The Door Supervisor with a Spent Conviction and a Pending Charge
Marcus applies for an SIA door supervisor licence. On his application he discloses a 2019 conviction for common assault (community order, 120 hours unpaid work, £200 costs), which is now spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. He also has a charge pending for a 2024 public order matter, listed for trial in four months; he has not been convicted and intends to plead not guilty. Separately, his GP notes he was treated for anxiety in 2022 and discharged after six sessions, but he currently takes no medication and reports no symptoms. Marcus writes on the form that he has 'no relevant history' and attaches nothing. He assumes spent convictions are invisible to the SIA and that the pending charge is irrelevant because he is innocent until proven guilty.
1. Evaluate how the SIA's criminal record checks treat (a) the spent 2019 conviction and (b) the pending 2024 charge. What should Marcus have disclosed?
Read the worked answer
Spent conviction (2019): The SIA is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act for licensing purposes, so spent convictions are not invisible. Marcus's assumption is wrong. He must disclose it, and the SIA will assess it on its merits: age of offence, sentence, pattern, relevance to the security role, and evidence of change. A single old assault with a completed community order is not automatically disqualifying, but non-disclosure is treated seriously because it goes to honesty.
Pending charge (2024): The SIA asks about charges and cautions, not just convictions. A pending matter must be declared. Being unconvicted does not remove the duty to disclose; the SIA may defer a decision until the matter resolves rather than refuse outright.
What he should have done: Declared both, given dates, courts, outcomes/status, and supplied any supporting documents (e.g. proof of completion, a short explanation). 'No relevant history' is a false statement on the form.
2. Marcus's GP records show treated anxiety in 2022, now resolved. He disclosed nothing. Does this create a licensing problem, and how should the mental health element have been handled?
Read the worked answer
The SIA's mental health question is targeted: it asks about conditions that affect the applicant's ability to work safely and lawfully, not every historical episode. Treated, resolved anxiety with no current symptoms and no medication is unlikely, on its own, to be a licensing barrier.
The problem is the manner of disclosure. The form should be answered accurately; if he ticked 'no' without reading the question's scope, that is an error to correct, not a reason to hide it. If the question genuinely did not capture his history, no disclosure was owed. The safest course is to correct the record proactively with a brief explanation and, if requested, a GP letter confirming fitness.
The judgement point: the SIA cares about current risk and honesty, not a closed chapter of treatment. Concealment is riskier than the underlying fact.