DBS checks

Hello shocked777
Welcome to the forum. I'm sure you are relieved to get NFA but you are now concerned about the disclosure of the allegation/ acquittal on your DBS Certificate.

There's 3 types of DBS checks:
(A) Basic
( Standard
(C) Enhanced

You have not been convicted of an offence so the allegation won't show on a basic or standard check.

However, the allegation/NFA may show on an enhanced DBS certificate. The police will tell you IT IS going to show on the check but the OIC decision is not final.

It's the Chief Constable's decision as to whether or not soft police intelligence such as allegations and acquittals should be recorded on the face of a certificate.
The process is very rigorous because police forces need to follow two government guidelines.

Do a google search on: The DBS Statutory disclosure guidance and the DBS QAF guidance.

Both documents will go at length to describe the thorough process the police has to go through before releasing allegations on an enhanced DBS Check. Article 8 Human Rights plays an important role in that decision.

In the mean time, you can apply for your own DBS check and see what will show up on the face of the certificate.

All the best

I had to get one for my US visa, I had a false allegation thrown out by the judge because he deemed the case to be a abuse of process.

The one I received from the police to use for my us visa application, is that a basic, standard or enhanced check? Nothing showed.

You mention the human rights act the allegations I faced was from when I was under the age of fourteen, doli incapax applied.

Will this therefore be less likely to show as It was a allegations from 1984 but arrested in 2010.

Many thanks London Teacher - that's incredibly helpful.

Hypothetical situation:

If someone was NFA because of 'lack of evidence' (the police knowing that the allegation was false but not being able to prove it is the real story) but then after the NFA the FA gets in touch with the falsely accused to apologise for lying to police, is this something that the police would be interested in, and could it help someone removing the FA from an enhanced crb check?

Hypothetically...

Cheers

Soul bug, you don't need a DBS for an American visa. What you need is a UK Police certificate. Police certificates are different from DBS.
Police certificates only show cautions, reprimands and convictions. Allegations won't show on police certificates.

Shocked777,

If you have any evidence of the FA apologising to you/individual for lying to the police - then I would strongly advise you to bring this to the attention of the police so they can record the allegation as false/malicious.

If the allegation is deemed false by the police then the more unlikely it showing up on an enhanced DBS check.

Many thanks London Teacher.

I do believe that anybody wanting to go to the USA has to declare whether they have ever been accused of a sexual offence as well as being convicted or cautioned for one.

You are right rights fighter on esta visa waiver you are asked and its in relation to crimes against the person. I looked in to it as we were planning to go to Vegas and he would have to apply for a full visa even though he hasn't been charged because he has been arrested on allegations of sexual abuse.

Thanks RF and broken hearted.

The question was asked relating the police certificate for US visas. The police certificate will not show arrests but there's a section on the US visa form
that will ask if you've been arrested.

US VISAS/ESTA and ARRESTS

Changes to the ESTA question

The questions changed to:-
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?
Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using or distributing illegal drugs?
Do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage or genocide?
Have you ever committed fraud or misrepresented yourself or others to obtain, or assist others to obtain, a visa or entry into the United States?
Questions 2 to 4 are quite easy to answer but question 1, probably less so.
Is there any guidance from US immigration on question 1?

The Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) on-line help, gives the following guidance associated with question 1:-
‘This question refers to crimes involving moral turpitude – such offences generally involve conduct which is inherently base, vile or depraved and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to persons or society in general. There are factors, such as the age of the offender or the date of the offence that may affect whether an offence will be considered a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’.
What is ‘moral turpitude’?

Our Helpline receives many calls from individuals looking for a definition of ‘moral turpitude’. By looking through the Consular guidance given to officials to help them decide whether to give someone a visa to the US or not, we have been able to identify a number of convictions that would not be classed as ‘moral turpitude’.
Crimes against property which do not fall within the definition of moral turpitude

(1) Damaging private property (where intent to damage not required);
(2) Breaking and entering (requiring no specific or implicit intent to commit a crime involving moral turpitude);
(3) Passing bad checks (where intent to defraud not required);
(4) Possessing stolen property (if guilty knowledge is not essential);
(5) Joy riding (where the intention to take permanently not required); and
(6) Juvenile delinquency
Crimes committed against governmental authority, which would not constitute moral turpitude for visa-issuance purposes

(1) Black market violations;
(2) Breach of the peace;
(3) Carrying a concealed weapon;
(4) Desertion from the Armed Forces;
(5) Disorderly conduct;
(6) Drunk or reckless driving;
(7) Drunkenness;
(8) Escape from prison;
(9) Failure to report for military induction;
(10) False statements (not amounting to perjury or involving fraud);
(11) Firearms violations;
(12) Gambling violations;
(13) Immigration violations;
(14) Liquor violations;
(15) Loan sharking;
(16) Lottery violations;
(17) Possessing burglar tools (without intent to commit burglary);
(18) Smuggling and customs violations (where intent to commit fraud is absent);
(19) Tax evasion (without intent to defraud); and
(20) Vagrancy.
Crimes committed against the person, family relationship, or sexual morality which do not involve moral turpitude

(1) Assault (simple) (i.e., any assault, which does not require an evil intent or depraved motive, although it may involve the use of a weapon, which is neither dangerous nor deadly);
(2) Illegitimacy (i.e., the offense of begetting an illegitimate child);
(3) Creating or maintaining a nuisance (where knowledge that premises were used for prostitution is not necessary);
(4) Incest (when a result of a marital status prohibited by law);
(5) Involuntary manslaughter (when killing is not the result of recklessness);
(6) Libel;
(7) Mailing an obscene letter;
(8) Mann Act violations (where coercion is not present);
(9) Riot; and
(10) Suicide (attempted).
How should I answer question 1?

If your offence is one of those listed above, you can answer ‘No’ to Question 1 on the ESTA application form as it would not be classed as an offence involving ‘moral turpitude’.
A lot of the offences listed above are fairly easy to match with a UK equivalent but there are others which are a lot more difficult to interpret. If in doubt, you would need to contact the US Embassy – we’re unable to provide categorical answers to whether a particular offence is classed as moral turpitude or not.

Relating back to my original query:

Could social media/text/whatsapp messages of the FA contacting the falsely accused on a number of different occasions post NFA be used by the police to prosecute the FA? If the police were originally citing "no evidence" as a reason for NFA, would fresh evidence of the FA apologising, admitting that the allegation was a total lie, encourage them to prosecute her?

Obviously as falsely accused our main goal is clear our names after an NFA and one would hope that apologies and admissions of guilt on the part of the FA is enough to do this. In relation to the prosecution of the FA; every story I have seen suggests the FA went back to the police, retracted their statement and admitted they lied. Would the police ever consider evidence such as the messages suggested above enough to prosecute an FA?

Though I am obviously interested in my case specifically I think questions such as this need to be asked if we are to prosecute more FAs. For example when someone is accused of a sexual crime more often than not his or her phones and computers are seized and analysed by police to help support the accuser's story and discover any other similar crimes (e.g images of child abuse in relevant cases). There is a real reluctance to pursue FAs and the burden of proof in order to arrest and charge someone for a false allegation is so much higher than it is when someone makes the original allegation. With social media and apps a part of everyone's daily lives admissions of guilt or false allegations may often be sent to confidantes or friends via apps, social media, e-mail and texts. Why can't their phones and computers be seized with the same vigour appropriated to the falsely accused once an NFA has been given?

Bit of a ramble but hopefully you get my point.

If you have got text messages from the accuser which clearly show an admission that it was a lie or false then I would suggest speaking to your solicitor for advice first. But as you correctly say, the evidence threshold for prosecuting someone for making a false allegation is very high and often the Police appear reluctant to go through with it.

I don't know if you read about my family but I handed in some letters which were sent by my accuser and him and his partner both ended up being arrested and had their computers and phones seized but the Police were unable to obtain proof it was a malicious allegation. However, he was charged with fraud and extortion but only received a caution.

I find it totally baffleling , that when falsely accused , the police have a duty to investigate , yet when this leads to the falsely accused showing evidence of the serious crime of perverting the course of justice , then hey , its a wellllll where not so sure we can do anything about that....even though police time has been wasted , peoples lives have been turned upside down , tax payers money has gone down the drain !!! but hey !!!! who cares !!! ITS A TOTAL SHAMBLES !!!!

A tricky call...on one hand, anything that discourages an FA from retracting a false accusation such as fear of prosecution could tend to perpetuate the lies. One the other, the innocent accused and their families are subjected to great injury by FAs and they should receive justice.

I'm not sure about the argument that prosecutions would discourage FAs...I'm not convinced they are thinking rationally. Better would be a more balanced approach to investigation to test allegations before too much harm is done.

However, it is true that an NFA, in itself, does not set the record straight, whereas a successful prosecution of an FA would. In my case, I did decide to stand up to the FA and she will be in court for a trial in November after pleading not guilty last week to charges connected with her campaign of harassment.