Question: At a recent election for parent governors at a secondary school the candidate with the most votes was later found to have a criminal record dating back to the 1980s. In 1993 this person was convicted of 5 counts of cruelty to a child under 16 years. They received 18 months probation order on each count. On the strength of these convictions alone can this person be excluded from taking up their new governor's post in September 2006?

At the moment the school is not obliged to undertake CRB checks on governors. The child cruelty offences may be 'spent' under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The governor in question is not an employee of the school so has never been asked to submit to a CRB check. The information about the convictions is accurate but came from a source outside the school. Other convictions include theft and forgery.

Joan Sallis replies: I would find this situation worrying too, not least in the likelihood that this parent would not have been elected if the facts were known. I have been advised that convictions involving children cannot be regarded as ‘spent’, first of all, and that is an issue these governors will need to check. As far as the need for CRB checks for governors in general is concerned, the situation has always been very unclear and different guidance has been given at different times. I understand that at present the need for a check hinges on whether the governors would ever have unsupervised access to children. If in the particular school they might, then a CRB enhanced check is required and the governors will at least have to so inform the successful candidate before he can take office. Before governors had the present direct responsibilities such access would rarely have been a likelihood but in many schools now it is quite normal for governors to hear slow readers, go on school outings, even take part in school camps and other residential trips.

Having said what the framework is and taking into account the advice that convictions are not regarded as spent when they involve children, I would not be very happy about taking a chance on this one, even if normally in the school governors don’t have such direct involvement as a rule. I think the chairman might see this candidate privately and ask a few questions about the circumstances in which the previous offences occurred and their exact nature, adding that schools have to have assurances in cases involving children. He or she could add that the DFS would almost certainly think hat a CRB check would be wise before the appointment is finally approved in this case. The candidate might feel that it was all too much to handle and prefer to withdraw, in which case there would be a fresh election.