№ lp_1_27460
File format: docx
Character count: 3543
File size: 18 KB
This document is a request form for individuals applying for a police conviction check, detailing the required information and verification process by both the applicant and employer.
Year:
2021
Region / City:
United Kingdom
Subject:
Police Conviction Check
Document Type:
Request Form
Organization / Institution:
Police Service of Northern Ireland
Note:
Author
Target Audience:
Applicants requiring a police conviction check
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Note:
Year
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Washington
Subject:
Petition to vacate misdemeanor conviction
Document Type:
Petition
Organization / Institution:
Municipal Court of Washington For Gig Harbor
Author:
Defendant
Target Audience:
Defendant or their attorney
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Denver
Topic:
Criminal Conviction Review
Document Type:
Legal Report
Target Audience:
Legal professionals, public
Period of Action:
2001–2024
Approval Date:
January 8, 2024
Modification Date:
N/A
Issuing authority:
Social Welfare Department
Branch:
Development Section, Licensing and Regulation Branch
Address:
5/F, THE HUB, 23 Yip Kan Street, Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong
Fax:
3620 3134; 3793 4184
Email:
[email protected]
Document type:
Reporting form
Subject:
Reporting of prosecution, conviction, or revocation of professional or academic qualifications
Applicable to:
Registered Home Manager; Registered Home Manager (Provisional); Registered Health Worker
Related institutions:
Residential Care Homes for the Elderly (RCHEs); Residential Care Homes for the Persons with Disabilities (RCHDs)
Legal reference:
Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486)
Data protection authority contact:
Executive Officer I (Licensing and Regulation) 2, Development Section, Licensing and Regulation Branch, Social Welfare Department
Geographical scope:
Hong Kong
Relevant date reference:
On or after 16 June 2024 (for Registered Health Workers)
Year:
2016
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Tax Delinquency, Felony Conviction
Document Type:
Official USDA Policy
Organ / Institution:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Author:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Target Audience:
Corporate Applicants and Awardees for USDA Non-Procurement Programs
Validity Period:
2016
Approval Date:
2016
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Wisconsin
Topic:
Criminal Law
Document Type:
Legal Petition
Agency / Institution:
State of Wisconsin Circuit Court
Author:
Plaintiff (State of Wisconsin)
Target Audience:
Individuals seeking expungement of criminal convictions
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not provided
Date of Amendments:
Not provided
Year:
Not specified
State:
Colorado
Country:
United States
Document Type:
Court form / Motion
Form Number:
JDF 641
Jurisdiction Level:
County or District Court
Parties:
People of the State of Colorado v. Defendant
Subject:
Sealing of multiple criminal conviction records
Legal Basis:
C.R.S. §§ 24-72-709, 24-72-706 and related statutory provisions
Agencies Referenced:
District / County Court; Municipal Court; Colorado Bureau of Investigation; Sheriff’s Department; City Attorney; Law Enforcement Agency
Required Attachments:
Verified copy of criminal history record dated within 20 days
Procedural Elements:
Eligibility criteria; offense information; restitution status; appeal history; certificate of service; signature and date
Decision Factors:
District attorney consent; evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence; assessment of public safety and public interest
Institution:
National Assembly
Question Number:
PQ 6904
Responding Authority:
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Requesting Member:
Mr S M Gana (Rise Mzansi)
Implementing Authority:
National Prosecuting Authority
Financial Years Covered:
FY 2023 / 24; FY 2024 / 25; FY 2025 / 26
Subject Matter:
Prosecution and conviction rates for murder, rape and assault GBH; duration of criminal trials; measures and challenges in GBV-related cases
Data Type:
Conviction rates and average time from plea to finalisation
Geographical Scope:
Republic of South Africa
Related Framework:
GBVF Response Plan
Reference Code:
NW7730E
Year:
2020
Region / City:
Springfield
Topic:
Wrongful Conviction, Criminal Justice, Legal Advocacy
Document Type:
Press Release
Organization:
Illinois Innocence Project, Erickson & Oppenheimer, Ltd.
Author:
Lauren Kaeseberg, Michael Oppenheimer
Target Audience:
General public, legal professionals, criminal justice advocates
Date of Approval:
June 23, 2020
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2015
Jurisdiction:
State of California, USA
Subject:
Employment law, criminal background checks
Document Type:
Statute
Governing Body:
California State Legislature
Applies To:
School employees and job applicants
Definitions Included:
Yes, definition of "school"
Penalties:
Class 6 felony for violations
Scope:
Disclosure of dangerous crimes against children, sexual offenses, and sex offender registration
Legal References:
Sections 131001, 131404, 131405, 131406, 133821, 13705
Context:
Statute outlining the legal obligations of school employees and applicants to disclose certain criminal convictions and the consequences of non-compliance
Year:
2025
Jurisdiction:
Namibia, High Court, Main Division, Windhoek
Document Type:
Court Judgment
Legal Reference:
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, Combating of Domestic Violence Act 4 of 2003
Case Number:
CR 64/2025
Court Reference Number:
696/2025
Judges:
Claasen J, Simasiku AJ
Accused:
Andries Peer
Decision Date:
14 August 2025
Outcome:
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused released unless lawfully detained on another matter
Legal Basis:
Article 11(3) of the Namibian Constitution, Sections 50 and 166 of CPA
Procedural Issues:
Delay in court appearance beyond 48 hours, omission of explanation of cross-examination rights
Year:
2018
Location:
Mahabad, West Azerbaijan province, Iran
Subject:
Juvenile justice, death penalty
Document type:
Urgent Action / Human Rights Report
Organization:
Amnesty International
Individual concerned:
Danial Zeinolabedini
Age at time of crime:
17
Conviction date:
3 June 2018
Sentence:
Death penalty
Legal basis:
Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code
Trial characteristics:
Juvenile court, unfair trial, limited legal representation
Period of imprisonment:
From 26 September 2017
Deadline for action:
30 July 2019
Additional context:
International law prohibits execution of persons under 18 at time of crime, ongoing human rights advocacy
Year:
2026
Institution:
University Centre Peterborough
Document Type:
Declaration Form / Assessment Form
Target Audience:
Course offer-holders for regulated professions
Purpose:
Disclosure and assessment of relevant criminal convictions
Submission Deadline:
Within 14 calendar days of offer receipt
Privacy Compliance:
GDPR, Data Protection Act 2018
Submission Contact:
[email protected]
Assessment Responsible:
HE Manager
Related Procedures:
Risk assessment for suitability in professional environment
Endorsed by:
Academic Office
Note:
Year
Theme:
Child development, Early Years Education
Document type:
Progress Check
Target audience:
Parents, caregivers, childcare providers
Contextual description:
A progress check document assessing the developmental milestones of a child at age two, focusing on key areas such as communication, physical, social, and emotional development, completed by the childcare provider.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
Wisconsin
Topic:
Background Check Consent
Document Type:
Form
Organization / Institution:
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Author:
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Target Audience:
Job applicants in Wisconsin
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2020
Region / City:
European Space Agency
Topic:
Space Technology, Business Incubation
Document Type:
Guideline
Organization / Institution:
European Space Agency Business Incubation Centres (ESA BICs)
Author:
European Space Agency
Target Audience:
Entrepreneurs, Start-ups, ESA BIC Applicants
Validity Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
23/06/2020
Modification Date:
30/09/2022
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Australia
Subject:
Residential care worker documentation and information sharing
Document type:
Form
Agency/Institution:
Office of the Children’s Guardian
Author:
Office of the Children’s Guardian
Target Audience:
Residential care agencies and workers
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Health check, intellectual and developmental disabilities, medical management
Document Type:
Health checklist
Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Healthcare professionals working with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Modification Date:
Not specified