just looking for thoughts on this

[Cass3224]

I am doing an application for a shotgun certificate and have a couple of convictions dating back back roughly 30 years. Assault, breach of the peace, driving without licence, tax, insurance
all happened before i was 18.
I contacted Police Scotland for a subject access request to see what was on my criminal record as i didn't want to miss anything out on the application.
I got a reply today and have added the main part of the reply below....
As requested, we carried out a search for you on the Scottish Criminal History System
(CHS) for the following:
- Antecedent information - all criminal convictions, Fiscal Warnings, Police Warnings etc.
- Pending case information
I can confirm that, based on the information provided, no relevant information was traced.
What's your thoughts?? should i declare what i thought was still going to be on my record?
Thanks

 

[GlennUK]

You need to declare them if the question on you application form is the same as mine - 'have you been convicted of any offence (including speeding but not parking...etc.etc' as far as i can tell.

FWIW i have some health info i always put on my form, despite it being over 27years ago, and three road traffic offences (which i know do not appear on their system electronically) from around 46 years ago.

It would be 'slightly embarrassing' to say the least to be caught out should anything ever come to light and I had not declared it.

 

[T.eddie]

I was reprimanded at 12 or so which i was told would be wiped when I turned 18. When I eventually applied for my first shotgun certificate I didn't declare thinking I didn't need to, but it did come up during my interview. I just explained why it wasn't on my application at the time and didn't have any problems.

If what you've been sent is what's on record then it may be a safe enough bet to just include those bits, but being more honest is better than not

 

[Cass3224]

You need to declare them if the question on you application form is the same as mine - 'have you been convicted of any offence (including speeding but not parking...etc.etc' as far as i can tell.

FWIW i have some health info i always put on my form, despite it being over 27years ago, and three road traffic offences (which i know do not appear on their system electronically) from around 46 years ago.

It would be 'slightly embarrassing' to say the least to be caught out should anything ever come to light and I had not declared it.

Yeah i agree but can't work out why they're not showing up on my record.

 

[Cass3224]

I was reprimanded at 12 or so which i was told would be wiped when I turned 18. When I eventually applied for my first shotgun certificate I didn't declare thinking I didn't need to, but it did come up during my interview. I just explained why it wasn't on my application at the time and didn't have any problems.

If what you've been sent is what's on record then it may be a safe enough bet to just include those bits, but being more honest is better than not

I'm thinking of printing it off and sending it in with the application BUT might still mention them, just in case

 

[GlennUK]

Yeah i agree but can't work out why they're not showing up on my record.

I applied for a Electronic Visa for the USA some years ago, which requires revealing convictions including speeding offences. Anyway ended up speaking to someone cant recall who, but they explained that prior to a certain date, minor offences were not transferred from paper to the national database. Could be a similar issue for your offences perhaps.

 

[Cass3224]

I applied for a Electronic Visa for the USA some years ago, which requires revealing convictions including speeding offences. Anyway ended up speaking to someone cant recall who, but they explained that prior to a certain date, minor offences were not transferred from paper to the national database. Could be a similar issue for your offences perhaps.

they weren't the crime of the century right enough, embarrassing to think back on it all but yes, this could be the case, i've contacted BASC for their thoughts too

 

[GlennUK]

they weren't the crime of the century right enough, embarrassing to think back on it all but yes, this could be the case, i've contacted BASC for their thoughts too

Agreed but lying on your application form could be.

 

[andyk]

I think you’d be wise to declare them.

As stated on the form, it’s an offence to make a false statement on the application and all convictions, cautions etc (the list is on the form) need to be included, regardless of whether they’re now spent.

While being prosecuted is unlikely, the police may see this as a test of character and you don’t have to look too hard to find stories of people who didn’t declare a conviction and then got refused. Not because of the conviction but because the FEO believed the applicant was dishonest. It’s very hard to say you’re a reformed character if the FEO thinks you’ve just committed an offence by fibbing on the application.

What @T.eddie describes is slightly different, a reprimand, though similar to a caution, isn’t a caution and nor is it a conviction. Importantly, it’s not listed as declarable on the application. It may still be sensible to declare it, but I can see that a sensible FEO could believe it wasn’t declared without it calling into question the character of the applicant. Your situation is different and, not wishing to be rude, I’d struggle to believe you if I was an FEO and you said you couldn’t remember them.

 

[Cass3224]

Agreed but lying on your application form could be.

i've no intention of lying though

 

[Cass3224]

I think you’d be wise to declare them.

As stated on the form, it’s an offence to make a false statement on the application and all convictions, cautions etc (the list is on the form) need to be included, regardless of whether they’re now spent.

While being prosecuted is unlikely, the police may see this as a test of character and you don’t have to look too hard to find stories of people who didn’t declare a conviction and then got refused. Not because of the conviction but because the FEO believed the applicant was dishonest. It’s very hard to say you’re a reformed character if the FEO thinks you’ve just committed an offence by fibbing on the application.

What @T.eddie describes is slightly different, a reprimand, though similar to a caution, isn’t a caution and nor is it a conviction. Importantly, it’s not listed as declarable on the application. It may still be sensible to declare it, but I can see that a sensible FEO could believe it wasn’t declared without it calling into question the character of the applicant. Your situation is different and, not wishing to be rude, I’d struggle to believe you if I was an FEO and you said you couldn’t remember them.

I've actually listed them on the form, was waiting on this info coming through so i am going to print it and send it with the application and hopefully they'll see that i have been as honest as possible in the application by listing things that aren't there any more.

 

[Cass3224]

I think you’d be wise to declare them.

As stated on the form, it’s an offence to make a false statement on the application and all convictions, cautions etc (the list is on the form) need to be included, regardless of whether they’re now spent.

While being prosecuted is unlikely, the police may see this as a test of character and you don’t have to look too hard to find stories of people who didn’t declare a conviction and then got refused. Not because of the conviction but because the FEO believed the applicant was dishonest. It’s very hard to say you’re a reformed character if the FEO thinks you’ve just committed an offence by fibbing on the application.

What @T.eddie describes is slightly different, a reprimand, though similar to a caution, isn’t a caution and nor is it a conviction. Importantly, it’s not listed as declarable on the application. It may still be sensible to declare it, but I can see that a sensible FEO could believe it wasn’t declared without it calling into question the character of the applicant. Your situation is different and, not wishing to be rude, I’d struggle to believe you if I was an FEO and you said you couldn’t remember them.

Finishing off the application now, was just looking for thoughts on it all. I'd say it shows how honest i am if there's nothing there but i'm mentioning things anyway

 

[andyk]

I've actually listed them on the form, was waiting on this info coming through so i am going to print it and send it with the application and hopefully they'll see that i have been as honest as possible in the application by listing things that aren't there any more.

Sounds sensible and hopefully common sense will prevail. There are others on here that have asked similar questions and now have licenses, so there’s reason to be hopeful.

 

[Cass3224]

fingers crossed Andy

 

[GlennUK]

i've no intention of lying though

Apologies if i implied you we were going to lie.

I was trying to make the point that not putting something relevant on the form would be considered as 'lying by omission'

Live long and prosper.

 

[Cass3224]

Apologies if i implied you we were going to lie.

I was trying to make the point that not putting something relevant on the form would be considered as 'lying by omission'

Live long and prosper.

no i understand that Glenn, all good pal, honesty is always the best policy

 

[Mr B]

The form asks you to list any convictions, it doesn’t ask you to list the convictions they hold on record. Therefore, list any convictions regardless.
As a wise instructor once told me, RTFQ, then ATFQ

 

[User00056]

Declare everything. I wouldn't worry about it though? They were so long ago, and minority enough not to cause you any issues now. Not mentioning them will be looked on far worse as they'll possibly assume you're trying to hide them

 

[woodmaster]

It may be that the system they pull your record from is only part of your history.
When having a DBS check in England it only accesses so much of your record. There is an enhanced check which also includes information from spent convictions or registers not accessible without the applicant meeting their own suitability criteria.
I think it is partly due to things like the discrimination act which prevents an employer discriminating on the ground someone previously got convicted. Else how can they be rehabilitated or access mainstream employment, however if their conviction was for certain things it would be legitimate to consider their past, i.e in the case of serious violence or serial offences. Which can then be found on the "barred" lists.

 

[Strike]

Declare absolutely everything. The guidance
is clear, for the purpose of the Shotgun and Firearms application. NO OFFENCE BECOMES SPENT. It does not matter if you were found guilty in court or accepted a caution. Either of these mean You have a conviction.
If you have been found guilty of any criminal offence, not disclosing it may be seen and treated as a fraudulent application. A criminal act in itself.
Just be completely honest and open in your answers.
Good luck.