Full conduct certificate mandatory for prospective transport employees

The Transport Authority will soon have the right to ask the Commissioner of Police for a full detailed conduct certificate for any applicant wanting to be issued with a new or renewed licence.

Introducing the second reading of the Conduct Certificates Ordinance (Amendment) Bill, Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said that the mechanism common to all EU member states entailed that complete records of criminal convictions were needed before issuing licences from a transport authority. The Bill included the Transport Authority in the list of competent authorities that could request a complete record of convictions from the Commissioner of Police.

The Bill sought to update the provisions of the ordinance in view of amendments made over the years to the criminal code and related legislation. Information relating to criminal records and conduct certificates could be exchanged with kindred authorities in other countries.

It would also authorise the Police Commissioner to submit a complete record of criminal convictions on request in connection with recruitment or continuation of employment or in connection with the issue or renewal of licences and permits.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici explained that contraventions, criminal convictions to minors, presidential pardons and probations were not recorded on conduct certificates. Criminal convictions for periods of more than 10 or five years had to be recorded on the conduct certificates for not more than 10 or five years respectively. There were certain court judgments which could never be removed from conduct certificates.

These included rape, defilement of minors, public morality and decency, fraud and crimes related to state security.

Other amendments included the establishment of the length of time that a suspended sentence would remain on a conduct certificate and so divulged to the public.

The opposition’s spokesman on justice, José Herrera, said the Bill refined the present law. The penal certificate was a document used by the judiciary during court proceedings, while the conduct certificate was used when persons sought particular employment or licences.

The Bill made it more difficult for one to have a clean conduct certificate if one had previous criminal records. While those who had been involved in criminal acts faced problems when applying for employment, one should appreciate that the employer had a right to know whether the person seeking employment had a criminal record.

In the past, there used to be a safeguard in that a magistrate could wipe a person’s conduct clean, but it seemed this would no longer be possible. Dr Herrera referred to a case where a young person had paid with a cheque which had bounced and had been given a suspended sentence. As years passed this person had obtained a degree in commerce and found an opportunity to work as a manager with a foreign company operating in Malta. After having heard his wife and his former employer, the magistrate had wiped his conduct clean and he had been employed. With the proposed Bill this person would not have had the same opportunity to continue with his life.

Excluding beforehand the opportunity for a person to have his conduct cleaned would be an exaggeration. On the other hand, Dr Herrera agreed that homicide should never be wiped off a conduct certificate.

The Bill also allowed government entities to collect a person’s conduct certificate for the purposes of processing an application. This was a practical amendment because, previously, only the individual could have a copy of his or her conduct certificate.

The Commissioner of Police would now be able to reveal records of criminal convictions to foreign competent authorities. He would also record information given by these competent authorities on people in Malta and register it in their conduct certificates.

There were certain offences that were not registered in the conduct certificate, such as conditional discharges, involuntary acts and those committed by minors.

Dr Herrera explained that, while these would not be inserted in the conduct certificate, they would still be inserted in the penal certificate. The Bill made it possible for the minister to regulate the crimes that could not be removed from the conduct certificate.

Concluding, Dr Herrera said that the main aim of the Bill was to reform people, because Malta did not believe in vindictive justice. It had introduced certain reform programmes including probation. People wanting to reform themselves should be given the chance to do so.

Winding up the debate, Minister Mifsud Bonnici said the Bill would introduce a balance between society’s interests and those of the person involved. He claimed that the safety net had been strengthening ever since the amendments to the Criminal Code were enacted, with a provision that the person convicted of a crime against the good order of families would not, after conviction, work in jobs related to the offence.

Moreover, the impending enactment of the register for the protection of minors would continue to enforce the safety offered to the people. The register would serve to close the circle of enactments and amendments presented in this sense.

The minister said that through this Bill the criminal law was being modernised. In the past, people knew each other very well and offenders were well known. Nowadays, offenders were more difficult to identify due to greater mobility, which brought the need for more divulging of information.

There existed the possibility for one to remove crimes against the good order of families from the conduct certificate after referring the issue to the courts. There needed to be proper scrutiny of the case in question before removal could take place, considering the serious connotations involved.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said new mechanisms were also being added. This included the exhibition in court of the conduct certificate of a national of another EU member-state if the need arose. He felt this was an advantageous position. The police would to have the right to ask for such criminal record.

He said the Bill was not there to make the offender’s situation worse. But in the case of persons convicted of serious crimes, such as those against the safety of the state, their convictions should remain listed in their conduct certificates. This was only fair, considering the serious nature of crimes which would not be annulled from one’s criminal record.

The Bill also protected minors, with any crimes committed by people under the age of 18 not being listed. He also said he did not feel that suspended sentences should fall under the same category as probation with respect to conduct certificates.

Concluding, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said many recently-enacted pieces of legislation, such as the probation law, had been successful. People should recognise that there were cases of truly reformed persons and that the system was working efficiently.

The Bill was unanimously approved.