CRB checks can unnecessarily blight lives
Discussion
There gp have been a number of threads here relating to the disclosure of minor offences committed while young. This news might give comfort to those who fear they might be unreasonably refused employment, university course, etc.
The Daily Telegraph said:
Workers should not always have to disclose minor criminal convictions to potential employers, one of the country’s most senior judges is expected to rule next week.
Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, is likely to say that it is unlawful for people to be forced to disclose minor offences committed when they were young. He is expected to say it breaches Article Eight of the Human Rights Act – the right to family and private life.
The ruling concerns a 21-year-old man, identified as “T” in court, who received warnings from Manchester Police at the age of 11 in connection with two stolen bicycles.
The information was disclosed on two occasions – when he applied for a part-time job at a local football club at the age of 17 and later when he applied for a university course.
Lord Dyson gave an outline of the judgment, which has been held up amid Home Office fears it could plunge the Criminal Records Bureau into chaos, in the Appeal Court yesterday. He said: “It is extraordinary that nothing has been done. The Government needs to pull its finger out and introduce legislation."
CRB certificates currently require disclosure of all convictions and cautions to certain employers, regardless of their relevance to the job.
Liberty, the civil rights group which has been a party in the case, said the judgment had found that forcing people to disclose minor offences when applying for jobs later in life was incompatible with the right to a private and family life.
The Government will have 28 days from the date of the publication of the ruling to appeal to the Supreme Court or rush changes through Parliament to comply with the ruling.
Ministers could change the law to “filter” out any old or minor convictions which did not lead to a term in prison. This would be unlikely to apply to people who committed crimes against children.
Another option is to do nothing and require employers to weigh up whether they are breaching a job applicant’s human rights when they see a list of past misdemeanours.
However, some employers could be uneasy about changes that could see evidence of a pattern of low-level offending wiped from the record.
It could also mean that the fear of carrying a criminal record for life will no longer be a deterrent to stop people committing minor crimes when they are young.
If a job seeker or volunteer wants to work with children and vulnerable adults an employer may request a Criminal Record Certificate from the Criminal Records Bureau.
Four million applications of this type were made last year.
As the law stands, certificates must include information on all convictions and cautions, including those that are deemed to be “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Last year, Simon Weston, the wounded Falklands veteran, had to pull out of a police commissioner election because he had broken the law at 14.
Mr Weston, who was fined for being a passenger in a stolen car, admitted he had been in the wrong, but has called for a change in the law so that people who commit a minor offence as teenagers can later stand for public office.
MPs and campaigners welcomed the likely ruling. Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, said: “It is clear that we need a new approach to dealing with the disclosure of minor juvenile convictions.
“Non-serious misdemeanours at a young age should not affect someone’s chances in life, as was shown by the farce of high-quality candidates having to stand down from the Police and Crime Commissioner elections. While we need appropriate safeguards in place, the system should be fair and proportionate.”
Corinna Ferguson, the legal officer for Liberty, said: “The overzealous CRB system has allowed old, minor and unreliable information to wreck the lives of too many hard-working people. The Government can’t put off dealing with this any longer.”
Josie Appleton, a spokesman for the Manifesto Club, a group that campaigns against excessive state regulation, added: “The CRB system isn’t fit for purpose — thousands of people are barred from the job market because of minor offences, or accusations that they can’t shift from their record.”
A spokesman for the Home Office said: “The Court of Appeal has yet to make a ruling. We will respond when it does.”
StreakyLord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, is likely to say that it is unlawful for people to be forced to disclose minor offences committed when they were young. He is expected to say it breaches Article Eight of the Human Rights Act – the right to family and private life.
The ruling concerns a 21-year-old man, identified as “T” in court, who received warnings from Manchester Police at the age of 11 in connection with two stolen bicycles.
The information was disclosed on two occasions – when he applied for a part-time job at a local football club at the age of 17 and later when he applied for a university course.
Lord Dyson gave an outline of the judgment, which has been held up amid Home Office fears it could plunge the Criminal Records Bureau into chaos, in the Appeal Court yesterday. He said: “It is extraordinary that nothing has been done. The Government needs to pull its finger out and introduce legislation."
CRB certificates currently require disclosure of all convictions and cautions to certain employers, regardless of their relevance to the job.
Liberty, the civil rights group which has been a party in the case, said the judgment had found that forcing people to disclose minor offences when applying for jobs later in life was incompatible with the right to a private and family life.
The Government will have 28 days from the date of the publication of the ruling to appeal to the Supreme Court or rush changes through Parliament to comply with the ruling.
Ministers could change the law to “filter” out any old or minor convictions which did not lead to a term in prison. This would be unlikely to apply to people who committed crimes against children.
Another option is to do nothing and require employers to weigh up whether they are breaching a job applicant’s human rights when they see a list of past misdemeanours.
However, some employers could be uneasy about changes that could see evidence of a pattern of low-level offending wiped from the record.
It could also mean that the fear of carrying a criminal record for life will no longer be a deterrent to stop people committing minor crimes when they are young.
If a job seeker or volunteer wants to work with children and vulnerable adults an employer may request a Criminal Record Certificate from the Criminal Records Bureau.
Four million applications of this type were made last year.
As the law stands, certificates must include information on all convictions and cautions, including those that are deemed to be “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Last year, Simon Weston, the wounded Falklands veteran, had to pull out of a police commissioner election because he had broken the law at 14.
Mr Weston, who was fined for being a passenger in a stolen car, admitted he had been in the wrong, but has called for a change in the law so that people who commit a minor offence as teenagers can later stand for public office.
MPs and campaigners welcomed the likely ruling. Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, said: “It is clear that we need a new approach to dealing with the disclosure of minor juvenile convictions.
“Non-serious misdemeanours at a young age should not affect someone’s chances in life, as was shown by the farce of high-quality candidates having to stand down from the Police and Crime Commissioner elections. While we need appropriate safeguards in place, the system should be fair and proportionate.”
Corinna Ferguson, the legal officer for Liberty, said: “The overzealous CRB system has allowed old, minor and unreliable information to wreck the lives of too many hard-working people. The Government can’t put off dealing with this any longer.”
Josie Appleton, a spokesman for the Manifesto Club, a group that campaigns against excessive state regulation, added: “The CRB system isn’t fit for purpose — thousands of people are barred from the job market because of minor offences, or accusations that they can’t shift from their record.”
A spokesman for the Home Office said: “The Court of Appeal has yet to make a ruling. We will respond when it does.”
streaky said:
There gp have been a number of threads here relating to the disclosure of minor offences committed while young. This news might give comfort to those who fear they might be unreasonably refused employment, university course, etc.
My experience with youngsters is that 'this will affect the rest of your life' is far to abstract a concept to influence the behaviour of many of them when they are teenagers.The Daily Telegraph said:
It could also mean that the fear of carrying a criminal record for life will no longer be a deterrent to stop people committing minor crimes when they are young.
StreakyI used to teach "ham radio" to military cadets, it was a bit of fun.
I refused to submit to a check a few years back, when all the PC crap really started, the kids I was teaching were between 13 and 18, both sexes these days of course, always group teaching, never one to one.
I only have a speeding conviction from 2001, but f
k the system, I've served in HM armed forces and the Police.
As a result, I don't teach anymore, and they have never found anyone else willing to !
I refused to submit to a check a few years back, when all the PC crap really started, the kids I was teaching were between 13 and 18, both sexes these days of course, always group teaching, never one to one.
I only have a speeding conviction from 2001, but f
k the system, I've served in HM armed forces and the Police.As a result, I don't teach anymore, and they have never found anyone else willing to !
I've, errm 
, they've not ever been caught in connection with 'dubious' offences yet (that's the "no local police information" box ticked) nor charged at some point (that's the PCN box ticked). And I, errm , they haven't ever been arrested in connection with child sex issues yet - so that's the old "list 99" box ticked.
The situation truly IS this cynical (arguably boocks), but in the current PC times... 
And so the old status quo will continue yet - with the vast majority of people being responsible and very few being convicted of child sex offences but the majority facing these wrongly-targetted invasive checks - just as the sun rises in the East every day...
, they've not ever been caught in connection with 'dubious' offences yet (that's the "no local police information" box ticked) nor charged at some point (that's the PCN box ticked). And I, errm , they haven't ever been arrested in connection with child sex issues yet - so that's the old "list 99" box ticked.The situation truly IS this cynical (arguably bo
ocks), but in the current PC times... And so the old status quo will continue yet - with the vast majority of people being responsible and very few being convicted of child sex offences but the majority facing these wrongly-targetted invasive checks - just as the sun rises in the East every day...
It does seem wrong that minor infractions when you are young should continue to cause problems in later life. Hopefully Lord Dyson will change this.
However I see nothing wrong with CRB checks. I've had one and it didn't bother me at all. It just seems like a sensible precaution to me.
However I see nothing wrong with CRB checks. I've had one and it didn't bother me at all. It just seems like a sensible precaution to me.
I'm not sure it's a two camp debate.
Look at that Adam Scott being detained for months for a rape all on the basis of DNA alone.
People have been denied consideration for jobs due to errors on the CRB database.
The MITCHELL plebgate affair proves that some people can't resist misusing information. If the information isn't there it can't be misused.
That also colours my stance on the Snooper's Charter, that and the coalition parties doing a U turn on it since they got elected.
Is the use of the CRB and the offences listed on there for the positions people are being considered for or denied proportionate?
Some people aren't too bright. Giving them information and access to computers doesn't always make them any brighter.
Look at that Adam Scott being detained for months for a rape all on the basis of DNA alone.
People have been denied consideration for jobs due to errors on the CRB database.
The MITCHELL plebgate affair proves that some people can't resist misusing information. If the information isn't there it can't be misused.
That also colours my stance on the Snooper's Charter, that and the coalition parties doing a U turn on it since they got elected.
Is the use of the CRB and the offences listed on there for the positions people are being considered for or denied proportionate?
Some people aren't too bright. Giving them information and access to computers doesn't always make them any brighter.
Devil2575 said:
However I see nothing wrong with CRB checks. I've had one and it didn't bother me at all. It just seems like a sensible precaution to me.
I have 3 so far - I have no issue, as long as they don't make a mistake and add some wrong details, or some untrue gossip because at which point you are dealing with a bureaucracy that has no interest in fixing errors.The current CRB makes the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act redundant, as quoted by the OP. I was caught as an 18 year old student having swapped a tax disc from one car to another, not knowing it was a proper crime, and charged with fraudulent use of a tax disc. I now have a record for a fraud conviction that pops up from time to time when these things are submitted. I too, like some other posters, now decline various requests for voluntary help at school etc when I'm told a CRB check is mandatory.
catfood12 said:
The current CRB makes the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act redundant, as quoted by the OP. I was caught as an 18 year old student having swapped a tax disc from one car to another, not knowing it was a proper crime, and charged with fraudulent use of a tax disc. I now have a record for a fraud conviction that pops up from time to time when these things are submitted. I too, like some other posters, now decline various requests for voluntary help at school etc when I'm told a CRB check is mandatory.
Why? Do you know you would be declined?Nigel Worc's said:
I used to teach "ham radio" to military cadets, it was a bit of fun.
I refused to submit to a check a few years back, when all the PC crap really started, the kids I was teaching were between 13 and 18, both sexes these days of course, always group teaching, never one to one.
I only have a speeding conviction from 2001, but fk the system, I've served in HM armed forces and the Police.
As a result, I don't teach anymore, and they have never found anyone else willing to !
why would you refuse to "submit" to a simple check??......makes absolutely no sense if all you have to worry about is an old speeding conviction...I refused to submit to a check a few years back, when all the PC crap really started, the kids I was teaching were between 13 and 18, both sexes these days of course, always group teaching, never one to one.
I only have a speeding conviction from 2001, but f
k the system, I've served in HM armed forces and the Police.As a result, I don't teach anymore, and they have never found anyone else willing to !
I certainly wouldnt want anyone left alone with my kids who refused a simple crb check.
hedgefinder said:
why would you refuse to "submit" to a simple check??......makes absolutely no sense if all you have to worry about is an old speeding conviction...
I certainly wouldnt want anyone left alone with my kids who refused a simple crb check.
How do you cope with sleepovers? Do you check out the parents of your kids friends?I certainly wouldnt want anyone left alone with my kids who refused a simple crb check.
And you do know that children are more likely to be harmed/abused in their own home by a family member than a scout leader/football coach/perv stranger, don't you?
Best of all is the notion that everyone with a criminal conviction is actually guilty of the said offence.
I find the whole checking thing panders to Sun reader 'string-em-up' or Mumsnet hysterical types and ignores the reality of the problem, which is that if people are unable to wipe the slate (and I'm not talking about murderers and rapists) then they are likely to suffer discrimination and missed opportunities for the rest of their lives.
9mm said:
How do you cope with sleepovers? Do you check out the parents of your kids friends?
And you do know that children are more likely to be harmed/abused in their own home by a family member than a scout leader/football coach/perv stranger, don't you?
Best of all is the notion that everyone with a criminal conviction is actually guilty of the said offence.
I find the whole checking thing panders to Sun reader 'string-em-up' or Mumsnet hysterical types and ignores the reality of the problem, which is that if people are unable to wipe the slate (and I'm not talking about murderers and rapists) then they are likely to suffer discrimination and missed opportunities for the rest of their lives.
i was meaning in a professional capacity, its up to me personally to check or trust friends and neighbours. I find the whole checking thing completely acceptable for people who are expecting to teach or care for children... and a speeding offence wouldnt have any bearing on their efforts to be accepted in such a capacity - so stop talking bAnd you do know that children are more likely to be harmed/abused in their own home by a family member than a scout leader/football coach/perv stranger, don't you?
Best of all is the notion that everyone with a criminal conviction is actually guilty of the said offence.
I find the whole checking thing panders to Sun reader 'string-em-up' or Mumsnet hysterical types and ignores the reality of the problem, which is that if people are unable to wipe the slate (and I'm not talking about murderers and rapists) then they are likely to suffer discrimination and missed opportunities for the rest of their lives.
ks!Only people with something to hide need fear a CRB when seeking to be in charge of children.
hedgefinder said:
i was meaning in a professional capacity, its up to me personally to check or trust friends and neighbours. I find the whole checking thing completely acceptable for people who are expecting to teach or care for children... and a speeding offence wouldnt have any bearing on their efforts to be accepted in such a capacity - so stop talking bks!
Only people with something to hide need fear a CRB when seeking to be in charge of children.
True enough. But if you were a naughty boy in your teens, you may well have put that all behind you and might now be a powerfully built director type (with goatee). Even though it might not have any impact on the application (they are only worried about certain offences as you suggest) you might not want to have people know about your past.ks!Only people with something to hide need fear a CRB when seeking to be in charge of children.
When I was doing my teacher training there was a guy on the course who had done time for either ABH or GBH (I forget which).
When he was applying for teaching jobs he always told the school that this was on his record and was likely to show up on his CRB check.
He is currently a successful head of year in a challenging school.
I'd rather have a complete CRB and let the candidate explain their history than have an incomplete check which might allow a genuine threat to be unsuitably employed.
As long as the candidates are honest about their backgrounds, they shouldn't have anything to worry about.
When he was applying for teaching jobs he always told the school that this was on his record and was likely to show up on his CRB check.
He is currently a successful head of year in a challenging school.
I'd rather have a complete CRB and let the candidate explain their history than have an incomplete check which might allow a genuine threat to be unsuitably employed.
As long as the candidates are honest about their backgrounds, they shouldn't have anything to worry about.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff