Breaking News: Criminal record disclosure checks ruled 'unlawful'

[BazzaS]

Thanks for responding. The conviction was in 1988 for 3 counts of criminal damage. My record has been clear ever since and the job was with the maintenance department of a social landlord. They still gave me the job, but it did cause me a few sleepless nights while they reviewed it.

 

So you have 3 convictions (all with the same date)? Or 1?

[JoeyJoeC]

This is fine. As long as the convictions are spent, whats the issue? you've been punished accordingly for it. Why should someone else get to decide? It would be much worse keeping small time offenders from being able to get jobs.

[Tryst]

Regardless of any claims, certain jobs should ALWAYS have CRB checks. I don't want to see paedophiles getting jobs as teachers of kids etc.

 

Criminals getting jobs in banks where they can steal your money... Oh wait, what would be the difference really?

[BazzaS]

This is fine. As long as the convictions are spent, whats the issue? you've been punished accordingly for it. Why should someone else get to decide? It would be much worse keeping small time offenders from being able to get jobs.

 

Because for some jobs, convictions shouldn't become spent.

Want your doctor to have a temper bad enough to have a conviction for GBH?

Want the judge in your civil case to have a conviction for dishonesty?

 

To some extent if these are historic rather than recent may influence the decision, but then they may be "filtered", or if not filtered, risk assessed by the employer.

[colinsunderland]

Don't people have a right to know who they are working with. This woman shoplifted a 99p book, or was that the first time she got caught. Would you leave your handbag in the staff room knowing there was a convicted thief on the staff.

 

99p or not, it says she isn't trustworthy

 

Must say I'm not sure about that. If someone nicked a tin of baby milk from Tesco 20 years ago because they were skint and the baby was starving, should you not be able to trust her now 20 years later? Also remember, everyone who has a conviction wouldn't have shown up on any check the day before they got caught, you could have 10 staff in a place, one with a record and 9 without, doesn't mean the 9 are honest, just that they haven't been caught.

 

A lot of people pinch stuff because they class it as 'nothing' and if they ever got caught it wouldn't get near a court, doesn't mean they are honest. Little things like taking a pen from work, using your employers envelope as you have a letter to post without asking, daft things like that are all theft.

 

FWIW I have employed people in the past including a few with old convictions, in general I found most with convictions were harder working as they were happy to get a chance from someone and didn't want to lose the job, and 100% honest as they thought they would be getting watched closer than the other people in the office. Obviously that probably won't apply to everyone, but in the cases I know of it certainly did.

[billathome65]

I used to work in mental health as a residential support worker until one day an accusation of a sexual nature was put in against me by a client who was well known for making false allegations. However as the normal process was to contact the police I was questioned formally 3 months after the allegation I had actually left the company resigning my post as there was as I felt a which hunt being levied against me.

 

The who case was dropped as there was no evidence DNA etc to support this false allegation however to my shock when I applied for a new job some time latter it the advice from the CRB was not to employ me working with vulnerable people needless to say my career was destroyed by these accusation and I was convicted and found guilty by stealth. I put this out there because I know how this system is destroying people and families I lost my job my carer and good money.

 

Just thought i'd share

[Conniff]

Must say I'm not sure about that. If someone nicked a tin of baby milk from Tesco 20 years ago because they were skint and the baby was starving, should you not be able to trust her now 20 years later? Also remember, everyone who has a conviction wouldn't have shown up on any check the day before they got caught, you could have 10 staff in a place, one with a record and 9 without, doesn't mean the 9 are honest, just that they haven't been caught.

 

A lot of people pinch stuff because they class it as 'nothing' and if they ever got caught it wouldn't get near a court, doesn't mean they are honest. Little things like taking a pen from work, using your employers envelope as you have a letter to post without asking, daft things like that are all theft.

 

FWIW I have employed people in the past including a few with old convictions, in general I found most with convictions were harder working as they were happy to get a chance from someone and didn't want to lose the job, and 100% honest as they thought they would be getting watched closer than the other people in the office. Obviously that probably won't apply to everyone, but in the cases I know of it certainly did.

 

You are right Colin and I withdraw those remarks.

[colinsunderland]

You are right Colin and I withdraw those remarks.

 

don't think its a case of anyone being right, just different views

would be pretty boring if everyone agreed with everyone else all the time

[BazzaS]

I used to work in mental health as a residential support worker until one day an accusation of a sexual nature was put in against me by a client who was well known for making false allegations. However as the normal process was to contact the police I was questioned formally 3 months after the allegation I had actually left the company resigning my post as there was as I felt a which hunt being levied against me.

 

The who case was dropped as there was no evidence DNA etc to support this false allegation however to my shock when I applied for a new job some time latter it the advice from the CRB was not to employ me working with vulnerable people needless to say my career was destroyed by these accusation and I was convicted and found guilty by stealth. I put this out there because I know how this system is destroying people and families I lost my job my carer and good money.

 

Just thought i'd share

 

The CRB likely never said "don't employ this person"

A CRB / DBS reports information.

 

The information can be challenged if it is incorrect.

 

The employer decides if they should employ the person or not based on the information on the CRB / DBS.

 

Did you get a copy of the CRB showing the adverse information?

If so did you appeal against it?

 

If your copy of the CRB didn't show the adverse information : SAR the employer who declined you.

[Keyzer Soze]

So you have 3 convictions (all with the same date)? Or 1?

 

I honestly don't know how it works, could be either.

[BazzaS]

I honestly don't know how it works, could be either.

 

You could ask the court?

What does your eDBS say?.

 

Either might give you an answer, and considering you "feel like I'm going to be saddled with this for the rest of my life." ; surely you would have checked before now with one or both, if it is that important to you?

[wallyburger]

I had the oddest experience.

A few year ago I applied for a job in a Children's home I knew that I would have to disclose my record dating back some 30 years I was able to get a print out from the local police that listed all my court appearances (and convictions).

 

I was offered (and subsequently got) the job but when they did an enhanced disclosure check it came back without any convictions at all on this confused everyone as they thought it should have. I phoned the CRB people and even sent them a copy of my convictions and they sent another clear eCRB check back, with a letter saying that if I wanted my convictions listed the responsibility was on me to prove I had them ! it was the oddest thing I had ever heard.

 

I then spoke to the local police who seemed to think that as the convictions were so long ago, and one I couldn't repeat even if i tried (drinking under age) and were subject to the ROOA then in their opinion wouldn't be listed. The problem my employers was it cast suspicion on if I was who I said I was, luckily some had known me years and I had plenty of proof as to my identity.

[mikeymack2002]

Have a read in the rss feeds a well know newspaper is running a story of this subject.

[JoeyJoeC]

Because for some jobs, convictions shouldn't become spent.

Want your doctor to have a temper bad enough to have a conviction for GBH?

Want the judge in your civil case to have a conviction for dishonesty?

 

To some extent if these are historic rather than recent may influence the decision, but then they may be "filtered", or if not filtered, risk assessed by the employer.

 

If the convictions were spent, then I don't see an issue with what they got up to in their younger lives.

[mikeymack2002]

Although the convictions are spent they are always referred to in Court. Spent but never forgotten...

[Lady Python]

These disclosure checks have really got out of hand. I don't work in the disclosure/CRB departments but do work for these bodies in the preliminary stage. Some are quite ridiculous. Does someone operating a JCB need one of these checks? Or a gardener? A cleaner who is nowhere near kids or vulnerable people? No, they don't but they are being checked.

 

One of the papers had an article on it a few weeks back where they quoted Theresa May saying things had got ridiculous and it needed to be reined in.

 

Something you might not know, seemingly you don't have to have a criminal conviction to fail one of these checks. An investigation even if there were no charges brought is enough. You can also fail one if you can't put continuous addresses going back to the day you were born so too bad if someone's spent a couple of years backpacking round the world.

 

I agree that people who are working with children and vulnerable people, also people in finance should be checked but the CRB system was a far better - and fairer system.

 

Maybe one day the government (whoever they may be) might get the message "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[BazzaS]

These disclosure checks have really got out of hand. I don't work in the disclosure/CRB departments but do work for these bodies in the preliminary stage. Some are quite ridiculous. Does someone operating a JCB need one of these checks? Or a gardener? A cleaner who is nowhere near kids or vulnerable people? No, they don't but they are being checked.

 

One of the papers had an article on it a few weeks back where they quoted Theresa May saying things had got ridiculous and it needed to be reined in.

 

Something you might not know, seemingly you don't have to have a criminal conviction to fail one of these checks. An investigation even if there were no charges brought is enough. You can also fail one if you can't put continuous addresses going back to the day you were born so too bad if someone's spent a couple of years backpacking round the world.

 

I agree that people who are working with children and vulnerable people, also people in finance should be checked but the CRB system was a far better - and fairer system.

 

Maybe one day the government (whoever they may be) might get the message "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

 

 

There is no "pass" or "fail", but the eDBS comes back showing information or "no information held".

What do you mean by "fail"?

[caledfwlch]

I thought the checks would come back as "safe to work with children" or "not safe" and so on.

 

The "Chief Constable Notes" are an absolutely horrific component of the CRB Checks, unless it has been removed.

Basically, a Chief Constable can put a note on, which will cause you to fail every level of check iirc, as a CC Note has the effect of one is at the highest level, equivalent to Child Abuse, Murder and major Drug Dealing for example.

 

Even better, the CC Is able to put these notes in even when the claims in his notes have absolutely no evidence, and it is impossible to challenge a CC Note, as no process was created to do so. So, the CC might put a note in saying "I believe that Charles Windsor is involved at a very high level in the distribution of drugs and weapons" just because he or a constable suspects thats the case, but cannot find any evidence.

 

I seem to recall that one CC a few years ago put a fraudulent note on his Neighbours file, as they were having a boundary dispute or they had fallen out in some way.

[Conniff]

They can be challenged in court.

[caledfwlch]

They can be challenged in court.

 

Is that a newer addition? As I am sure when the CRB checks came out originally, there was no way to challenge them?

[caledfwlch]

It is a tool that is being misused, and often very unfairly.

 

The only checks that should be done, or need to be done, are issues involving Child Abuse and Fraud/Theft.

A School or any organisation that works with children absolutely needs to know if a potential candidate has been convicted of some sort of Child Abuse, whether it was neglect of their own kids, sexual abuse, a conviction for viewing child pornography etc

A bank, or any business that handles cash would need to know if a candidate has a history of Fraud/Theft of money.

But neither employers need to know if the candidate stole a bike when they were 11, kids do stupid things, and Checks should only go back to the age of 16 or 18.

 

Equally, Mcdonalds or the above don't need to know that in your early 20's you had a problem with drug or alcohol addiction, which led to several convictions, for stuff like drunk and disorderly, Possession of Drugs etc, if you are now well free of them and have sorted your life out.

[BazzaS]

I seem to recall that one CC a few years ago put a fraudulent note on his Neighbours file, as they were having a boundary dispute or they had fallen out in some way.

 

Any cites for this?

I'd have thought it would be career suicide.

Grounds for a complaint to the IPCC, who could demand during their investigation access to the intelligence that led to the entry (and more importantly : its provenance & audit trail).

Given that it isn't the CC's actual data entry, just those acting on the policy issued by the service and signed off on by the CC : an entry by the CC themselves would be highly unusual.

 

The "Information at chief officer's discretion" was brought in as a result of the same spur as CRB's : the report after the murders by Ian Huntley that noted that his actions might have been prevented with better intelligence sharing - a number of forces knew he was a risk to children. He had been arrested and interviewed a number of times but they couldn't prove it (to the criminal standard of proof).

[finaldj]

I was accused of abusing my own stepdaughter in 2003 (6years old at the time) even went to crown court on trial with 9 charges. I was found innocent, ended up some of the witnesses were telling lies my ex couldn't get her story straight my barrister managed to dig out a load of information that I hadn't been the only person she had accused but was the unfortunate one that managed to end up in court. there was no evidence even from a pediatric doctor that specialized in cases like this with 25 years exp. child psychologist report said my ex had manipulated her own daughter. end result was acquitted of all charges.

 

I then tried a few years later to get a Job for the NHS and when the E,CRB check came back it showed under "other relevant information" about 2 pages of A4 what I had gone through, what ex had said what stepdaughter had said, witness it was like a whole transcribe of the trial. My heart sank about a 1000 feet. I tried about 5 times to get a job with the NHS and was turned down soon as they saw the CRB.

 

I ended up going to the information commissioner who looked at the case and took it to court themselves they got the information changed to be more factual but still listed the charges I was accused off and that I was acquitted.

 

after 12 interviews I was finally given a break and given a job but not after one of the Matron had phoned the police to get information on the case then I had to have an interview with 2 of them going through my case then I had to wait a week while they thought about it.

 

I've not had another check since been nearly 9 years now since I was employed would be interesting to see if it still shows up when my next check comes.

[Lady Python]

There is no "pass" or "fail", but the eDBS comes back showing information or "no information held".

What do you mean by "fail"?

 

Sorry to take so long to reply but been tied up with other things.

 

By "fail" I mean you are refused your DBS clearance. As far as I'm aware (but could be wrong) they don't have to give you a reason either. Even a gap in your employment history can be enough to "fail" you unless you can show a valid reason why you weren't working during that period. You then have to write a personal statement explaining why you weren't working. I had to do this as I wasn't working for a while because I had a sick son and subsequently my late husband's illness and death then I had an accident myself.

 

The DBS system is incompetent as well. I have been waiting for my clearance for 18 months now. They first lost half the paperwork, then they changed the goalposts and wanted an up-to-date passport (mine had expired and since I hadn't any plans to go abroad, never bothered renewing it) so I had to renew my passport which didn't please me. Several months down the line, still waiting for clearance. Surprise, surprise, I've been asked to resubmit all documentation AGAIN. Now whether this is down to incompetence on their part or the company I work for, I don't know but I am reluctant to submit the same again just to be left high and dry. One of my ex-colleagues had to submit all his details 5 times. The sixth time the asked for it to be resubmitted, he told the company to stick their job where the sun don't shine and left. He now works elsewhere.

[BazzaS]

Sorry to take so long to reply but been tied up with other things.

 

By "fail" I mean you are refused your DBS clearance. As far as I'm aware (but could be wrong) they don't have to give you a reason either. Even a gap in your employment history can be enough to "fail" you unless you can show a valid reason why you weren't working during that period. You then have to write a personal statement explaining why you weren't working. I had to do this as I wasn't working for a while because I had a sick son and subsequently my late husband's illness and death then I had an accident myself.

 

The DBS system is incompetent as well. I have been waiting for my clearance for 18 months now. They first lost half the paperwork, then they changed the goalposts and wanted an up-to-date passport (mine had expired and since I hadn't any plans to go abroad, never bothered renewing it) so I had to renew my passport which didn't please me. Several months down the line, still waiting for clearance. Surprise, surprise, I've been asked to resubmit all documentation AGAIN. Now whether this is down to incompetence on their part or the company I work for, I don't know but I am reluctant to submit the same again just to be left high and dry. One of my ex-colleagues had to submit all his details 5 times. The sixth time the asked for it to be resubmitted, he told the company to stick their job where the sun don't shine and left. He now works elsewhere.

 

What do you mean by "refused your DBS clearance"?

 

Applicants don't get refused a DBS.

A DBS is issued: either it shows entries or it doesn't.

 

It is then up to the employer to decide about employment. If an applicant has entries on their DBS the employer can still choose to employ the applicant.