theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


Supreme Court ruling - information about acquittal on Enhanced DBS checks


Supreme Court ruling - information about acquittal on Enhanced DBS...

Author
Message
Neo Matrix
Neo Matrix
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40, Visits: 110
Its things like these little things that are so wrong in this justice system. I know others "law abiding" citizens may not agree but it does not effect them, but if in the unfortunate chance it does happen to them or loved ones i am sure they will have a change of heart.
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 605, Visits: 4K
Square - 4 Aug 18 5:59 PM
I try to stay away from the '' i didn't do it" line on here as I don't think that it is helpful and really it isn't relevant on here. I remember after being arrested following a rediculous allegation being told that "they [the police] will get you on something"... And they did. I was convicted on very different charges fromthose alleged, and even those that got me to court. Putting my situation into perspective, I could prove that my path and that of my accuser did not cross.

As others have said, there is no 'innocent until proven guilty'. Society believes that there is always fire where there is smoke. We must aso remember that our police and ' judicial' service have targets to meet regarding convictions. How can the system be fair in a country where those proven innocent have the accusation permanently recorded on their criminal record? How can the innocent be proven innocent when there are targets to convict people?

The system sucks.

I think one of the main problems with the system is that the police no longer have time to look at all the evidence and then see if they can prove who did it. It's all about working out who did it and then using the evidence to support their jump to the conclusion. That can then lead to the sort of collapsed trials and miscarriages of justice that have recently been caused by lack of disclosure to the defence.

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 304, Visits: 2.9K
Square - 4 Aug 18 5:59 PM
How can the system be fair in a country where those proven innocent have the accusation permanently recorded on their criminal record? How can the innocent be proven innocent when there are targets to convict people?

The system sucks.

In the US, they have a status called "actually innocent", which is afforded to victims of miscarriages of justice and goes beyond simply "not guilty" - it's handed down by a judge when there is indisputable proof that the person initially accused/convicted did not commit the crime, such as them being hundreds of miles away at the time of the crime. This is only given in a small minority of cases (as in most cases, it's really hard to prove you're innocent as opposed to just proving that the prosecution's case is faulty). But if you can indeed prove you're innocent in some concrete way (usually involving CCTV proving you were somewhere else), then this is a good system that they have.
Square
Square
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (16K reputation)Supreme Being (16K reputation)Supreme Being (16K reputation)Supreme Being (16K reputation)Supreme Being (16K reputation)Supreme Being (16K reputation)Supreme Being (16K reputation)Supreme Being (16K reputation)Supreme Being (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 86, Visits: 328
I try to stay away from the '' i didn't do it" line on here as I don't think that it is helpful and really it isn't relevant on here. I remember after being arrested following a rediculous allegation being told that "they [the police] will get you on something"... And they did. I was convicted on very different charges fromthose alleged, and even those that got me to court. Putting my situation into perspective, I could prove that my path and that of my accuser did not cross.

As others have said, there is no 'innocent until proven guilty'. Society believes that there is always fire where there is smoke. We must aso remember that our police and ' judicial' service have targets to meet regarding convictions. How can the system be fair in a country where those proven innocent have the accusation permanently recorded on their criminal record? How can the innocent be proven innocent when there are targets to convict people?

The system sucks.
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 605, Visits: 4K
BenS - 2 Aug 18 11:50 AM
Funny how when an innocent person is convicted, the person is indisputably guilty. But when an innocent person is acquitted, they're probably actually guilty.

Now you're seeing things as they are rather than how they should be. Welcome to the cynics!

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 304, Visits: 2.9K
Funny how when an innocent person is convicted, the person is indisputably guilty. But when an innocent person is acquitted, they're probably actually guilty.
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)Supreme Being (57K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 605, Visits: 4K
BenS - 1 Aug 18 9:36 AM
Despicable but unsurprising.

It's carte blanche for anyone with a grudge (or whatever motive) to make a fabricated allegation against someone who works in an Enhanced DBS job, knowing that even if the allegation is dismissed, it will probably show up on their record for life.

Not surprising that the police decided it was relevant information, as they genuinely believe they are never wrong. Even if someone is acquitted, they still believe the person is guilty.

We have never had "innocent unless proven guilty" in this country, as - unlike many European countries - defendants are routinely named and photographed publicly following arrest/charging/during the trial, but when they have not yet been convicted/acquitted. This should only be allowed after conviction.

Here's the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0144-judgment.pdf

The reasons given by the police for disclosure are absolutely disgusting and show they have no respect for the criminal justice system when a person is found not guilty:

In answer to a question as to the relevance of the information, she [the decision-maker] noted that the position of lecturer would give the opportunity for the applicant to befriend vulnerable females of a similar age to the victim, with the risk that he might use his role “to abuse his trust and authority and commit similar offences.”

It further states: "on the balance of probabilities the allegation was more likely to be true than false."

Then "If the applicant repeats this alleged behaviour in the [position applied for], vulnerable people could be caused serious emotional and physical harm."

Read as: I don't care about the jury's verdict. The decision of a court of law is irrelevant. He is guilty. Everyone ever charged with an offence is guilty.

I am seething at this. I would love for the officer(s) making this decision to be wrongly accused of a sex offence and to be acquitted yet unemployable for the rest of their lives. I wonder what their view of this would be then.

Well, first of all, this is government policy as well. In the Supreme Court hearing over filtering, the Treasury Solicitor said that the policy was to disclose the information and allow employers to make their decisions in possession of the facts. It was pointed out that employers then think that they must have been given the information for a reason, rather than as an automatic process. It's just a short step from there to this mess. The police have statutory guidelines about what they can or should disclose. In this case, under Principle 4, they police should be asking themselves:

1. Has he had a fair opportunity to answer the allegations?
2. Is there doubt that the allegation could be substantiated?

Obviously, he had a fair opportunity, as he was tried and acquitted. There is a very clear doubt that the allegation could be substantiated, as he was tried and acquitted. They should only disclose if anything he might say would have no chance of influencing their decision. I think that speaks volumes.


=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

Yankee
Yankee
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 229, Visits: 956
BenS - 1 Aug 18 9:36 AM
Despicable but unsurprising.

It's carte blanche for anyone with a grudge (or whatever motive) to make a fabricated allegation against someone who works in an Enhanced DBS job, knowing that even if the allegation is dismissed, it will probably show up on their record for life.

Not surprising that the police decided it was relevant information, as they genuinely believe they are never wrong. Even if someone is acquitted, they still believe the person is guilty.

We have never had "innocent unless proven guilty" in this country, as - unlike many European countries - defendants are routinely named and photographed publicly following arrest/charging/during the trial, but when they have not yet been convicted/acquitted. This should only be allowed after conviction.

Here's the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0144-judgment.pdf

The reasons given by the police for disclosure are absolutely disgusting and show they have no respect for the criminal justice system when a person is found not guilty:

In answer to a question as to the relevance of the information, she [the decision-maker] noted that the position of lecturer would give the opportunity for the applicant to befriend vulnerable females of a similar age to the victim, with the risk that he might use his role “to abuse his trust and authority and commit similar offences.”

It further states: "on the balance of probabilities the allegation was more likely to be true than false."

Then "If the applicant repeats this alleged behaviour in the [position applied for], vulnerable people could be caused serious emotional and physical harm."

Read as: I don't care about the jury's verdict. The decision of a court of law is irrelevant. He is guilty. Everyone ever charged with an offence is guilty.

I am seething at this. I would love for the officer(s) making this decision to be wrongly accused of a sex offence and to be acquitted yet unemployable for the rest of their lives. I wonder what their view of this would be then.

Again, I get the thrust of the argument that in a court of law the bar is set high as 'beyond reasonable doubt' whereas for risk management and safeguarding it is a lower threshold. The extreme example is when someone is acquitted on a technicality rather than the evidence. The three biggest problems highlighted are 1. inconsistent application - it is not prescriptive but a judgement call 2. the police are acting as the judge and jury when determining 'balance of probabilities' based on incomplete information and not a re-examination of the full facts 3. human nature leads to 'no smoke without fire' which means the vast majority of employers run a mile when there is something adverse in the EDBS (especially true of allegations that have a stigma attached to them e.g. sexual)
BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 304, Visits: 2.9K
Despicable but unsurprising.

It's carte blanche for anyone with a grudge (or whatever motive) to make a fabricated allegation against someone who works in an Enhanced DBS job, knowing that even if the allegation is dismissed, it will probably show up on their record for life.

Not surprising that the police decided it was relevant information, as they genuinely believe they are never wrong. Even if someone is acquitted, they still believe the person is guilty.

We have never had "innocent unless proven guilty" in this country, as - unlike many European countries - defendants are routinely named and photographed publicly following arrest/charging/during the trial, but when they have not yet been convicted/acquitted. This should only be allowed after conviction.

Here's the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0144-judgment.pdf

The reasons given by the police for disclosure are absolutely disgusting and show they have no respect for the criminal justice system when a person is found not guilty:

In answer to a question as to the relevance of the information, she [the decision-maker] noted that the position of lecturer would give the opportunity for the applicant to befriend vulnerable females of a similar age to the victim, with the risk that he might use his role “to abuse his trust and authority and commit similar offences.”

It further states: "on the balance of probabilities the allegation was more likely to be true than false."

Then "If the applicant repeats this alleged behaviour in the [position applied for], vulnerable people could be caused serious emotional and physical harm."

Read as: I don't care about the jury's verdict. The decision of a court of law is irrelevant. He is guilty. Everyone ever charged with an offence is guilty.

I am seething at this. I would love for the officer(s) making this decision to be wrongly accused of a sex offence and to be acquitted yet unemployable for the rest of their lives. I wonder what their view of this would be then.

Edited
2 Years Ago by BenS
Yankee
Yankee
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)Supreme Being (27K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 229, Visits: 956
Even if innocent or acquitted of an offence, the Supreme Court has confirmed it is proportionate for the police to include details of the charges on an enhanced check. I understand the rationale - the enhanced check was introduced as part of a process for protecting children and the vulnerable. However, it raises multiple issues:

1. Employers tend to have a simplistic view and rather than assess any case on its merits, take the default position of simply not employing the candidate.

2. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty in law is being eroded.

3. It remains the judgement of the police whether information is 'relevant' or not rather than a statutory definition


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290



GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search