The only thing I've managed to find on this subject is from the Unlock site itself. In the very helpful overview given on the old process of filtering convictions on the Unlock site, there is mention of a court challenge to the government in 'late 2012'. Has anybody heard anything further about this, as I can find nothing? It is no exaggeration to say that my life is on hold at the moment pending the outcome of this case (as it was running up to the implementation of the Protection of Freedoms Act, and what a disappointment that was). It is a shame nothing is happening in relation to the European side of things as there is a clear disparity between Member States on the issue, with people discriminated against simply from being a UK citizen. To still feel the ramifications of a minor conviction given over 12 years ago is ridiculous. I may have to move out of the UK in order to remedy this problem. It's crazy!

Thanks Christopher for the update.

I'm in a bit of an unusual situation in that a minor conviction from over 12 years ago is preventing me from entering a professional body (and consequently employment). It is not a dishonesty conviction. However, I did not disclose it initially and am now subject to a Standard CRB, so my entry to the profession has stalled. Incidentally, had I disclosed the conviction, I would have had to disclose every other involvement I've had with the police (that's the rules). I've been arrested a few times, as I used to knock around with a bit of a rough crowd. I only have a single conviction for obstructing a PC for which I received a small fine. The professional body has made it clear that previous arrests will likely bar entry to the profession, so I'm in a sticky situation.

I've worked hard in order to better myself and make a decent life, but as things stand, the last 10 years is effectively a write off. I actually left a job in anticipation of the change in law last April, so you can imagine how disappointed I was when the government effectively bottled it.

If things don't change within the next year, I will have to emigrate. I will also be bankrupt. Thanks Labour!

PS Thanks for all of your organisations hard work. Ironically, I work in this sector, so know first hand the desperation that previous convictions can cause, and the lack of sympathy others mostly have towards those with them. It can cause a vicious circle. Perhaps it is a sign of our negative society that we choose to dwell on the punishment aspect of a conviction rather than the element of reformation. However, I digress.

Interesting Parliamentary note dated 18 October 2012 setting out the current position on Criminal Records retention and disclosure.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06441

On the last page of the attached document is the following.

"It is therefore currently unclear when (or indeed if) any new filtering mechanism might be introduced."

So all the meetings, the time and expense to all those involved in producing the review was a complete waste. When the government says something is "under review", it usually means the proposal has been shelved. Is there no way to perhaps find out exactly what that review process is, or find out a timescale for the review? It doesn't seem right that the Government can simply bat away the proposals in Mason's report so easily after all the hard work and effort that must have gone into producing such a document.

Post Edited By Moderator (Christopher Stacey) : 09/11/2012 13:15:55 GMT

Just a quick update for anyone following this case:

www.panopticonblog.com/2012/11/28/court-of-appeal-considers-whether-the-enhanced-criminal-records-certificate-regime-infringes-article-8/

And the Court of Appeal case information:

casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20120520

That's very helpful. Thank guys.

Don't lose heart just yet. I would be surprised if the legislation change only prevented disclosure of a single conviction. I don't know where this has come from, as all the recent decisions have not really dealt with the issue of multiple convictions, but rather the age of the convictions along with seriousness. The issue is that the convictions become part of the individuals private life as time goes by, so as to outweigh the other human rights considerations of others. Bear in mind that the governments decision does not appear to be directly linked to to the Supreme Court appeal case in T. I'm basing this on the date of the announcement and the apparent lack of any decision from the Supreme Court on whether to grant or refuse permission to appeal (see the Permission to Appeal update released by the Supreme Court which does not list T as having been considered in March). Therefore, the Supreme Court could still refuse permission, or the Government may lose it's appeal (there have been some encouraging decisions in this area lately), and the law would still have to be changed. It's encouraging nonetheless, and I guess we should be grateful for change in this area (albeit belatedly).

Has anybody heard anything more about the proposed changes? It was a bit of a hit and run announcement by the Government almost a month ago now. I do not even know the name of the proposed bill, so can't even track it's progress through Parliament.

What I find so frustrating, is that there is very little guidance about the progression of SIs, so you are left searching around for the odd scrap of information, which does little to inform on when exactly these provisions are going to come into effect. This was all supposed to have been sorted back in December (or April 2012!). I swear, my PNC will be clean by the time these changes come in, as I will have reached 100 years of age by then!

The Government appealed the Court of Appeal decision in T. They submitted an application to appeal to the Supreme Court within the deadline. The Supreme Court must determine whether to allow the Government's appeal or not. The decision in T does not come into effect until the Supreme Court make their decision. It does not appear that the Supreme Court has made a decision on the appeal yet. I am basing this on a monthly list released by the Supreme Court regarding Permission to Appeal cases which have been determined. according to those lists, the Supreme Court has yet to determine the Government's application to appeal. These filtering rules appear to have been brought about prior to the conclusion of T (but still in response to tha case, as the Court was pretty scathing of the government, telling it to "pull it's finger out". I believe the politicians are making out that the court is responsible for the change in the law, as no politician wants to be seen as soft on crime. So no, it is possible, IMHO, that we have not heard the last of T, and there could be further changes in the law depending on the outcome of that case. I suspect that the Government will be further challenged on this given the clear breach of Article 8 for those with more than one conviction. The courts have been receptive to this issue of late, so we probably haven't heard the last of this.

The Human Rights Act prevents the state from infringing upon an individuals human rights. It is the state that makes the disclosure, not the employer or college etc. If the individuals rights are encroached by the state, it is at that point the HRA bites. A persons right to family and private life can be interpreted quite widely. So being hindered in ones search for employment can constitute a breach, along with being deported, or having the possibility of meeting new people limited by the actions of the state (through work or college course etc).

I haven't seen any such list Aim. I'm no expert on this, but the DBS or Home Office may produce further guidance on the implementation of the SI once it has come into effect. It is common for Legislation to delegate the role of it's implementation to Government bodies. I think the main point is that sexual offences and serious violent offences will always be disclosed. I guess the DBS will have to weigh the seriousness of a past conviction when making a decision whether to disclose (pretty much like the old system). If you have a specific offence in mind, you may want to check out the ACPO guidelines in relation to disclosure of Police Certificates. There are a number of offences in this document and they are broken down to 4 different groups. This may assist you in determining the seriousness of a specific conviction. Sorry I can't be of more help.

https://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/PoliceCertificates/SubjectAccess/Retention%20of%20Records06.pdf

Strange how the change to the applicants right to be the first to see the results of the check come into effect on 17 June, and not at the same time as the filtering rules. Surely it would make sense to have all the changes come in together. Now I'm nervous that my certificate may be disclosed with incorrect information on, or with the offence that should have been filtered, and the cat will be out of the bag, so to speak. I simply can't afford to wait another two weeks+ though!

It would appear as if a date has been set for the appeal by the Government in this case; 20 March 2013. They are taking the Michael here though, considering the original decision was made on 21 December 2012. Hardly the Government 'pulling it's finger out'. They just seem content to drag this issue on for as long as possible.

[url]https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20122575[url]

The 28 days is the time the Government had to file the appeal, then the matter was listed. The Government have clearly lodged their appeal. It is a disgrace that the original decision was made on 21 December, yet here we are, waiting on an appeal three months later. I'm so angry, as it is not an over exaggeration to say that my life, and many others undoubtedly, are being ruined by the current system. This should have been sorted out in April 2012 by all rights.

Yeah!!! The forum is back.

Sorry guys, but made a mistake. The 20 March has nothing to do with anything. got case names wrong. The application to appeal has 100% been filed by the Government (so much for election promises!). The court need to then consider the application, which I have been told (by the court) can take up to 3 months. However, this is an absolute maximum, and apparently the case has been flagged as a priority (so should be considered quicker). There is apparently no way of finding out the courts decision once made (except from a list of decisions released the following month), but I have been told that the Supreme Court may make an announcement about their decision on whether to grant permission to appeal on this particular case given it's importance, but nothing is certain.

So, the original decision was made on 21 December 2012, and here we are, after unexplained delays, still waiting for conclusion. As for speculation about whether permission ought to be granted or not, I could spend all day on this. On the one hand, the decision is right in law (EU law, and seemingly in accordance with the latest decisions on Article 8 with respect to this particular issue). The decision in the Queens Bench was also made by a very senior judge (second highest in the land). However, what worries me is that it is a very important decision, with huge ramifications for domestic law. Therefore, the Supreme Court may grant permission to appeal on this basis alone, meaning another year (in the wilderness). We will just have to wait and see.

An interesting read about the SI for anyone following this.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111537718/pdfs/ukdsiem_9780111537718_en.pdf

Also, see entry 11. on the following link (states the Order has been approved).

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmfbusi/c01.htm

The SI appears to have been agreed by both the House of Commons and House of Lords, which is all that is required for this kind of SI. Lets just hope that the SI comes into law at the opening of Parliament (tomorrow).

When you say "this", what precisely do you mean? I'll try help if I can. If "this" refers to the House of Lords agreement, this can be found at the following link.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsecleg/160/16003.htm#a7

It took some digging to find the above. I'm no expert, but the SI appears to have been agreed as is (it is common for this type of Legislation to move into law without interruption, as is my understanding).

Also, there is a submission from Unlock on the site. Thanks for continuing to fight our corner Chris.