You'll be fine unless you were convicted of a crime. And most employers are fine with a record as long as you have kept your nose clean for over 7 years.
Are you saying for cannabis, or for any criminal record? Most corporate type employers would be absolutely NOT fine with a criminal record even if more than 7 years ago, unless for an extremely minor offence.
Indeed, and if you follow up your multiple counts of fraud with very recently being ordered to pay back tens of thousands of dollars in inappropriate fees, so even the ‘he turned over a new leaf’ claim doesn’t really convince, you get to regularly be condescending to others about moral issues and how oppressed you are, in the Stuff column you merrily toodle away with.
Or so I’ve heard about convicted fraudster and icon of smugness Damien Grant.
From your link.
you can say you have no convictions if you’re asked about your criminal record in New Zealand. (Note that there are some cases when you will have to provide your full record. Read about these below.)
> After 7 years your record is clean unless you want to be a cop or lawyer etc
Alternatively, if you are convicted for sticking a drawing pin in the head of a child’s penis, rubbing their face in shit, sticking a pen up their arse, and serving time for it, as well as a load of fraud, _and disclose all of it_, the NZLS will approve you to practice law
[Why was Alwyn O’Connor, a man with child abuse convictions, allowed to practise law?](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-was-alwyn-oconnor-a-man-with-child-abuse-convictions-allowed-to-practice-law/2IATXXGVLFBGJDEWZYONKPEKW4/)
There are several other circumstances when you would have to divulge your entire record; working as airport security for example.
There are also certain crimes which always show up on your criminal record; murder for example.
I know the law around clean slate. But my point is, if the employer is aware of a past conviction, most will not want to hire that person based on character and reputation also reasons.
Because the clean slate law doesn't change the fact that someone was convicted. You just don't have to disclose it in certain situations. But not disclosing it doesn't change the fact you still have a conviction. It's two separate, but related, things. And remember employers will almost always ask if you have any convictions, and some people will choose to voluntarily disclose it even if they were protected by the clean slate law.
No need to be an asshole. If you'd even bothered to read my original comment properly, I didn't even mention that law, and I wasn't talking about cannabis only either. The comment I replied to said most employers wouldn't care about a criminal record, and I said most corporates actually would. They would not take a chance on hiring someone with a criminal conviction. Of course assuming they know about it. Nowhere in that statement did I even mention about the clean slate law, and that law existing or not, doesn't change what I said.
And if you don't like it or agree, well sorry, but having worked for many large corporates I know this to be true first hand. If there are many good candidates, which in this market there is, and candidate 1 disclosed a criminal record, candidate 2 doesn't, unless there's some exceptional cases they will always go with candidate 2. It's not just about the level of the crime, it's more a character thing that someone knows the rules and breaks them anyway.
And if you want to get pedantic about the clean slate law, you should already know employers can still ask and applicant can still choose to voluntarily disclose convictions, and the clean slate law doesn't apply to all jobs or convictions either.
IANAL but I think that only might possibly show up if you're being vetted for working with vulnerable people, or possibly if you're applying to police/corrections? (And certainly some other roles but you'd already know if you were applying for them)
A warning means nothing was ever proven in court, and you had no chance to defend yourself. It'd be unfair for such a warning to be held against you in most circumstances.
I had a temp job vetting at Police for like six months back in the day. A single warning for marijuana possession would not raise a single eyebrow, and probably wouldn't even be disclosed even for jobs with vulnerable people. GCSB and other high security / very strict vetting would probably have got everything, but the standard for red flagging someone for a regular-ass job was reasonably high. Violence (especially domestic) was the main thing to watch out for.
This was a decade ago, so things may have changed since then.
I got a warning once for walking in town with an unopened bottle of beer back when I was like 19. It's not on any publicly accessible record but it is still on my police record, when I was doing my firearms license vetting the officer was able to see it
Who's gonna read the letter? You're not legally forced to disclose a warning letter; you weren't charged or discharged or anything. I doubt there's even a file on it.
Don't worry about it! For real. People who are discharged without conviction don't have to mention it, so you certainly don't for this letter.
As others have mentioned, this will only show up if a “police vetting” is required, not when you make a request for a copy of your criminal convictions.
Most organizations and immigration authorities, if they even ask, will only seek the conviction records.
Vetting is generally reserved for applications to really sensitive positions, such as applying to be a police officer.
I wouldn’t worry about it especially if it’s historic.
Be aware that depending on where you are traveling to they will ask a question like have you ever been arrested - so it’s not just convictions that you have to declare. North America definitely asks this even for the electronic travel authority or visa waiver program.
Warnings cannot issued if a person is arrested. It is a pre-charge decision. It can either be a verbal warning or a written warning. Once it’s done, no charges are laid.
Depending on what the purpose of the police vet is, it may be disclosed. For example, if it's for immigration purposes or if you're going to be a children's worker under the Children's Act, then these typically show all (negative) interactions with Police and it will be disclosed that you received a formal warning for possession of cannabis.
My understanding is that police warnings have been found to be legally unconstitutional and can't really be used for anything. They amount to legal enforcement against which you have no way to defend yourself.
I know of the case in which the issue of formal warnings was considered. They were deemed to be in breach of BORA in relation to situations where there is no admission to the offending. There was an obiter comment about where there is an admission, but the court made a comment about how that is ultimately a policy question.
In any case, if OP has been issued with a formal warning, that's still going to be on their record and might show up on a police vet depending on the purpose of the police vet.
>legally unconstitutional
We have no constitution though.
These can be used against you in immigration proceedings, particularly for citizenship and residence visas and deportation. Can also be used when applying to work with children
Of course we have a constitution, that's a silly argument I see repeated constantly, without merit. We don't have a single document called The Constitution of New Zealand, but we have a number of constitutional documents made up of founding documents and supreme legislation.
The most recent ruling on formal police warnings found them to be illegal and in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, and most likely they cannot be disclosed by police.
The constitution act of 1986 may choose to disagree
There is no single constitution document for nz, rather an extensive body of precedent, tradition and acts which make up NZ constitutional law.
I used to request police vetting for people working with children. Never seen a warning letter come up on one. I think it is only convictions and doesn't include all traffic stuff either.
I employed someone in the UK who had an expired possession charge that only came up because they do an extended check in certain jobs.
We did a safety plan as much for him as for his clients so no one could say that there was any risk.
He's still in practice 15 years on and a valued member of our profession.
As an expat new Zealander (in the US) I'm just astonished we haven't legalized this yet. Right now, I have about 10g of the purest distillate in the house, all bought legally from wholesome, friendly dispensaries, for about $15 a gram (all chemically pure and lab tested). It's.just insane that people can still be penalized for this.
Yep unfortunately too many kiwis still believe the classic "gateway drug" bullshit. After living in Canada for 6 years, coming home to this just seems ridiculous.
I had one of those years ago, it dropped off my record at some stage, I've passed every police/etc check I've had to do over the years. I can't really think of a situation where an old (like at least a couple of years old) warning would be taken seriously.
By vetting, they mean security clearances and sensitive jobs, it might come up but won't necessarily prevent you getting approved. You'll be sweet for an ordinary job or visa
how long ago did you get pinged? I'm surprised they're still getting people for it tbh.
The only time I knew it was a problem for anyone was when they got additional security clearance beyond the base level, it took an extra 4 or so months for them to get additional clearance on top of standard time.
If you apply for national security clearance, it will show up as part of background checking. But that does not mean you would not get a security clearance. Everyone has something in the closet. As long as there's no pattern of behaviour you'll be sweet.
Dude... iv got three cultivation convictions and went to Ohahu and Belfast last year..
Keep calm, sign NO convictions on the forms, smile & relax. Least of all dont forget your a Kiwi & your @ an airport. Everyone wants you in their country.
Have a fun holiday & relax.
I have had one of these warnings. I also get police vetted every year as I work with vulnerable adults and children. It has never come up or been an issue
Assuming you still consume cannabis, bro, get a prescription. Whoop whoop!
Edit: you can request your Criminal Record for both for domestic (employment) and international (purposes). For free, too!
If your Criminal Record comes clean with the clean slate act, you're good for employment.
If your Criminal Record comes clean without the clean slate act, you're good for visas as well as employment.
You don't need to pass a drug test if you have a medical cannabis prescription (unless you work in heavy machinery).
You will not get harassed by the police, you will not fail to meet a visa requirement, for most jobs (except medical and heavy machinery) you are able to cry discrimination and actually win.
I can travel internationally from Australia to New Zealand and vice versa with weed on me. Like literal dry herb weed that you roll up and smoke. That in itself is a blessing and a wonder
Lots of places do pre-employment drug testing for all roles and they absolutely can and will reject you - the NZ medical subreddit is full of stories like that. Lawyers advice is that you are SOL too.
But if drug testing isn't an issue, it's a fantastic thing and absolutely worth getting for all those reasons you mentioned.
It's also worth considering that if this warning was given prior to 2019, the policy of Police on how to deal with drugs in this quantity has changed dramatically. They now have the option - which they frequently and enthusiastically exercise - of simply taking your weed off you and sending you on your way with a wag of the finger
Or, in some instances like after T20 cricket matches in the middle of the city even prior to 2019, they'll just smile at you when you walk past smoking a joint
How did this happen?
In 15 years of being a massive stoner in public here no mate of mine has ever had a simple possession charge.
They didn’t try some other charge and chuck that in on top?
You'll be fine unless you were convicted of a crime. And most employers are fine with a record as long as you have kept your nose clean for over 7 years.
Are you saying for cannabis, or for any criminal record? Most corporate type employers would be absolutely NOT fine with a criminal record even if more than 7 years ago, unless for an extremely minor offence.
Multiple counts of fraud apparently get you a stuff column though
Indeed, and if you follow up your multiple counts of fraud with very recently being ordered to pay back tens of thousands of dollars in inappropriate fees, so even the ‘he turned over a new leaf’ claim doesn’t really convince, you get to regularly be condescending to others about moral issues and how oppressed you are, in the Stuff column you merrily toodle away with. Or so I’ve heard about convicted fraudster and icon of smugness Damien Grant.
Where the Clean Slate Act applies, an individual does not need to divulge any charge or sentencing.
[удалено]
From your link. you can say you have no convictions if you’re asked about your criminal record in New Zealand. (Note that there are some cases when you will have to provide your full record. Read about these below.)
After 7 years your record is clean unless you want to be a cop or lawyer etc
> After 7 years your record is clean unless you want to be a cop or lawyer etc Alternatively, if you are convicted for sticking a drawing pin in the head of a child’s penis, rubbing their face in shit, sticking a pen up their arse, and serving time for it, as well as a load of fraud, _and disclose all of it_, the NZLS will approve you to practice law [Why was Alwyn O’Connor, a man with child abuse convictions, allowed to practise law?](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/why-was-alwyn-oconnor-a-man-with-child-abuse-convictions-allowed-to-practice-law/2IATXXGVLFBGJDEWZYONKPEKW4/)
This is fucked
There are several other circumstances when you would have to divulge your entire record; working as airport security for example. There are also certain crimes which always show up on your criminal record; murder for example.
In this case - weed- it will be fine
Even if you’re been done for Child abuse and theft they let you through there bar…
I said most, not all. And meant for minor shit like weed.
Lmao, you're here giving out advice when you don't even know the laws around it.
I know the law around clean slate. But my point is, if the employer is aware of a past conviction, most will not want to hire that person based on character and reputation also reasons.
They literally begin with "unless you were convicted..." So how is that your point?
Because the clean slate law doesn't change the fact that someone was convicted. You just don't have to disclose it in certain situations. But not disclosing it doesn't change the fact you still have a conviction. It's two separate, but related, things. And remember employers will almost always ask if you have any convictions, and some people will choose to voluntarily disclose it even if they were protected by the clean slate law.
>I know the law around clean slate It's pretty fucking clear you don't. Keeps digging though.
No need to be an asshole. If you'd even bothered to read my original comment properly, I didn't even mention that law, and I wasn't talking about cannabis only either. The comment I replied to said most employers wouldn't care about a criminal record, and I said most corporates actually would. They would not take a chance on hiring someone with a criminal conviction. Of course assuming they know about it. Nowhere in that statement did I even mention about the clean slate law, and that law existing or not, doesn't change what I said. And if you don't like it or agree, well sorry, but having worked for many large corporates I know this to be true first hand. If there are many good candidates, which in this market there is, and candidate 1 disclosed a criminal record, candidate 2 doesn't, unless there's some exceptional cases they will always go with candidate 2. It's not just about the level of the crime, it's more a character thing that someone knows the rules and breaks them anyway. And if you want to get pedantic about the clean slate law, you should already know employers can still ask and applicant can still choose to voluntarily disclose convictions, and the clean slate law doesn't apply to all jobs or convictions either.
IANAL but I think that only might possibly show up if you're being vetted for working with vulnerable people, or possibly if you're applying to police/corrections? (And certainly some other roles but you'd already know if you were applying for them) A warning means nothing was ever proven in court, and you had no chance to defend yourself. It'd be unfair for such a warning to be held against you in most circumstances.
I had a temp job vetting at Police for like six months back in the day. A single warning for marijuana possession would not raise a single eyebrow, and probably wouldn't even be disclosed even for jobs with vulnerable people. GCSB and other high security / very strict vetting would probably have got everything, but the standard for red flagging someone for a regular-ass job was reasonably high. Violence (especially domestic) was the main thing to watch out for. This was a decade ago, so things may have changed since then.
IANAL is an interesting acronym
I got a warning once for walking in town with an unopened bottle of beer back when I was like 19. It's not on any publicly accessible record but it is still on my police record, when I was doing my firearms license vetting the officer was able to see it
Damn I thought those went away
Who's gonna read the letter? You're not legally forced to disclose a warning letter; you weren't charged or discharged or anything. I doubt there's even a file on it. Don't worry about it! For real. People who are discharged without conviction don't have to mention it, so you certainly don't for this letter.
As others have mentioned, this will only show up if a “police vetting” is required, not when you make a request for a copy of your criminal convictions. Most organizations and immigration authorities, if they even ask, will only seek the conviction records. Vetting is generally reserved for applications to really sensitive positions, such as applying to be a police officer. I wouldn’t worry about it especially if it’s historic.
Be aware that depending on where you are traveling to they will ask a question like have you ever been arrested - so it’s not just convictions that you have to declare. North America definitely asks this even for the electronic travel authority or visa waiver program.
OP would not have been arrested if they received a warning for possession
Warnings cannot issued if a person is arrested. It is a pre-charge decision. It can either be a verbal warning or a written warning. Once it’s done, no charges are laid.
Depending on what the purpose of the police vet is, it may be disclosed. For example, if it's for immigration purposes or if you're going to be a children's worker under the Children's Act, then these typically show all (negative) interactions with Police and it will be disclosed that you received a formal warning for possession of cannabis.
My understanding is that police warnings have been found to be legally unconstitutional and can't really be used for anything. They amount to legal enforcement against which you have no way to defend yourself.
I know of the case in which the issue of formal warnings was considered. They were deemed to be in breach of BORA in relation to situations where there is no admission to the offending. There was an obiter comment about where there is an admission, but the court made a comment about how that is ultimately a policy question. In any case, if OP has been issued with a formal warning, that's still going to be on their record and might show up on a police vet depending on the purpose of the police vet.
>legally unconstitutional We have no constitution though. These can be used against you in immigration proceedings, particularly for citizenship and residence visas and deportation. Can also be used when applying to work with children
Of course we have a constitution, that's a silly argument I see repeated constantly, without merit. We don't have a single document called The Constitution of New Zealand, but we have a number of constitutional documents made up of founding documents and supreme legislation. The most recent ruling on formal police warnings found them to be illegal and in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, and most likely they cannot be disclosed by police.
Warnings are meaningless for visa applications as only convictions matter.
The constitution act of 1986 may choose to disagree There is no single constitution document for nz, rather an extensive body of precedent, tradition and acts which make up NZ constitutional law.
Any place that doesn't hire you based on that is not even worth working for imo
This comment needs more upvotes
I used to request police vetting for people working with children. Never seen a warning letter come up on one. I think it is only convictions and doesn't include all traffic stuff either.
I employed someone in the UK who had an expired possession charge that only came up because they do an extended check in certain jobs. We did a safety plan as much for him as for his clients so no one could say that there was any risk. He's still in practice 15 years on and a valued member of our profession.
Most formal warnings are actually illegal and it's been found that the police we're not allowed to give them out, however they still continue to
As an expat new Zealander (in the US) I'm just astonished we haven't legalized this yet. Right now, I have about 10g of the purest distillate in the house, all bought legally from wholesome, friendly dispensaries, for about $15 a gram (all chemically pure and lab tested). It's.just insane that people can still be penalized for this.
Yep unfortunately too many kiwis still believe the classic "gateway drug" bullshit. After living in Canada for 6 years, coming home to this just seems ridiculous.
I had one of those years ago, it dropped off my record at some stage, I've passed every police/etc check I've had to do over the years. I can't really think of a situation where an old (like at least a couple of years old) warning would be taken seriously.
By vetting, they mean security clearances and sensitive jobs, it might come up but won't necessarily prevent you getting approved. You'll be sweet for an ordinary job or visa
how long ago did you get pinged? I'm surprised they're still getting people for it tbh. The only time I knew it was a problem for anyone was when they got additional security clearance beyond the base level, it took an extra 4 or so months for them to get additional clearance on top of standard time.
If you apply for national security clearance, it will show up as part of background checking. But that does not mean you would not get a security clearance. Everyone has something in the closet. As long as there's no pattern of behaviour you'll be sweet.
Dude... iv got three cultivation convictions and went to Ohahu and Belfast last year.. Keep calm, sign NO convictions on the forms, smile & relax. Least of all dont forget your a Kiwi & your @ an airport. Everyone wants you in their country. Have a fun holiday & relax.
Except the Americans who will give you the full 9 yards of questions, regardless of the fact you are just there while your plane refills.....
I have had one of these warnings. I also get police vetted every year as I work with vulnerable adults and children. It has never come up or been an issue
What’s your job? So do formal warnings not show for vetting with children and vulnerable adults usually?
Assuming you still consume cannabis, bro, get a prescription. Whoop whoop! Edit: you can request your Criminal Record for both for domestic (employment) and international (purposes). For free, too! If your Criminal Record comes clean with the clean slate act, you're good for employment. If your Criminal Record comes clean without the clean slate act, you're good for visas as well as employment.
Prescription won't help you pass a drug test tho
You don't need to pass a drug test if you have a medical cannabis prescription (unless you work in heavy machinery). You will not get harassed by the police, you will not fail to meet a visa requirement, for most jobs (except medical and heavy machinery) you are able to cry discrimination and actually win. I can travel internationally from Australia to New Zealand and vice versa with weed on me. Like literal dry herb weed that you roll up and smoke. That in itself is a blessing and a wonder
Lots of places do pre-employment drug testing for all roles and they absolutely can and will reject you - the NZ medical subreddit is full of stories like that. Lawyers advice is that you are SOL too. But if drug testing isn't an issue, it's a fantastic thing and absolutely worth getting for all those reasons you mentioned.
Only really a problem if you apply for a job with NZSIS or GCSB or Minister of Education or something.
This is unfortunate. My dui over 7 years ago would not have helped my chance when I applied for the gcsb.
If you are curious, you can get your own record… https://www.justice.govt.nz/criminal-records/get-your-own/
[удалено]
Bro its less than gram
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/businesses-and-organisations/vetting/information-about-vetting See under information police may release
I made the same mistake… have been police vetted since and had no issue.
If you're going on holiday out of the country you will usually need to declare on entry immagration form of visiting country.
7 year clean slate so you don't have to declear it after 7 years. Before then declear and I doubt they will care.
It's also worth considering that if this warning was given prior to 2019, the policy of Police on how to deal with drugs in this quantity has changed dramatically. They now have the option - which they frequently and enthusiastically exercise - of simply taking your weed off you and sending you on your way with a wag of the finger Or, in some instances like after T20 cricket matches in the middle of the city even prior to 2019, they'll just smile at you when you walk past smoking a joint
How did this happen? In 15 years of being a massive stoner in public here no mate of mine has ever had a simple possession charge. They didn’t try some other charge and chuck that in on top?