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  

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

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  

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

Check out the order itself, and our press release, from the homepage of the Unlock site.

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

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.

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

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.

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

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

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

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

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

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.

Need Unlocks advice? Visit our self-help information site or contact our helpline

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?

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

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

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

 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 .

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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).

"Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is." - Solzhenitsyn