Wetcoaster Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Semantics time......... is it actually a criminal record if you haven't committed a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Semantics time......... is it actually a criminal record if you haven't committed a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyzer Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 When I was younger, I got caught smoking a joint when the cops rolled up. I told them the truth about everything and I gave them my drivers license. All they did was send me on my way and told me to not do it again. Didn't even call my parents or anything. Would they still have a record of me? Speaking of which, I have had a criminal record check and nothing came up (for school). So I assume I'm safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 When I was younger, I got caught smoking a joint when the cops rolled up. I told them the truth about everything and I gave them my drivers license. All they did was send me on my way and told me to not do it again. Didn't even call my parents or anything. Would they still have a record of me? Speaking of which, I have had a criminal record check and nothing came up (for school). So I assume I'm safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 It would be hilarious if criminal checks pinged your criminal record much like hard credit checks ping your credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 While wetcoaster makes excellent points , the fact is employers do not have access to the actual cpic records. This 'adverse police check' does not give employers access to the PRIME event. The problem is that the expanded check uncovers that an event took place, and the police can label it as adverse , which of course is the subjective issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The government never did. The presumption of innocence applies when you are charged with a crime before the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The canadian charter of rights and freedoms , Section 11(d) provides that: “11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; ” This right has generated some case law, as courts have struck down reverse onus clauses as violating the presumption of innocence. This first occurred in R. v. Oakes (1986) in respect to the Narcotics Control Act. This was also the case in which the Court developed the primary test for measuring rights limitations under section 1 of the Charter. The Court found having a reverse onus clause was not rational in fighting narcotics traffic since one could not assume a person found with narcotics means to traffic it. In R. v. Stone, the question of automatism was considered, with the Court deciding that while shifting the burden of proof to the defendant was a violation of section 11, it could be justified under section 1 because criminal law presumes willing actions. The reference to a fair hearing allows one a right to "full answer and defence", a right also based in section 7 of the Charter ("fundamental justice"). This has led to a controversial string of decisions surrounding the rape shield law, starting with R. v. Seaboyer (1991) and ending with R. v. Mills (1999). The reference to an independent and impartial tribunal has also been taken as granting a measure of judicial independence to lower-court judges specializing in criminal law, judicial independence previously being a right held only by superior courts under the Constitution Act, 1867. In the case Valente v. The Queen (1985), judicial independence under section 11 was held to be limited. Although it would include financial security, security of tenure and some administrative independence, the Court found the standards enjoyed by higher-level judges was too high for the many tribunals covered by section 11(d). In the Provincial Judges Reference (1997) expectations for judicial independence were heightened, with reference made to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, which was said to imply judicial independence was an unwritten constitutional value applying to all judges in Canada. The requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal applies also to juries. Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg has written that jury selection under the Criminal Code would undoubtedly create an independent tribunal. However, he points to R. v. Bain (1992) in which the impartiality of the jury was questioned, since the Crown had more say in selection. Wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 While wetcoaster makes excellent points , the fact is employers do not have access to the actual cpic records. This 'adverse police check' does not give employers access to the PRIME event. The problem is that the expanded check uncovers that an event took place, and the police can label it as adverse , which of course is the subjective issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I think this may be the first time i've ever seen anyone cite the Charter to Wet. Forgive them Wetcoaster, for they know not what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Criminal records checks are done by the police who access the databases (CPIC and Prime-BC) upon written application and then provide a report. I never indicated nor implied that employers access the data directly - they require the consent of the person they are interviewing and should you not provide such consent then in all likelihood that interview process will be at an end. However at the end of the day if that report indicates an adverse contact (whatever that may mean as it is not defined), that can cost a person an employment opportunity as set out in the Province article. That is the issue raised by the BCCLA. Commissioner Denham has stated that Prime-BC should not be accessible for checks by employers at all given the lack of oversight and questionable accuracy of the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I think this may be the first time i've ever seen anyone cite the Charter to Wet. Forgive them Wetcoaster, for they know not what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Agreed. I do find it dubious that an employer would split this kind of hair . S/he is better off flipping a coin if they are going to let something this dubious become the determining factor. How many people get denied because of this. I assume that its a numbers game. Regardless, even one is too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mau5trap Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I get tingles when Wetcoaster posts.. I hope you find it somewhere in your heart to stay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFBR392 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Despite the fact that wetcoaster literally never agrees with anything that anyone ever says, this guy really needs a sub forum dedicated to him. Think about it... He can be the boss/moderator and have full control of it, and we all get free legal advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Despite the fact that wetcoaster literally never agrees with anything that anyone ever says, this guy really needs a sub forum dedicated to him. Think about it... He can be the boss/moderator and have full control of it, and we all get free legal advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFBR392 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 And you are a prime example of why I seldom post on CDC any longer. Education is a good thing - you should consider getting one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 brother you are so lucky to live in a country where your rights are enshrined in a charter of rights and freedoms , i and my fellow australians are not as fortunate . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Australians don't have rights? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Australians don't have rights? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.