60 annual report 2011 local authority. This would not be legal; an authority must always carry out an individual assessment of whether the offence committed by the applicant precludes appointing the person. However, the local authority explained that the information in the article was incorrect, as it did carry out an individual assessment. The issue is how such an individual assessment must be carried out. First of all, the authority should assess whether the workplace offers special temptations to offend, for instance because employees have to handle assets for vulnerable people. It is also important whether the workplace carries out functions of a ‘particularly qualified nature’, i.e. functions which involve important social interests and require the employee to enjoy special respect and trust. This applies for instance to positions with the police and the Prison and Probate Service. In addition, the authority should consider the applicant’s previous offence: what kind of offence was involved, what was the extent of the offence, when did it take place, how old was the applicant at the time and what was the background to the offence? This information should be considered together with the other information about the applicant available to the authority. The authority should also to some extent attach importance to the decision made in the criminal case. It makes a difference whether the person received a long prison sentence or a small fine. In the case of the hospital doctor, the Region had stated in its guidelines concerning child certificates that the starting point was that sentences for sexual offences would be an obstacle to appointment. However, exceptions might be made on the basis of an individual assessment, for instance because of the time of the sentence, the seriousness of the offence, the age of the offender at the time and the nature of the work to be undertaken in the position. The Ombudsman considered this wording unfortunate, as it might give the impression that the Region did not in fact carry out an individual assessment of each applicant. The Region was, however, already revising its guidelines, and the Ombudsman therefore asked to be kept informed of the work. When an employer finds out too late In the case of the hospital doctor, the Region did not become aware of the doctor’s sentence until after he had been appointed. The Region had not mentioned the requirement of a satisfactory child certificate in the job advertisement or during the job interview and it had not made his appointment subject to this requirement. Was the Region then right to dismiss the doctor summarily when it became aware of his sentence? In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this must depend