A Fingerprint Criminal Record Check Returned a Match: What Should an Employer Do Next?

A fingerprint criminal record check match has appeared after you obtained consent, captured the candidate’s biometrics, and submitted the enquiry. The result connects the fingerprints to information held in the South African Police Service (SAPS) database.

For many employers, the immediate reaction is to withdraw the job offer and move to the next candidate. However, South African labour law requires a more measured approach. A fingerprint criminal record check match calls for verification, context, and a role-relevance assessment before any final decision is made.

How to assess a fingerprint criminal record check match

The first step is to confirm that you are looking at a verified biometric result rather than relying only on a name or identity-number search, which may not establish the same direct biometric link to the individual.

A true fingerprint criminal record check is conducted via the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), which checks the candidate’s unique biometrics directly against the SAPS database of convicted persons and those awaiting trial [1]. If the match was generated through this system by an accredited provider like CSI Africa, you can be confident that the result is biometrically linked to the applicant.

For a closer look at confirming an applicant’s identity before employment, see CSI Africa’s
fingerprint verification guide.

Read the status carefully. A previous conviction and a case awaiting trial are not the same thing, and neither should be treated as a complete account of the person’s present suitability. The report is a trigger for informed assessment, not a substitute for one.

Assess relevance to the inherent requirements of the job

A criminal conviction only matters if it impacts the candidate’s ability to perform the role safely and honestly. The Labour Court has made it clear that excluding an applicant solely because of a criminal history constitutes unfair discrimination if that history is not relevant to the inherent requirements of the job [2].

You must weigh the nature of the conviction against the nature of the work.

If the offence has no bearing on the duties, risks, or responsibilities of the position, using the fingerprint criminal record check match to deny employment is legally perilous.

Consider the age of the conviction and evidence of rehabilitation

Time matters. A shoplifting conviction from twenty years ago carries very different weight to an embezzlement conviction from six months ago.

Employers should consider how much time has passed since the offence and what the candidate has done in the intervening years. A sustained period of stable employment and good conduct can be relevant evidence of rehabilitation. The Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) also requires reasonably practicable steps to ensure that information used in a decision is complete, accurate, not misleading, and updated where necessary [3].

Invite the candidate to clarify the finding of the criminal record match 

Never make a final decision in a vacuum. Once you have assessed the relevance and age of the conviction, invite the candidate to discuss the finding.

This conversation serves two purposes. Firstly, it gives the candidate an opportunity to explain the context of the offence, which may mitigate your concerns. Secondly, it protects your organisation by demonstrating that you applied a fair, considered process rather than a blanket exclusion policy.

In some cases, the candidate may dispute the result, believe the record was expunged, or be applying for expungement. POPIA gives data subjects rights to request access to personal information held about them and to seek correction of information that is inaccurate, outdated, incomplete, misleading, or unlawfully obtained [3]. Pause the decision long enough to distinguish a genuine record from a data problem.

Document the final decision

If you conclude that the fingerprint criminal record check match is directly relevant to the inherent requirements of the job, and that the risk cannot reasonably be managed, you may decide not to proceed, provided the decision complies with applicable employment and privacy law.

Document the specific requirements of the role, the nature and age of the conviction, the candidate’s explanation, and the reasons the risk cannot be reasonably managed. Where the consequences are material or the legal position is unclear, obtain employment-law advice before finalising the decision.

References

[1] Afiswitch. Automated Electronic Criminal Record Checks South Africa. https://www.afiswitch.com/

[2] Labour Court of South Africa. O’Connor v LexisNexis (Pty) Ltd (P18/24) [2024] ZALCPE 11. https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCPE/2024/11.html

[3] Republic of South Africa. Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013. https://www.gov.za/documents/protection-personal-information-act