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.


Basic DBS overlapping convictions


Basic DBS overlapping convictions

Author
Message
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 674, Visits: 4.2K
Mouldy - 6 Aug 19 6:04 PM
Guess what? After Nacro replied using the .gov line as their source of advice I contacted the site and they referred me to the DBS. They replied today agreeing that the info on the site was incorrect and they've now removed any mention of extended licences exempting someone from the ROA.

Excellent news! I love it when a plan comes together.... Wink

=========================================================

As Chris Stacey said: Although its not formally part of the sentence that is handed down in court, the criminal record that someone comes away with effectively becomes a second sentence, which can have a long-lasting, if not lifelong, impact.

Mouldy
Mouldy
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10, Visits: 93
Guess what? After Nacro replied using the .gov line as their source of advice I contacted the site and they referred me to the DBS. They replied today agreeing that the info on the site was incorrect and they've now removed any mention of extended licences exempting someone from the ROA.

AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 674, Visits: 4.2K
Mouldy - 1 Aug 19 8:13 PM
Thing is, since section 85 was repealed, 'Wiles' has continued to be relied upon when calculating notification periods. The CJA2003 changed the rules in that an extended licence could be added if the custodial term was at least 4 years. The sentence would then be 'the appropriate custodial term' plus the licence period, yet sentences of say, 1 year custodial and 2 years licence continued to be given. The Police would then cite Wiles in calculating the notification period.

It's a complete mish-mash of contradictions and incomptabilities but no-one is prepared to tackle it due to the subject. Judges up to 2011/12 certainly had no notion they were increasing the 'sentence of imprisonment' by adding an extended licence as can be seen in the media reports. They had no idea that someone being sentenced to 28 months would be notifying for less time (10 years) than someone sentenced to 6 months plus a 2 year licence (indefinite). They had no idea that someone sentenced to 4 years would fall under the ROA yet someone sentenced to 2 years plus 3 year licence would be exempt.

How would anyone believe that a licence added to secure rehabilitation would then exempt the person from being deemed rehabilitated?

Much like the police and probation, and many others who perhaps ought to know, judges and other court staff have no idea of rehabilitation periods. It's just "not their job". It seems that in some cases, the rehabilitation of the individual takes a distant second place to anything else they can come up with. Try getting a restraining order ended because it is interfering with your rehabilitation and is preventing you finding work....

Anyone with a sense of irony would appreciate your closing comment. Of course, there is also the Law of Unintended Consequences, which was probably drawn up with sentencing in mind.... Sad

=========================================================

As Chris Stacey said: Although its not formally part of the sentence that is handed down in court, the criminal record that someone comes away with effectively becomes a second sentence, which can have a long-lasting, if not lifelong, impact.

Mouldy
Mouldy
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10, Visits: 93
Thing is, since section 85 was repealed, 'Wiles' has continued to be relied upon when calculating notification periods. The CJA2003 changed the rules in that an extended licence could be added if the custodial term was at least 4 years. The sentence would then be 'the appropriate custodial term' plus the licence period, yet sentences of say, 1 year custodial and 2 years licence continued to be given. The Police would then cite Wiles in calculating the notification period.

It's a complete mish-mash of contradictions and incomptabilities but no-one is prepared to tackle it due to the subject. Judges up to 2011/12 certainly had no notion they were increasing the 'sentence of imprisonment' by adding an extended licence as can be seen in the media reports. They had no idea that someone being sentenced to 28 months would be notifying for less time (10 years) than someone sentenced to 6 months plus a 2 year licence (indefinite). They had no idea that someone sentenced to 4 years would fall under the ROA yet someone sentenced to 2 years plus 3 year licence would be exempt.

How would anyone believe that a licence added to secure rehabilitation would then exempt the person from being deemed rehabilitated?

AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 674, Visits: 4.2K
Mouldy - 1 Aug 19 1:29 PM
AB2014 - 1 Aug 19 12:55 PM
Mouldy - 31 Jul 19 6:28 PM
I had a reply from Nacro about this. They've referred me to this .gov site  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rehabilitation-periods   and highlighted this part:

A custodial sentence which is any of the following: a) over 4 years, b) an indeterminate sentence, c) a minimum sentence for public protection or d) a prison sentence with an extended period on licence
Are excluded from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and will always be disclosed.

However it seems a bit off that Nacro would rely on this as a quick check of the actual ROA shows it says no such thing - it's something that whoever made that site has added on their own accord. There is nothing whatsoever in the ROA that mentions extended licences. In fact the ROA is clear in which sentenced are excluded:

(a) a sentence of imprisonment for life;

(b) a sentence of imprisonment or corrective training for a term exceeding forty eight months;

(c) a sentence of preventive detention;

(d) a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure or for life under section 90 or 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, or under section 209 or 218 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or under section 205(2) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, or a sentence of detention for a term exceeding forty eight months passed under section 91 of the said Act of 2000 (young offenders convicted of grave crimes), or section 209 of the said Act of 2006, or under section 206 of the said Act of 1975 (detention of children convicted on indictment);

(e) a sentence of custody for life;

(f) a sentence of imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act or an extended sentence under section 226A, 226B, 227 or 228 of that Act (including any sentence within this paragraph passed as a result of any of sections 219 to 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

It then adds:

and any other sentence is a sentence subject to rehabilitation under this Act.


That can only be read as a custodial with an extended licence falls within the remit of the ROA, as it's not on the excluded list. By Nacro's reasoning, a custodial sentence of 6 months followed by an extended licence of 18 months cannot become spent. That cannot be correct.


Don't forget that Section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 says that your sentence is the aggregate of the original custodial term and the extension period, so it will be treated as a five-year custodial sentence.

Even taking that into account, having the .gov site saying that ANY custodial sentence that includes an extended licence is exempt from the ROA is not correct and is not backed by the legislation. How does it also sit that section 85 has now been repealed? What is the new source we can use?

Well, there is a link at the bottom of the GOV.UK web page that says "Is there anything wrong with this page?", so you could try that. It is a technical point, but a very important one. Although section 85 has been repealed, it can still be seen here. Also, although it has been repealed, sentences issued under it are still in effect.

=========================================================

As Chris Stacey said: Although its not formally part of the sentence that is handed down in court, the criminal record that someone comes away with effectively becomes a second sentence, which can have a long-lasting, if not lifelong, impact.

Mouldy
Mouldy
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10, Visits: 93
AB2014 - 1 Aug 19 12:55 PM
Mouldy - 31 Jul 19 6:28 PM
I had a reply from Nacro about this. They've referred me to this .gov site  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rehabilitation-periods   and highlighted this part:

A custodial sentence which is any of the following: a) over 4 years, b) an indeterminate sentence, c) a minimum sentence for public protection or d) a prison sentence with an extended period on licence
Are excluded from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and will always be disclosed.

However it seems a bit off that Nacro would rely on this as a quick check of the actual ROA shows it says no such thing - it's something that whoever made that site has added on their own accord. There is nothing whatsoever in the ROA that mentions extended licences. In fact the ROA is clear in which sentenced are excluded:

(a) a sentence of imprisonment for life;

(b) a sentence of imprisonment or corrective training for a term exceeding forty eight months;

(c) a sentence of preventive detention;

(d) a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure or for life under section 90 or 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, or under section 209 or 218 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or under section 205(2) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, or a sentence of detention for a term exceeding forty eight months passed under section 91 of the said Act of 2000 (young offenders convicted of grave crimes), or section 209 of the said Act of 2006, or under section 206 of the said Act of 1975 (detention of children convicted on indictment);

(e) a sentence of custody for life;

(f) a sentence of imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act or an extended sentence under section 226A, 226B, 227 or 228 of that Act (including any sentence within this paragraph passed as a result of any of sections 219 to 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

It then adds:

and any other sentence is a sentence subject to rehabilitation under this Act.


That can only be read as a custodial with an extended licence falls within the remit of the ROA, as it's not on the excluded list. By Nacro's reasoning, a custodial sentence of 6 months followed by an extended licence of 18 months cannot become spent. That cannot be correct.


Don't forget that Section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 says that your sentence is the aggregate of the original custodial term and the extension period, so it will be treated as a five-year custodial sentence.

Even taking that into account, having the .gov site saying that ANY custodial sentence that includes an extended licence is exempt from the ROA is not correct and is not backed by the legislation. How does it also sit that section 85 has now been repealed? What is the new source we can use?

AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 674, Visits: 4.2K
Mouldy - 31 Jul 19 6:28 PM
I had a reply from Nacro about this. They've referred me to this .gov site  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rehabilitation-periods   and highlighted this part:

A custodial sentence which is any of the following: a) over 4 years, b) an indeterminate sentence, c) a minimum sentence for public protection or d) a prison sentence with an extended period on licence
Are excluded from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and will always be disclosed.

However it seems a bit off that Nacro would rely on this as a quick check of the actual ROA shows it says no such thing - it's something that whoever made that site has added on their own accord. There is nothing whatsoever in the ROA that mentions extended licences. In fact the ROA is clear in which sentenced are excluded:

(a) a sentence of imprisonment for life;

(b) a sentence of imprisonment or corrective training for a term exceeding forty eight months;

(c) a sentence of preventive detention;

(d) a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure or for life under section 90 or 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, or under section 209 or 218 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or under section 205(2) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, or a sentence of detention for a term exceeding forty eight months passed under section 91 of the said Act of 2000 (young offenders convicted of grave crimes), or section 209 of the said Act of 2006, or under section 206 of the said Act of 1975 (detention of children convicted on indictment);

(e) a sentence of custody for life;

(f) a sentence of imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act or an extended sentence under section 226A, 226B, 227 or 228 of that Act (including any sentence within this paragraph passed as a result of any of sections 219 to 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

It then adds:

and any other sentence is a sentence subject to rehabilitation under this Act.


That can only be read as a custodial with an extended licence falls within the remit of the ROA, as it's not on the excluded list. By Nacro's reasoning, a custodial sentence of 6 months followed by an extended licence of 18 months cannot become spent. That cannot be correct.


Don't forget that Section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 says that your sentence is the aggregate of the original custodial term and the extension period, so it will be treated as a five-year custodial sentence.

=========================================================

As Chris Stacey said: Although its not formally part of the sentence that is handed down in court, the criminal record that someone comes away with effectively becomes a second sentence, which can have a long-lasting, if not lifelong, impact.

Mouldy
Mouldy
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10, Visits: 93
I had a reply from Nacro about this. They've referred me to this .gov site  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rehabilitation-periods   and highlighted this part:

A custodial sentence which is any of the following: a) over 4 years, b) an indeterminate sentence, c) a minimum sentence for public protection or d) a prison sentence with an extended period on licence
Are excluded from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and will always be disclosed.

However it seems a bit off that Nacro would rely on this as a quick check of the actual ROA shows it says no such thing - it's something that whoever made that site has added on their own accord. There is nothing whatsoever in the ROA that mentions extended licences. In fact the ROA is clear in which sentenced are excluded:

(a) a sentence of imprisonment for life;

(b) a sentence of imprisonment or corrective training for a term exceeding forty eight months;

(c) a sentence of preventive detention;

(d) a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure or for life under section 90 or 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, or under section 209 or 218 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, or under section 205(2) or (3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, or a sentence of detention for a term exceeding forty eight months passed under section 91 of the said Act of 2000 (young offenders convicted of grave crimes), or section 209 of the said Act of 2006, or under section 206 of the said Act of 1975 (detention of children convicted on indictment);

(e) a sentence of custody for life;

(f) a sentence of imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act or an extended sentence under section 226A, 226B, 227 or 228 of that Act (including any sentence within this paragraph passed as a result of any of sections 219 to 222 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

It then adds:

and any other sentence is a sentence subject to rehabilitation under this Act.


That can only be read as a custodial with an extended licence falls within the remit of the ROA, as it's not on the excluded list. By Nacro's reasoning, a custodial sentence of 6 months followed by an extended licence of 18 months cannot become spent. That cannot be correct.


AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)Supreme Being (66K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 674, Visits: 4.2K
Mouldy - 18 Jul 19 2:44 PM
Yeh, there's a massive incompatibilty going on. Took them 8 years to realise the mess it was creating, finally sorting it out in 2008 when entended licences could only be added to custodial terms over 48 months. Even then sentences of say, 1 year plus 3 year ext licence were still being passed, the last one I can think of was ~ 2012 I think.

Yes, I think I read that they were eventually stopped in 2012. Sadly, I can't find the web page any more, but it was based on a Freedom of Information request to the Home Office.

=========================================================

As Chris Stacey said: Although its not formally part of the sentence that is handed down in court, the criminal record that someone comes away with effectively becomes a second sentence, which can have a long-lasting, if not lifelong, impact.

Mouldy
Mouldy
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)Supreme Being (947 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10, Visits: 93
Yeh, there's a massive incompatibilty going on. Took them 8 years to realise the mess it was creating, finally sorting it out in 2008 when entended licences could only be added to custodial terms over 48 months. Even then sentences of say, 1 year plus 3 year ext licence were still being passed, the last one I can think of was ~ 2012 I think.

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