Court of Appeal rules CRB check law must go

[TrueBlueTerrier]

A breach of human rights: Court of Appeal rules CRB check law must go

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 71325.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The law which requires people to disclose all previous convictions to certain employers is a breach of human rights, the Court of Appeal ruled today.

The declaration of incompatibility granted by three judges headed by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, was hailed as a victory for common sense by civil liberties campaigners.

But, the Home Office said: "The protection of children and vulnerable groups must not be compromised.

"We are disappointed by this judgment and are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court."

The judges said that neither the disclosure provisions of the Police Act 1997 nor those of an order made pursuant to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 were compatible with Article 8, which relates to private and family life.

They said it would be for Parliament to devise a "proportionate" scheme.

Campaigners had called for urgent reform of blanket provisions in the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) system which mean employees must automatically disclose all convictions and cautions whether or not they are relevant to the job.

Liberty and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) intervened in the case of "T", a 21-year-old man who received warnings from Manchester Police when he was 11 years old in connection with two stolen bikes.

This 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 in sports studies.

T's solicitor, Mike Pemberton, a partner and head of the Civil Liberties Unit at Stephensons Solicitors LLP, said: "The warning which was issued when my client was 11 years old was for an alleged minor offence and was accepted in the presence of a parent, without taking into account how this may affect future employment.

"In this case, the continued reference to the warning has affected their ability to gain employment in specific roles. This is despite them having no further contact with the police and the judge in the High Court case commenting that their behaviour since childhood has been exemplary.

"It defies common sense that a minor caution at the age of 11 should have to be disclosed on every application for a job of certain types in the future. Furthermore, my client undergoes the rigmarole of having to explain the matter again and again.

"I welcome the judgment of the court which reflects that human rights do equal common sense."

Liberty's legal officer, Corinna Ferguson, said: "This sensible judgment requires the Government to introduce a more nuanced system for disclosing this type of sensitive personal data to employers.

"For too long irrelevant and unreliable information provided under the blanket CRB system has blighted people's lives. We hope that long overdue reforms - properly balancing the aim of public protection with privacy rights - will now be forthcoming."

John Wadham, chief legal officer at the EHRC, said: "Many of us have been in minor trouble with the law as children, which we regret at the time but we would not expect that to affect our ability to get a job later in life.

"However, if the police and other bodies can pass on this information without our knowledge it will have serious implications for our lives and careers.

"This is an important ruling to establish how the authorities deal with confidential information they hold which could have a negative impact on people's lives

"The fact that the court has made a declaration of incompatibility indicates the seriousness of the contravention of human rights obligations in this case, which Parliament must now correct without delay."

Jon Brown, head of the NSPCC's sexual abuse programmes, said: "Whatever the outcome of this legal wrangle, the protection of children is paramount.

"Any relevant information which sheds light on the suitability of people to work with them must be disclosed and if there is any doubt we must err on the side of caution."

[Lounge Lizard]

Firstly, I would have thought employers would have the judgement as to what is and what is not relevent and, secondly, in this instance, "a 21-year-old man who received warnings from Manchester Police when he was 11 years old in connection with two stolen bikes", surely theft of bicycles just ten years previous might well be significant.

[DB1100]

I welcome it,nowadays the police are to eager to arrest youngsters for silly little things,most people over 50 can remember the times that the local bobby used to clip you round the ear if he caught you scrumping or stealing beer bottles to take to the offy to get the deposit back,or take you home and tell your dad so he could trash you,nowadays those sort of things would get you a record and screw you up to get a decent job.Before someone starts getting hysterical I'm not talking about house burglars or drug pushers,just normal things lads do.

[Pat Ostman]

Totally and utterly agree with you.

[RedBagMan]

Surely the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilita ... s_Act_1974 covers a lot of "early naughty stuff" anyway ??

[DB1100]

Surely the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilita ... s_Act_1974 covers a lot of "early naughty stuff" anyway ??

It's very selective and it will still show up on the check,a conviction is classed as spent but still shows up.

[TeeferTiger]

My cousin and her husband weren't allowed to adopt because he burnt down a shed when he was 11 or something, and they were both in their late 40s when told no.

I can appreciate having CRB checks for certain jobs and in charity work, but there are some jobs that really don't need it.

[savo]

I thought it was to stop paedos getting jobs with schoolkids ?

So thats ok then, dosn't matter if kids get abused, as long as all the scumbags get their "Human Rights" !

Didnt Cameron say he was gonna sort out this shite ?

[RedBagMan]

Mrs Red Bag (teacher) has just pointed out ... there is CRB ... and there is "enhanced" CRB ... so does that further muddle ?

[DB1100]

I thought it was to stop paedos getting jobs with schoolkids ?

So thats ok then, dosn't matter if kids get abused, as long as all the scumbags get their "Human Rights" !

Didnt Cameron say he was gonna sort out this shite ?

Oh dear,calm down don't get hysterical,it's only going to be for minor offences.

[DGP1]

I thought it was to stop paedos getting jobs with schoolkids ?

So thats ok then, dosn't matter if kids get abused, as long as all the scumbags get their "Human Rights" !

Didnt Cameron say he was gonna sort out this shite ?

Oh dear,calm down don't get hysterical,it's only going to be for minor offences.

And here's me thinking that Michael Winner had died

[Lounge Lizard]

I thought it was to stop paedos getting jobs with schoolkids ?

So thats ok then, dosn't matter if kids get abused, as long as all the scumbags get their "Human Rights" !

Didnt Cameron say he was gonna sort out this shite ?

No, paedos get jobs with schoolkids because they're cunning and don't get caught, and CRB checks don't include those that haven't offended yet and those that haven't been caught yet. Ian Huntley answered all the questions correctly at his interview, Jimmy Saville wasn't stopped, Harold Shipman was well respected by his (surviving) patients, .....

[DB1100]

I thought it was to stop paedos getting jobs with schoolkids ?

So thats ok then, dosn't matter if kids get abused, as long as all the scumbags get their "Human Rights" !

Didnt Cameron say he was gonna sort out this shite ?

Oh dear,calm down don't get hysterical,it's only going to be for minor offences.

And here's me thinking that Michael Winner had died

It was a good advert,and sticks in my mind.

[TeeferTiger]

I've always said a CRB check isn't really worth the paper it's written on seeing as all it does it tell the people if you've been caught doing something. Those that manage to get away with it aren't going to be penalised.