Most employers rely on the contents of an applicant’s CV together with the interview process to determine suitability for a job, but the former can be subject to flaws where a rogue applicant over exaggerates previous work experience, falsifies qualifications, and glosses over gaps in their employment history, as happened in the case of R v Andrewes, where Mr. Andrewes (A) applied to be a CEO for a hospice having no work experience and or qualifications for the role, but his false CV over inflated his managerial experience, with 4 degrees/post-graduate qualifications, and that he was in the process of doing a PHD in ethics and management, whereas (A)’s actual qualifications were a diploma and teaching certificate.
Having presented such an impressive CV, (A) was appointed to the role and received good appraisals from his employer describing him as being "strong" or "outstanding". After a few years in the post,(A) applied and was appointed in the role as a non-executive director for an NHS Trust, repeating the same lies but claiming to be a doctor, having completed his PHD, and within a few years thereafter, was appointed as the Chair of the Royal Cornwall Trust, whilst still continuing to work for the hospice.
The hospice then conducted a review of his qualifications and background following a request from the NHS investigators, from which the true facts became apparent, resulting in (A) being charged with theft and fraud, to which (A) pleaded guilty and was given a sentence of 2 years imprisonment.
The crown prosecution service (cps) asked for a confiscation order to recover earnings due to (A)’s criminal misconduct, which approximately amounted to £643,000, and (A) was ordered to pay £97,000 based upon his financial situation.
(A) appealed that the award was disproportionate, not taking account of the benefits employers received by doing a good job, and the Court of Appeal agreed with this on the basis of double recovery and set aside the confiscation award. Cps appealed the decision, arguing that it was entitled to take all of A's earnings despite his employers benefitting from his services.
The Supreme Court decided that the confiscation order should reflect the difference between the higher earnings obtained through the fraud and the lower earnings that would have been obtained without the fraud.
To avoid matters going as far as above, employers must ensure that details in the CV are scrutinised, follow up with references and ask to see original qualification certificates.
The article is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
Should you need any further assistance on the matter, please do not hesitate to call our advice-line team for free on 0116 274 9193
