A convicted paedophile has been jailed for six months for lying on his CV.
Nathan Virgo, 44, spent much of his time over the last two or three years in prison for a range of offences, including possessing both child and extreme animal porn, failing to comply with a sexual harm prevention order and for crashing his BMW while stoned.
After he left prison for the drug driving in October last year, he applied for a job at Higgidy in Shoreham.
But instead of coming clean about his record, he said he’d been self-employed from 2021 to 2023. He also wrote no in the box asking him to state if he had any previous convictions.
Last week, he was given six months in prison after pleading guilty to fraud by false representation.
Presiding magistrate Ms J Dowson made no order for costs as by the time of his court appearance, he was already in prison again for breaching his sexual harm prevention order once more.
She said only immediate custody was suitable, as the offence was deliberate and committed on licence, and because of his many previous convictions.
A spokesman for Sussex Police said: “Criminal records checks are in place to enable prospective employers to have confidence in candidates they are recruiting.
“The checks ensure the security of their own workforce and the public they interact with.
“Sussex Police works with partner agencies ensure that those with existing court orders are not able to breach them and put the public at risk.
“In this case, Nathan Virgo, of Coleridge Crescent, Worthing, was convicted for fraud by false representation at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on January 29.
“He failed to disclose his previous convictions to a prospective employer.
“The court was told that Virgo had claimed he was self-employed between 2021 and 2023, when in fact he had been in prison.
“In an employment starter pack, when asked if he had any previous convictions he wrote ‘no’, despite having previous convictions.”
I wonder if it was Higgidy that did a DBS check and caught him out – well done to them if they did.
More likely a random check by the police or probation service. To run a DBS check there has to be an agreed upon reason for doing so ( agreed upon meaning you provide reasoning and preferably the legislation associated for your request and DBS review this and agree or reject).
Looking at their business then whilst admitting there may be something I haven’t thought of & that I don’t know the company in any in-depth way I’m not sure I can think of valid reason under the rules. Except possibly, and I think even this would be a stretch tbh, it was for a delivery driver position and the company delivers to schools hospitals or care facilities.
All that said. If it was them then I totally agree that it was good work on their part