ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Referees and convictions - clarification

A section for posts relating to applications for Naturalisation or Registration as a British Citizen. Naturalisation

Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2

Locked
MWill
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:45 pm

Referees and convictions - clarification

Post by MWill » Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:54 am

Hi, I wonder if someone could provide a bit of clarification about naturalisation referees and convictions, just to see if I have this right. The guidance says:

We will not accept a referee who has been convicted of an imprisonable offence during the
last 10 years (unless that conviction can be disregarded in line with the table shown on page
16 of the Booklet AN)


The table on Page 16 gives various sentence thresholds and tells you when, for the UKBA's purposes, they become "spent" (not the same as the Rehabilitation Act).

1. 4 years or more imprisonment - Application should be refused, regardless of when the conviction occurred.

2. Between 12 months and 4 years imprisonment - Application should be refused unless 15 years have passed since the end of the sentence.

3. Up to 12 months imprisonment in the last 7 years - Applications should be refused unless 7 years have passed since the end of the sentence.

4. A non-custodial offence - Applications should be refused if the conviction occurred in the last 3 years.


So am I reading this right - if, say, a referee was convicted in 2009 of an imprisonable offence like drink-driving or common assult but they were just given a fine for it and not sent to prison, does that mean, under point 4 , that because it was more than 3 years ago that conviction is now "spent" for the UKBA's purposes?

I only ask because the 10-year thing seems to be based on whether they referee COULD have gone to prison, whereas the table is focused on the ACTUAL sentence.

Amber
Moderator
Posts: 17474
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:20 am
Location: England, UK
Mood:
United Kingdom

Re: Referees and convictions - clarification

Post by Amber » Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:58 am

MWill wrote:Hi, I wonder if someone could provide a bit of clarification about naturalisation referees and convictions, just to see if I have this right. The guidance says:

We will not accept a referee who has been convicted of an imprisonable offence during the
last 10 years (unless that conviction can be disregarded in line with the table shown on page
16 of the Booklet AN)


The table on Page 16 gives various sentence thresholds and tells you when, for the UKBA's purposes, they become "spent" (not the same as the Rehabilitation Act).

1. 4 years or more imprisonment - Application should be refused, regardless of when the conviction occurred.

2. Between 12 months and 4 years imprisonment - Application should be refused unless 15 years have passed since the end of the sentence.

3. Up to 12 months imprisonment in the last 7 years - Applications should be refused unless 7 years have passed since the end of the sentence.

4. A non-custodial offence - Applications should be refused if the conviction occurred in the last 3 years.


So am I reading this right - if, say, a referee was convicted in 2009 of an imprisonable offence like drink-driving or common assult but they were just given a fine for it and not sent to prison, does that mean, under point 4 , that because it was more than 3 years ago that conviction is now "spent" for the UKBA's purposes?

I only ask because the 10-year thing seems to be based on whether they referee COULD have gone to prison, whereas the table is focused on the ACTUAL sentence.
It is whether the conviction was custodial or not, if not then you are correct. Though, it would perhaps be more cautious if you were to have a referee who didn't have any convictions.
**this forum is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice**
Click here to send me a PM regarding an offensive post. Do NOT PM me for immigration advice.

MWill
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:45 pm

Post by MWill » Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:11 pm

Thanks Amber!

VR
Senior Member
Posts: 688
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:34 am

Dilemma

Post by VR » Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:55 pm

Dear Amber,

This is another area which needs to be looked at. How on earth would you go to a person for a reference and ask him, do you have a conviction.

Many who are convicted would definitely keep it to themselves. And when you are going to someone for an obligation, this is the last question you want.

The only way they will find out is by running a CRB on the referees. There is no guarantee that even a Minister of Religion can be free of a conviction these days. He could well have copped a traffic related one, a serious one in that.
Best Rgds
VR

barnaby
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Dilemma

Post by barnaby » Sat Jun 22, 2013 2:25 pm

VR wrote:How on earth would you go to a person for a reference and ask him, do you have a conviction.
The best way is to send potential referees the form and instructions when asking whether they will act as referee.
As the form says, "Your referees should read page 11 of the guide to confirm that they are eligible".

Locked