By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
UniKorn,
Firstly, welcome!
Secondly, as far as we're aware, the court case is due to be held in November, but the decision is likely to be later. It's fair to say that things have kind of stalled after the Government failed to include anything in the PoF Bill. However, there are other things being looked at, in terms of trying to get some support behind the need for it, as at the moment Government seems to be reluctant. Watch this space is all I can really say.
In the meantime, I obviously don't know your specific situation regarding employment/conviction, but I'd try to encourage you not to feel like you have to put your life on hold. I can see why you may think this, as sometimes it can feel like there is no way forward, but despite the huge problem with old/minor convictions on CRB checks, it doesn't make getting employment impossible, and while its easier said than done, I'm sure you'll find some comfort in some of the success stories that are throughout this site.
Need information/advice?
1. Is your question already answered? Check our online Information Hub, Frequently Asked Questions, Publications, Links & Members Forum
2. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Ask the community a question
3. Still don’t know the answer? Ask UNLOCK
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
I agree UniKorn - it's very frustrating. The case due to be heard this month is no doubt one of the reasons behind the Government delay, and it's frustrating for all concerned (including for Sunita).
P.S. Just edited your link as it had a [ at the beginning which meant it wasn't working.
Need information/advice?
1. Is your question already answered? Check our online Information Hub, Frequently Asked Questions, Publications, Links & Members Forum
2. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Ask the community a question
3. Still don’t know the answer? Ask UNLOCK
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
Check out the order itself, and our press release, from the homepage of the Unlock site.
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
After the recent activity this week, the Orders have been approved by Parliament. The filtering mechanism will come into force on the 29th May.
We'll be putting together a briefing early next week to explain what it means in practice.
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
Wales - questions about specific cases should really wait until guidance - the only question you should have is about whether your offence is on the list that is exempt from the process. The DBS/Home Office hasn't produced an easy list yet, although you can go through the list on the Parliament website (see earlier posts and links) in the meantime.
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
Looks like the filtering proposals will feature in the House of Lords on the 21st - see www.theyworkforyou.com/calendar/?d=2013-05-21#cal33646
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
Dear All,
As some of you might know, the 'Offender Rehabilitation Bill' was discussed in the Lords today. Unfortunately, it's not really covering what the title suggests - it's more about probation reforms and changes to supervision in the community.
However, you might be interested to read a section of Lord Dholakia's speech, starting from the third paragraph from the end of his speech.
See www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/lords/todays-lords-debates/read/unknown/104/#c104
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
crabbypatties,
Massive caveat with what I'm about to say, as it's a bit instinctive on my part, but I believe you will be OK with that. The DBS will be producing guidance once it actually comes into force, and no doubt we'll have to supplement this with something more practically useful.
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/filtering-rules-for-criminal-record-check-certificates
Above is the link to the new filtering scheme, I notice that a conviction will be filtered if there is only one "offence", does offence mean conviction here as this is what I took it to mean from the legislation,
so one conviction and two cautions, not on the specified list will be filtered would this be correct?
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
The definition of protected cautions and convictions in section 4 however states that a conviction is protected if the person has not been "convicted" of any other offence at any time.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111537718
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
It appears the guidaance has changed since this morning:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-filtering-guidance
Where the individual has more than one conviction all convictions will be disclosed. Thus in the presence of multiple cautions and multiple convictions the cautions can still be filtered if not for a specified offence
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
Hi Wales,
The positions that are not effected by filtering by definition don't have a dbs check but have some kind of national security check. Therefore if a job requires a dbs check the record is eligible for filtering. If for example you need a security check for a defnese role than no dbs check is performed but security clearance, so filtering doesnt apply
|
By toysil55 - 23 Aug 10 1:28 AM
There still remains much confusion and angst over the filtering process as evidenced by members comments , what is clear however is that there will still remain some issues and pain for some individuals , it would seem unfair that you may have two historical convictions for the same offence committed as an adult , you may have been rehabilitated and not offended for over 20 years and been able to contribute to society , however you will be prevented from possible career changes as these OLD convictions will allways be disclosed .
Any comments as to if local police Info ie a PND for a recordable office will this be discosed or not show ?
I am sure that many adults will be both relieved and happy with the introduction of this legislation allbeit being forced on the Goverment to comply
JJ 
|
By Aspire - 15 May 11 2:23 PM
Hi CrabbyPanties (I recall Moostrasse christened you this?)  Where is Moo?
You don't appear dim. We are still waiting to get real clarity on this. At the moment we are thinking all minor cautions and one conviction that is minor will be removed. You will not have to disclose these at all when the changes go through and they will not show on any check if older than 11 years for conviction and 6 years for cautions for adults 
Aspire
|
By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM
UniKorn,
Isn't their ruling more to do with how far in the past the offense or offenses were committed rather than the number of convictions? (Forgive my lack of legal terminology).
|
By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM
charh777 said...
OMG!!!!!!!!! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21942544
The government has announced minor convinctions/cautions will be filtered from CRB CHECKS!!!!!
That's wrong though isn't it. They have announced that a minor conviction/caution will be filtered under certain circumstances. For somebody like me with more than one conviction although minor dating back to 20 years ago....nothing has changed. It's good news for many though so I suppose it's a step in the right direction. But I'm getting more and more convinced that for me the only positive step is a step onto an aeroplane out of here.
|
By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM
Unikorn,
I hope you're right my friend.....I hope you're right.
|
By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM
It doesn't go far enough. If accepted, it won't change things for many at all. Bearing this in mind, would it be better for them to not accept it? I'm not entirely sure how the legislative process works. Maybe somebody else could enlighten.....?
|
By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM
I've just found this Report by Sunita Mason on Filtering of Old and Minor Convictions. Somebody was asking earlier on the thread about what would constitute a 'minor' conviction. She give examples on Page 3:
https://www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/employment/IAfCIM%20-%20Rpt~Final%20-%20Filtering%20of%20Old%20and%20Minor%20Applications%20-%2019%20Dec%2011.pdf
1 Drunk and disorderly
2. Offence against property
3. Failure to report an accident
These offences seem more like 'mistakes' or errors of judgement made by somebody at some point. There's no provision for somebody who's life had gone 'off the rails' and then subsequently mended their ways and lived an offending free life for years after a certain point. I suppose I'll have to look forward to my 100th birthday; I might get a job then as a carer.....for myself.
|
By Hugh - 20 Nov 11 3:30 PM
Hello Rob, Everyone,
Sorry - the first broadcast is actually found at:
Archives \ 20 May \ Committees \ HoC Second Delegated Legislation Committee - 4.30pm to 5pm.
the second is found at
Archives \ 21 May \ Committees \ HoL Grand Committee - 3.30pm to 5.18pm
Both are worth watching and it looks like it's moving in the right direction. Where does it go next?
Regards
Hugh
|
By Hugh - 20 Nov 11 3:30 PM
Hello Rob, Everyone, Not sure what happens next, but on Parliament TV, in the archives, there are 2 broadcasts where "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013" appears to get approved - first is in the House of Commons on Monday 20th May 2013, second is in House of Lords on Tuesday 21 May 2013. Does this mean it just has to sit for 7 days without contention before it comes into effect, or does the passage take it elsewhere in Parliament now? Thanks Hugh
|
By simon - 20 Feb 12 8:52 PM
Am i right in thinking this is totally seperate to the LASPO bill which should be commencing in November?
|
By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM
Not sure if it's got an official name as yet, but keep track of it here:
|
By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM
I can tell you where this information soon won't be, eh moderator?
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
thanks UniKorn its very hard to find this information but you always provide it.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
would a caution for 'harrasment without violence' still be disclosed?
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
I have a single caution for 'harassment without violence' I am desperate to find out if my offence will be filtered I have looked at the SCHEDULE 15 list and found this 57 'An offence under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40) (putting people in fear of violence).'
Does this mean anyone who committed any offence under the protection from harassment act 1997 will be on this list? or only people with an offence under section 4 'harassment by putting people in fear of violence' which does not apply to me? I understand it to mean only people with offences under section 4 of this act while my offence seems to be under section 2 of this act.Post Edited (charh777) : 28/05/2013 22:05:32 (GMT+1)
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-list-of-offences-that-will-never-be-filtered-from-a-criminal-record-check
here is the list of offences which will not be filtered.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
in response to XL its not made clear. I think a conviction will only be filtered if its the only offence(which i understand to mean cautions and convictions). I thinks someone with two cautions may have them filtered but someone with a conviction and a caution would always have the conviction disclosed.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
I cant be bothered now to find the link but I have seen in a black on the DBS website that if a job is exempt from the ROA act and they ask if you have a conviction/caution you can answer no if its conviction/caution that is subject to filtering.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
An employer can only ask an individual to provide details of convictions and
cautions that they are legally entitled to know.
Where a Standard or Enhanced certificate can legally be requested (this is
where the position is one that is listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
1975 (Exceptions) Order 1975), an employer can only ask an individual about
convictions and cautions that would fall under the rules described above. That
means only those convictions and cautions that would be disclosed on a DBS
certificate.
If an employer takes into account a conviction or caution that would not have
been disclosed they are acting unlawfully under the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974.
When completing the DBS application form, a question will be asked whether
you have ever been convicted of a criminal offence. The response to this
question should only be in relation to convictions which would not be subject
to filtering.
There are a small number of defined positions where details of all convictions
and cautions may be taken into account. These positions do not come
through the DBS process. Examples are national security and police vetting.
Has eligibility for a DBS check been affected by these changes?
No. Further guidance on eligibility can be found on the DBS website:
Eligible positions guidance
What if I don’t obtain certificates from DBS?
If the position/occupation is not covered by filtering then the employer is
entitled to ask about, and receive information about, all spent convictions and
cautions. The employer should, however, follow existing guidance and
conduct a case-by-case analysis of any spent convictions and cautions and
consider how, if at all, they are relevant to the position sought.
It would be advisable for the employer to keep records of the reasons for any
employment decision (and in particular rejections), including whether any
spent convictions or cautions were taken into account and, if so, why. If the
employee fails to disclose any spent convictions or cautions, he/she will not
be protected from the consequences of this (i.e. the ROA will not apply).Post Edited (charh777) : 30/05/2013 00:40:53 (GMT+1)
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
its worth noting the government haven't actually been given permission to appeal yet
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
the court may not give them permission to appeal unless they have found a significant flaw in the original ruling.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
OMG!!!!!!!!! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21942544
The government has announced minor convinctions/cautions will be filtered from CRB CHECKS!!!!!
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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!
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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/
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
And the Court of Appeal case information:
casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20120520
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
That's very helpful. Thank guys.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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).
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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!
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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).
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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!
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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]
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
An interesting read about the SI for anyone following this.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111537718/pdfs/ukdsiem_9780111537718_en.pdf
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
Also, see entry 11. on the following link (states the Order has been approved).
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmfbusi/c01.htm
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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).
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
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.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
Sorry for the double post, but I will also add, that the Court of Appeal case appears to be very much alive. The Supreme Court recently listed it's permission to appeal decisions for April, and T v Greater Manchester Police does not appear. This means that the Supreme Court has not considered the Government application to appeal the Court of Appeal's ruling, meaning this case is still very much alive. It may well be that the proposed Government filtering scheme falls short of what the court considers necessary change for compliance with the Article 8 of the HRA. It's strange that the new rules only cover a single conviction. The Government are just asking for trouble with this. IMHO, Article 8 is just as relevant to someone with two convictions, as it is for one.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
That’s precisely it Ader. The issue at the heart of T v Greater Manchester Police is Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right for respect of family and private life. When a person is convicted, their rights are ‘trumped’ so to speak by the rights of others in society, so the disclosure of a recent conviction can be justified on this basis (it is therefore a public issue). This is an understandable and acceptable balance. However, as time passes, the court considered that a conviction recedes into a persons private life. It was the blanket disclosure of all convictions regardless of age or relevance that constituted a breach of Article 8 in T. There was no mention of multiple convictions being a factor. However, the ‘balancing’ of rights is relevant here, as it is arguable that it will always be in the public interest to disclose certain kinds of offences committed by an individual in order to safeguard vulnerable groups (the Court of Appeal enforced this principle by ruling that a carjacking committed by a girl who wanted to join the army should be disclosed given the seriousness of the offence). But under the principles espoused in T v Greater Manchester Police, it makes no difference regarding the number of convictions a person has. The issue should be whether they have become part of a person’s private life through the passage of time, and whether disclosure of those convictions is proportionate to the objective of safeguarding the vulnerable. I don’t think the Government understand this principle, and may find themselves back in court about this.
|
By crabbypatties - 26 Jan 13 4:23 PM
So does that mean an enhanced disclosure would show up a historic conviction? ............. and if asked is it ok to say no to the question of any spent convictions? Sorry If I appear dim, but cannot believe this is actually happening!!!
|
By crabbypatties - 26 Jan 13 4:23 PM
Thanks Aspire.
I miss Moo too!!!! come back soon....! Well as you know I have one conviction going back almost 28 yrs, and am just wondering if I will need to disclose or when it will be going through and fools like me will be safe!! ~ 
|
By crabbypatties - 26 Jan 13 4:23 PM
Wow the list is massive!!!! I'm hoping the new legislation will help me, (shoplifting 28 yrs ago, 1st & last offence).... I've looked at the list 3 times and couldn't see anything.
|
By crabbypatties - 26 Jan 13 4:23 PM
Thanks very much Chris. I wish something could go through that would help more people, kind of widen the net a bit because there are probably a few thousand people who would love to breathe out again.
|
By MMS_guru - 29 Jan 13 11:52 AM
For those that are interested, I received the following correspondence from the Disclosure & Barring Service:
Disclosure & Barring Service - Court of Appeal ruling: an update
February 2013
Last month, we told you the Home Office was seeking leave to appeal a Court of Appeal judgment on the disclosure of old and minor convictions. The Court found the law which requires people to disclose all previous convictions and cautions to employers is a breach of human rights. It found the current system disproportionate in dealing with historic and minor spent convictions and cautions. The Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Justice have recently lodged an application to appeal against this judgment. Pending the Supreme Court's decision on permission, the Court of Appeal's judgment has been temporarily suspended. While this suspension is in force, it is business as usual for us. We will continue to issue Standard and Enhanced certificates and these show all convictions and cautions as normal. We will keep you updated with the latest information on this judgment via DBS News and our website.
|
By Goodguy - 31 Jan 13 10:23 PM
Why have we not heard anything here, surely the time to appeal has ran out by now? If the judgement was passed down, surely it has to be followed through??
|
By Goodguy - 31 Jan 13 10:23 PM
Great news! Although it actually mentions 'non-custodial sentences' for convictions will be filtered after 11 years which I believe is the same as 'minor'. Basically am I right to say minor mean ANY offence which does not lead to a custodial sentence?
Some convictions however can result in prison sentences and in some circumstances the same conviction can result in a fine only (e.g. motoring criminal conviction). Does this mean if you had received only a fine, after 11 years it would be filtered out? I guess with the new DBS system where records are sent to the individual first you could always challenge this if your record was not filtered when it should be.
|
By Steve0606 - 7 Apr 13 4:11 PM
UniKorn,
The proposed changes haven't been made in the form of a bill, rather in the form of an SI (Statutory Instrument). It's called:
"(Draft) Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013"
It has been laid before the House of Commons and is currently awaiting ratification pending on what's known as the "affirmative procedure". That is, MP's have to vote to pass it through and it must gain a majority in the House. The same thing goes for the House of Lords. You can see confirmation of this here: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsilist/section-e.htm (scroll down to see it among the various other SI's).
It is worth noting that the Government haven't somehow forgotten or don't care about the changes, there was a debate in Westminster only a few days ago about it (I watched it online). The only thing we can do is wait until it gets voted upon. This shouldn't take more than a few months from now, would think.
|
By Steve0606 - 7 Apr 13 4:11 PM
The proposed legislation will be in the House of Commons on the 20th and in the House of Lords on the 21st. Fingers crossed they like it! 
|
By Jon2 - 26 Apr 13 9:17 AM
The other issue is that it mentions only about protecting if an employer asks about previous convictions. I thought one of the cases was about someone trying to get onto a college course?
|
By Jon2 - 26 Apr 13 9:17 AM
What is interesting from Chris's link is that there seems to be two amendments to legislation:
Change to the Police Act 1997: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111537749
and
Change to the ROA: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111537718/contents
|
By Jon2 - 26 Apr 13 9:17 AM
Does the legislation address all of the judgments raised in the court of appeal case?
Or is there still a chance that further action could be taken?
|
By Jon2 - 26 Apr 13 9:17 AM
This is the Video of the committee session in the House of Common discussing the changes:
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13166
|
By Jon2 - 26 Apr 13 9:17 AM
The changes to the ROA and Police Act got through the Commons (see video link above).
But I'm not sure its going to help that many people (won't help me!)
As the list of offenses that will still need to be disclosed is huge!
Basically its any offense that is Sexual or in the following list: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/schedule/15
|
By pjuk83 - 4 Jan 14 1:25 PM
charh777 said...
I have a single caution for 'harassment without violence' I am desperate to find out if my offence will be filtered I have looked at the SCHEDULE 15 list and found this 57 'An offence under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40) (putting people in fear of violence).'
Does this mean anyone who committed any offence under the protection from harassment act 1997 will be on this list? or only people with an offence under section 4 'harassment by putting people in fear of violence' which does not apply to me? I understand it to mean only people with offences under section 4 of this act while my offence seems to be under section 2 of this act.
Any clarity with this? I'm in exactly the same position. Conviction will be 11 years old in May and I have no further convictions.
|
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM
Thanks UniKorn. You wouldn't happen to know where this information is?
"7.4 In order to maintain public protection, the amendment lists offences which must
always be disclosed. These offences are serious violent and sexual offences and other
offences of specific relevance for posts concerned with safeguarding children and
vulnerable adults. In addition, no conviction resulting in a custodial sentence will be
filtered."
From: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111537718/pdfs/ukdsiem_9780111537718_en.pdf
|
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM
Hi UniKorn - I was after the list of offences "These offences are serious violent and sexual offences and other offences of specific relevance for posts concerned with safeguarding children and vulnerable adults."
With just the one conviction being filtered, no custodial disposals filtered, I wondered how extensive the list of offences is. In other words are the conditions so limiting that it's unlikely anyone will benefit and this is just a token attempt to appease the court's ruling
|
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM
Hi UniKorn. Thanks for that. I just wondered if such a list exists as it's often referred to but there's never a link to it. I suspect you're right - a similar system to ACPO will be used. To confuse matters further the MoJ have their own offence classes too!
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legal-aid/eligibility/list-of-criminal-offences.pdf
|
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM
DBS list of offences that will never be filtered from a criminal record check /www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-list-of-offences-that-will-never-be-filtered-from-a-criminal-record-check
This shows the Act and the Section of that Act. If your offence isn't listed by section you should be ok.
As regards Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, these offences are listed as never being filtered. Section 2 is not listed and therefore will be filtered.
Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, s4 Putting people in fear of violence
Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, s4A Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress
Protection from Harrassment Act 2000, s4 Putting people in fear of violence
What would be interesting to see are which offences ARE filtered. I bet it's smaller than the list of those not filtered. It's a tiny concession by the government. Seems silly as with the conditions of 11 years old AND noncustodial for filtering alone just selects low level offending as indicated by the disposal. To then further filter by offence type shows the government have little appetite to give former offenders some respite from their past. Once again the courts give out the sentence and then some faceless bureaucrat in the government decides what further punishment is required.Post Edited (aim) : 04/01/2014 14:37:23 GMT
|
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM
There is a standard note on the subject: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06441.pdf
Page 13: "Damien Green, Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, has stated that these orders are the Government’s response to the judgment in the Court of Appeal case, the terms of which it considers to be too broad. He also confirmed that the changes would have retrospective effect."
|