's house and then get scared and start an investigation?
This is ridiculous, that is the same as saying an empty coke can with a wire sticking out is used to make something...
There is plenty of completely legal electronics experiments on youtube that people are allowed to follow and replicate, if the police were not called for that electronics thing in the first place, and they then go into someone's home and see something that scares them without any suspicion to begin with, then that is their own fault?
This was the argument that my lawyer was going to make had it gone any further...
This is ridiculous, that is the same as saying an empty coke can with a wire sticking out is used to make something...
There is plenty of completely legal electronics experiments on youtube that people are allowed to follow and replicate, if the police were not called for that electronics thing in the first place, and they then go into someone's home and see something that scares them without any suspicion to begin with, then that is their own fault?
This was the argument that my lawyer was going to make had it gone any further...
To add to that, had I have taken that out in a public place (which I would never have done!) that is a different story, and that would have been an actual nuisance caused by me
I have a degree which in a module I was experimenting with electronics parts... This is ridiculous..
Electronics is a hobby of a lot of people, and say any one of them had the police around for a completely different matter, and the police assumed that something was a bomb, who's fault is that?
I have a degree which in a module I was experimenting with electronics parts... This is ridiculous..
Electronics is a hobby of a lot of people, and say any one of them had the police around for a completely different matter, and the police assumed that something was a bomb, who's fault is that?
You points might well be valid, Mhtu111, but I fear that the finer detail of the suspicions that the authorities had about you won't even be considered by the person who examines your application for security clearance.
He/she will probably have lots of similar applications to consider and will be under pressure from his/her bosses to deal with them as quickly as possible but without making any blunders which could allow a genuinely worrying person to get through the screening system. He/she will also be terrified of the consequences if he/she makes a mistake and allows a terrorist to pass the checks. So, when he/she opens your file, he/she will quickly to scan down it to see if anything immediately leaps out as being of concern. As soon as his/her eye comes to the words 'explosive device' (or something similar), he/she will reach for the 'rejected' stamp, with the whole process probably taking less than 30 seconds.
Sorry!
He/she will probably have lots of similar applications to consider and will be under pressure from his/her bosses to deal with them as quickly as possible but without making any blunders which could allow a genuinely worrying person to get through the screening system. He/she will also be terrified of the consequences if he/she makes a mistake and allows a terrorist to pass the checks. So, when he/she opens your file, he/she will quickly to scan down it to see if anything immediately leaps out as being of concern. As soon as his/her eye comes to the words 'explosive device' (or something similar), he/she will reach for the 'rejected' stamp, with the whole process probably taking less than 30 seconds.
Sorry!
"However, if I was formally found not guilty, is that not different at all?"
Yes it is different. It's worse (from your point of view). For an accusation to make it to court the CPS must firstly determine that (a) there is sufficient evidence to support a realistic chance of a conviction. Only if there is must they then decide whether (b) it is in the "public interest" to prosecute. The results of the investigations you mention that didn't get to court must have failed one of those two tests (most probably the first). The one that got to court didn't and as "Chico has explained, a Not Guilty verdict does not mean that you didn't do what was alleged.
Yes it is different. It's worse (from your point of view). For an accusation to make it to court the CPS must firstly determine that (a) there is sufficient evidence to support a realistic chance of a conviction. Only if there is must they then decide whether (b) it is in the "public interest" to prosecute. The results of the investigations you mention that didn't get to court must have failed one of those two tests (most probably the first). The one that got to court didn't and as "Chico has explained, a Not Guilty verdict does not mean that you didn't do what was alleged.
As I have said before on your other thread, all you can do is sit and wait. There are many levels of security clearance, dependent on the job you will be doing and the environment in which you are doing it; you haven't mentioned anything about that.
There is also a marked difference between a CRB check and a security clearance; they are looking at different criteria. Furthermore you don't just "pass" a security clearance, you are continuously monitored once you are in the job ie, you are "watched" all the time, as are your close family.
Let me give you two examples. I was cleared to a fairly high level and my wife worked at a nearby firm who sold medical equipment all over the world. She rang me one day and said she had to meet some Russians at Heathrow and take them to the company. I thought it was best to tell our security people who said "Yes, we know".
As a second example, I was talking to a new computer engineer who was nervous as he was waiting for his clearance to come through. I told him that, so long as he could think of no reason why it shouldn't, he had been completely open with security and his granny wasn't Russian he shouldn't have a problem. His granny was Russian but he still got his clearance.
There is also a marked difference between a CRB check and a security clearance; they are looking at different criteria. Furthermore you don't just "pass" a security clearance, you are continuously monitored once you are in the job ie, you are "watched" all the time, as are your close family.
Let me give you two examples. I was cleared to a fairly high level and my wife worked at a nearby firm who sold medical equipment all over the world. She rang me one day and said she had to meet some Russians at Heathrow and take them to the company. I thought it was best to tell our security people who said "Yes, we know".
As a second example, I was talking to a new computer engineer who was nervous as he was waiting for his clearance to come through. I told him that, so long as he could think of no reason why it shouldn't, he had been completely open with security and his granny wasn't Russian he shouldn't have a problem. His granny was Russian but he still got his clearance.
@Buenchico
I understand your points, however I was never under investigation of being a terrorist... They had no doubt in their minds about that after whatever expert reviewed what there was, what they were trying to prove is that I intentionally caused a nuisance to the public, which was clear that I did not.
A nuisance surely is not the same deal as a terror charge? It never went to court as anything other than a nuisance charge, which is not even a qualifying offence.
I believe that the vetting officers are required to thoroughly investigate individuals and not just read titles?
@bhg481 I am looking to work in all different areas, I am still applying to civil service jobs, however it is mainly for software development roles. Apologies for not acknowledging your message before, I hadn't refreshed the page before sending my reply to new judge
Also @New Judge, In court they were trying to prove a nuisance charge, surely that is much less serious than a terror charge?
I understand your points, however I was never under investigation of being a terrorist... They had no doubt in their minds about that after whatever expert reviewed what there was, what they were trying to prove is that I intentionally caused a nuisance to the public, which was clear that I did not.
A nuisance surely is not the same deal as a terror charge? It never went to court as anything other than a nuisance charge, which is not even a qualifying offence.
I believe that the vetting officers are required to thoroughly investigate individuals and not just read titles?
@bhg481 I am looking to work in all different areas, I am still applying to civil service jobs, however it is mainly for software development roles. Apologies for not acknowledging your message before, I hadn't refreshed the page before sending my reply to new judge
Also @New Judge, In court they were trying to prove a nuisance charge, surely that is much less serious than a terror charge?
Here is a really popular YouTuber who has done this EXACT electronics experiment...
So is this a clear message that we are now not allowed to do anything that is LEGAL as a hobby? Absolutely ridiculous!!
Why should the police be allowed to enter someone's home and then make allegations because they got spooked by something that was completely LEGAL?! Especially if they were not called over for that in the first place???
"How is innocence determined after a Not Guilty verdict?"
It isn't.
When criminal charges are brought evidence must be put before the court to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt. If that does not succeed the defendant is declared "Not Guilty", he is not declared "Innocent". As explained earlier, being declared Not Guilty does not necessarily mean the offence was not committed.
It isn't.
When criminal charges are brought evidence must be put before the court to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt. If that does not succeed the defendant is declared "Not Guilty", he is not declared "Innocent". As explained earlier, being declared Not Guilty does not necessarily mean the offence was not committed.
I wonder why I took the trouble to reply
so do I
i mean you mustknow the answer to this:
can the PNC or other data bank contain subjective information?
yes of course it does / is - think of terrorist watch lists
"they" are watching people who havent er committed crimes yet or ever
can you appeal subjective information on the PNC ?
yeah - the case I cited in the other thread is an example
The chances of a successful appeal is fact-dependent
it seems that you dont dispute the facts but the interpretation put on them....
I mean in short - you have screwed yourself havent you?
so do I
i mean you mustknow the answer to this:
can the PNC or other data bank contain subjective information?
yes of course it does / is - think of terrorist watch lists
"they" are watching people who havent er committed crimes yet or ever
can you appeal subjective information on the PNC ?
yeah - the case I cited in the other thread is an example
The chances of a successful appeal is fact-dependent
it seems that you dont dispute the facts but the interpretation put on them....
I mean in short - you have screwed yourself havent you?
Latest Posts
News7 mins ago
And Even More Good News From Labour.
News8 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.