Breaking News: Criminal record disclosure checks ruled 'unlawful'

[BazzaS]

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

 

Absolutely! I mean, life is always black and white.

No need to look at the circumstances (perhaps mental illness as quoted in the report, or shoplifting food for their children, or ......)

Bring back the birch, and transportation to the Antipodes (will Oz and NZ send us their minor offenders?)

 

I think the key point here was rehabilitation. That the release of criminal records needs to be proportionate.

 

Also, (even for a post subject to an eDBS : where perhaps HR if the employer need to know and make a risk assessment), once a decision to employ had been made:

I'd rather work with someone who made a stupid mistake as a rash youth (or had had a mental health problem and sought treatment) & had turned their life around than someone who was still a rash youth and hadn't yet learnt that lesson .....

 

Also, what happens to those 1st time offenders when you remove the hope of rehabilitation from them?

[BazzaS]

Minor offences are clear on the standard DBS check so what does he mean by years.

 

iswill sshow on enhanced DBS checks for 10 years but if you require the enhanced check for employment you are either looking to be employed with children, the vulnerable, working in a financial environment or security service.

 

My understanding is that offences never become 'spent' for the purpose of an eDBS, as these are used for posts exempt from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation.

 

Where do you get the "show for 10 years" figure from?

[BazzaS]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266493/Filtering_rules_for_criminal_record_check_certificates_v2.2.pdf

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-filtering-guidance/dbs-filtering-guide

 

Possibly ?

 

So, it is :

1) 11 years on (not 10)

2) for a single offence only, and

3) No custodial sentence,

then even 'exempt' posts have 'filtering' applied on an eDBS, while some posts remain fully 'exempt'.

[BazzaS]

Yeah way I read it is, eDBS - offences do not get disclosed as long as ;

A) single conviction

B) no custodial sentence

C) is not on exempt/never filtered list

 

Not seen any posts that remain fully exempt from the filtering ?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1198/pdfs/uksi_20131198_en.pdf

 

such as :

"any question asked by or on behalf of any person, in the course of his duties as a person employed in the service of the Crown, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy

Authority or the FCA or the PRA in order to assess, for the purpose of

safeguarding national security, the suitability of the person to whom the question

relates or of any other person for any office or employment where the person

questioned is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this

Order, spent convictions are to be disclosed for the purpose of safeguarding

national security.”

 

and "any office, employment or occupation specified in paragraph 6, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 31, 32, 35 or 36 of Part II of that Schedule

or paragraph 1 or 8 of Part III of that

Sche Schedule or any other work specified in paragraph 35 or 36 of Part II of that

Schedule;"

[BazzaS]

I made a stupid mistake in 1988 & ended up with a conviction and small fine for criminal damage, it showed up on an enhanced DBS in August 2015. It feels like I'm going to be saddled with this for the rest of my life.

 

See above.

 

It will show on an eDBS for 11 years. If you have no further convictions it will then be filtered, so (provided you live that long), it doesn't have to be "the rest of your life".

Additionally:

a) it will be "spent" sooner, and not show on a standard DBS, only on an eDBS and

B) just because it shows on an eDBS doesn't mean an employer won't employ you : make sure their HR dept. knows the circumstances and can make their risk assessment.

 

Hang on!?

Offence in 1988? When was your conviction? Even if at 7 years after (& unlikely to be that long!) it would be 1995 at the latest....

 

eDBS 2015??

 

It should have been "filtered" already, for the majority of posts applied for.

Do you have any other convictions / cautions / reprimands you haven't mentioned?

What post was it you needed an eDBS for?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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"?

[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).

[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.