Does the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act apply for VAF4A?

[dl4567]

A question relating to declaring convictions on the VAF4A form: does the rehabilitation of offenders act apply, which is to say, is one obliged to declare convictions which are considered "spent" under said act?

I ask because no reference to this is made on the VAF forms, whereas explicit reference is made on the forms for ILR and naturalisation.

My fiancee has a (US) DUI conviction that is long spent, and it would be a shame to declare it if there is no requirement to do so.

[Danbrix]

[quote="UK Visas"]RFL10.1 When can I refuse under 320 [18]?

Paragraph 320[18] of the Rules states that an application should normally be refused if that person has been convicted of an offence in any country, which could have attracted a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more if the offence had been committed in the UK. ECOs should not refuse under 320[18] if the conviction is considered “spentâ€

[dl4567]

Ah, many thanks. That's quite unambiguous, so the conviction does not need to be declared if spent.

[Rozen]

Ah, many thanks. That's quite unambiguous, so the conviction does not need to be declared if spent.

Better to declare, stressing that it has been 'spent'! You wouldn't want to be refused for 'witholding' information, would you?
Besides, as it says above, a 'spent' conviction should not be a basis of refusal. Good Luck!

[datuchi]

Very, very wrong to advise someone to declare a "spent" conviction. Defeats the whole purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974!

Section 4
Effect of rehabilitation

(1)Subject to sections 7 and 8 below, a person who has become a rehabilitated person for the purposes of this Act in respect of a conviction shall be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for the offence or offences which were the subject of that conviction; and, notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment or rule of law to the contrary, but subject as aforesaid—

(a)...

(b)a person shall not, in any such proceedings, be asked, and, if asked, shall not be required to answer, any question relating to his past which cannot be answered without acknowledging or referring to a spent conviction or spent convictions or any circumstances ancillary thereto.

(2)Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below, where a question seeking information with respect to a person’s previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances is put to him or to any other person otherwise than in proceedings before a judicial authority—

(a)the question shall be treated as not relating to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer thereto may be framed accordingly; and

(b)the person questioned shall not be subjected to any liability or otherwise prejudiced in law by reason of any failure to acknowledge or disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction in his answer to the question.

(3)Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below,—

(a)any obligation imposed on any person by any rule of law or by the provisions of any agreement or arrangement to disclose any matters to any other person shall not extend to requiring him to disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction (whether the conviction is his own or another’s); and

(b)a conviction which has become spent or any circumstances ancillary thereto, or any failure to disclose a spent conviction or any such circumstances, shall not be a proper ground for dismissing or excluding a person from any office, profession, occupation or employment, or for prejudicing him in any way in any occupation or employment.

Ah, many thanks. That's quite unambiguous, so the conviction does not need to be declared if spent.

Better to declare, stressing that it has been 'spent'! You wouldn't want to be refused for 'witholding' information, would you?
Besides, as it says above, a 'spent' conviction should not be a basis of refusal. Good Luck!