Jump to content

Talk:Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it applies to information published on Wikipedia

[edit]

The following is an extract from a conversation at User talk:Jimbo Wales which discusses how the Act's restriction on publication of certain information applies to Wikipedia. Road Wizard 17:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:HOTRvs Gregory Lauder-Frost

[edit]

I am of the opinion that HOTR is acting with utter malice towards GLF and will bring Wikipedia into the legal arena. This is not a threat. His total obsession with GLF is nauseating. 81.131.13.57 16:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbComm decision against User:Robert I found that, in all likelihood, he and the 81. anon ip above is Gregory Lauder-Frost. There are also allegations that User:Sussexman is Lauder-Frost as well. We shouldn't be relying on Lauder-Frost's own interpretation of British law or its impact on a US based entity. The question of whether and in what manner Lauder-Frost's past legal problems can be mentioned in Wikipedia should be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation to determine. Homey 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have inquired regarding the legal matter but have received no definitive response. It is conceivable that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does apply in Britain. Fred Bauder 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think one needs to determine how it is applied. For instance, contemporary articles on GLF's matter have not been removed from the electornic archives for the Independent newspaper (the internet archives only go to 1999 but there are other electronic archives available by subscription that extend to the period) so it doesn't seem to be against the ROA to publish the title of an article republish an article in its entirety that refers to an old conviction. We really would need someone who has access to UK case law to determine the Act's application and interpretation and its possible impact on wikipedia, not just for the GLF article but on any article on anyone who has had a brush with the law in Britain.

Also, if the act does apply what does this actually mean for wikipedia? Does it mean that Wikipedia is breaking the law if it refers to an old conviction or does it mean that UK servers would have to block certain articles (in which case perhaps a tag would help that states that this article cannot be published in the UK?) or is wikipedia completely immune because it is not based in the UK? If a certain wikipedia article was in violation with Chinese or Saudi Arabian law, for instance, we would not ban it from wikipedia. I seem to recall that last year during the Gomery Inquiry, when Judge Gomery issued a temporary publication ban on certain testimony Wikipedia (or various editors) published a description of the testimony as Canadian law was thought to be inapplicable to Wikipedia. (And in the Karla Homolka case, before Wikipedia's time, a publication ban was ignored by US media without any consequences) Canada is not the UK but our legal system is similar and I suspect that British publication bans (which this essentially would be) are not extraterritorial. Indeed, I recall that in the Spycatcher case international media ignored a British publication ban without any consequences.Homey 06:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legalities aside, there are consequences. They would not be passing laws or issuing bans if there was not some reason. For example not publishing information may assure that a defendant has a better chance at a fair trial. Or that a person is not embarrassed by a indiscretion that they deeply regret. Fred Bauder 14:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the references I can find on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 say only that once a conviction is "spent" an ex-offender is not required to disclose his or her conviction when applying for a job and cannot be refused a job because of his conviction[1] see also [2]. I find absolutely nothing that claims the ROA bans media from mentioning spent conviction or has any other type of publication ban. There is something like this in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 but that is legislation passed by the Isle of Man[3] and has no jurisdiction in the UK. Perhaps GLF or his friend is confusing the Manx legislation with the UK legislation?Homey 17:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [4] "The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) is the specific piece of legislation affecting ex-offenders' employment opportunities. Under certain circumstances, it enables them to 'wipe the slate clean' of their criminal record once a period of time has lapsed from the date of conviction. Provided they have not been re-convicted for another offence, their conviction is said to become spent and for the purpose of employment it can be treated as though it never existed. This means that if the ex-offender is asked on an application form, or at an interview, if they have a criminal record they are entitled to answer 'no'. It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against the ex-offender on grounds of their spent conviction." Homey 17:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [5]

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 enables criminal convictions to become ‘spent’ or ignored after a period of rehabilitation. After this time, with certain exceptions, an ex-offender does not normally have to mention their conviction to prospective employers when applying for a job. If you are asked whether you have any previous convictions you can answer ‘no’ if the convictions are spent and the job applied for is not excepted from the act.
In 2002, the Home Office published a review of the act. Their report, Breaking the Circle, made a range of recommendations. These included replacing rehabilitation periods with shorter disclosure periods and reviewing the rule that convictions involving sentences of over two and a half years are never spent. However, there are no immediate plans to amend the act.

Homey 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Refer privacy and unauthorised disclosures here: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-to-privacy/spent-convictions-and-rehabilitation-of-offenders/unauthorised%5Fdisclosure%5Fof%5Fcon.shtml 81.131.62.179 10:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not British officials nor did we obtain information by bribery or fraud. Our information comes from a public newspaper report. I'm going to copy this conversation to Talk:Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as it has proved so useful. Fred Bauder 11:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time looking at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Under s8(1) of the Act he is entitled to bring an action for defamation outside of the 10 year limitation. Sussexman 07:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed something

[edit]

The page Notary Public links here... because the State of New Jersey uses it to determine disqualifications for potentiall notaries?! While I suppose they could copy it verbatim, I find this extremely unlikely. Anyone else know? 68.39.174.238 01:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct?

[edit]

The article states that the act may be exempted:

to assess a person’s suitability to adopt children, or a particular child, or a question about anyone over the age of 18 living with such a person

Surely that should be "under" not "over", or am I missing something? David (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over 18. They are checking spouses etc. of the person adopting the child. The investigators have access to the police/criminal files. Andrew Swallow (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The 1974 act has recently been amended. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/part/3/chapter/8/enacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.122.29 (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974&oldid=1202676583"