I've not heard anything on it. I am also very concerned about this filtering approach, whilst it sounds good I feel it will discriminate certain convictions over others (based on Sunita Mason's report). I was convicted of drink driving 3 years ago (a silly mistake where I was drawn in from peer pressure to have a few after celebrating my graduation). I was slightly over the legal limit and caused no damage to anyone nor property. It states on her report recommendation that drink driving is not a minor crime so in her example it would still be disclosed if filtering came in indefinitely. How on earth would that be fair and more importantly how can they gauge which offence is minor over another.. (other than the obvious such as manslaughter etc)?

Are they claiming that after 10 or even 15 years have lapsed without any blemish on my record following that I am still not deemed rehabilitated and that the fact that I drove 2 miles slightly over the legal limit I am a serious criminal and threat to the public. I think the filtering should just be based on the existing ROA, in that the current spent time period could be applied to all existing convictions and once spent they would be part of the filter. In essence the definition of 'spent' would mean 'a filter is now applied going forward'. It really does not require as much complexity as the Home office thinks as the ROA is already there as the baseline.

Does anybody know when we'll hear about the appeal? I read somewhere that it might be rejected.

"But experts warned that there was no guarantee any appeal would be granted, given the judgement was handed down by Lord Dyson, who is the second most senior judge in England and Wales."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9835218/Theresa-May-to-defy-Court-of-Appeal-over-ruling-which-threatens-to-plunge-CRB-system-into-chaos.html

Why on earth would they seek to do so?! They commissioned a report into looking at changing this area, and now they are going to fight against change.

Does anyone know precisely when the 28 day appeal period begins from; is it from 21 December 2012 when the ruling was first given, from the preliminary announcement, or the official publication of the judgement. I'm confused.

I would agree 100% with it if CRB checks were only done to ensure people who have committed certain crimes can't do certain jobs that relate to their offence. No one can really argue with that.

The problem is that CRB checks have gone mad in recent years with companies doing them more as a selling point than to prevent people who have committed certain offences from being given the opportunity to commit further ones.

I fully accept people who have committed a sexual offence should not be able to become licenced cab drivers, but when companies are rejecting people with minor cautions from being a shopping delivery driver it just lacks common sense & things like this must surely contribute to why the reoffending rates in certain crimes are so high?

Thank you Chris, I thought I was seeing things there. Now I am clear. 

Hi BT

The money making issue, rather like the credit reference agencies, has come about from the amount of umbrella companies out there which companies outsource to, to perform the checks.  There are oodles of those around vying for business.  Credit Reference Agencies, such as Experian offer free trials and then a further £14.99 a month, and many people sign up for this, looking at data which companies hold on you.  It will come in, whereby we can all apply for our CRB data, but the old fashioned way, such as an SAR is still in force and is probably the best way to have an idea of what the PNC has on you.  Just like the old fashioned way of gaining your credit file, which still costs £2.00 if you do it the old fashioned way.  https://www.criminalrecordchecks.co.uk/ These are the ones who are out there, scaremongering and advertising services to letting agents and other organisations that we may well come into contact with on a daily basis.

Because they can... 

The current system in place is being abused.  The ROA is still active, okay it doesn't help many of us here, but it is still active and does work.  It's the mass hysteria, people thinking that monsters, thieves and violent criminals are allowed to work with the vulnerable/children.  That's not the case.  The ruling in this case, shows how a young man aged 21 was discriminated against because of a caution when he was 11 years old.  That's the madness.  He had the balls to do something about this discrimination and it only takes one to stand up for their rights and other people will follow.  The second case of the woman in her 40's who walked out of a shop, with a packet of acrylic nails under her arm, is a bit of a moot point for me.  There's a huge difference between an 11 year old stealing two bikes, and a woman in her 40's "forgetting" to pay for her plastic nails.  So, we have to be realistic about what we are dealing with. She's been labelled a thief, he's a smart young man who decided to do something about discrimination. 

 

There was a third case, which is being glossed over. AW had a sentence for manslaughter, at the age of 16. She was sentenced for five years. Therefore, on the current tariff, her sentence will never be spent.

81. There are various ways in which the ROA Order could be amended in order to achieve compatibility with article 8. As we have seen, these include identifying disposals as exempt from its scope by reference to the nature of the offence and/or the date when it was committed and/or the age of the offender at the date of the offence. The solution proposed by Mr Coppel would involve a major legislative change from the existing system. There is a fundamental difference between the current blanket scheme and one which leaves to employers and employees the difficult decision as to what article 8 requires on a case by case basis. Section 3 of the HRA does not require or permit the court to make legislative choices of this kind. In our view, the decision as to how theses difficult issues should be resolved should be made by Parliament. (Worryingly)

I just can't get my head around this one. Why should the ROA Order be amended? Should it not be the exceptions order that should be amended, as in tightening of the gaping flaws in the process? It's currently not difficult, the ROA, the exceptions' order is the one whereby most abuses happen. Or am I getting this wrong?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21245308 

Barmy, xl, I quite agree.  What is it?  Four years ago when step down was ruled out? 

Old frosty face, TM, who doesn't know what 24 hours means, will challenge it, that then takes it up to 2014. Whoever gets in next will inherit the problem. You never know, what goes around comes around and Labour could end up with this right back in their Gucci laps.

Now, call me an old cynic....

Hello Eustace

That's interesting about the owner of a cleaning company. I'll humanise the issue. People love getting the down and dirty on other people. The obsession with "certificates" is immense. Powerful information in te wrong hands. HR departments are not equipped to handle the sensitive data. My friend is looking to me, to give guidance on how she advises her clients. I am not an employment lawyer, she is and she's asking me for information about an area which should be explored and HR departments trained to deal with the data and how to handle it. Companies are not looking at this aspect and as in the case of T, look what happened? He stood up for himself and ended up in court with a Master of Rolls ruling in his favour.

Having read many papers on the DBS, (some of them very poorly written) there does have to be a system in place. With umbrella organisations popping up everywhere and companies unsure of what they're supposed to apply for, Houston, we have a bit of a problem. There are many areas of employment that are not allowed to apply for ECRB and standard disclosure, in my opinion, should be abolished. Jobs are one of two areas. Exempt from the ROA or non-exempt. The grey area is the standard CRB. But, the bottom line is, the money which is made from this, is immense. Multi-nationals running the country. Jobs for the boys. Hysteria follows and the masses are up in arms.

Well, the recent ruling means a judge saw sense.  Which gives us hope...  However, I can't still help but feel we just will not get it here.  With the public and media jumping up and down about the safety of children, I have little faith.  It's a money making scheme and brings in a lot of revenue.  Umbrella companies are everywhere and I'd certainly be interested in their criteria for registration which enables them to make the checks. 

The checks that are available for protection of children and vulnerable adults is a separate issue, as Liberty point out, they and I fail to see what Ian Huntley has to do with this ruling.  Nothing whatsoever.  Just media and government scaremongering. Judging by the comments on many forums discussing this recent ruling, the amount of people who don't understand it, is immense.  The country is obsessed with lists and people on them.    

For me, the answers are simple:

1. People with convictions to know their rights.

2. Guidelines for screening.  I.e. Full explaination of the position being exempt from the ROA, and detailing the regulated activity with children/vulnerable adults list. 

3. Tightening up of the exception's order. 

4. Employers to clearly state on their application form they are non-exempt from the ROA. 

5. Two reasons for CRB checks.  One for positions exempt from the ROA, the enhanced check.  Basic check for positions under the terms of the ROA. 

It is so complicated currently for people and it is illegal for some companies to ask for ECRB.  We should remember this. 

I have said this before.  I have just completed website content for a recruitment company, specialising in childcare, teaching and construction.  The owner of the company had no idea of what checks were in place, he simply had on application forms "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence"  And there are many more companies out there who are not aware of them.  Another friend who has her own HR consultancy, she has no idea at all and she's an employment lawyer by profession.  It's ridiculous.  Here we have powerful and classified information being released in shaky hands and not many people know how to handle this.  Bizarrely named a "certificate" and expires the day it is printed. 

The country has gone mad. 

 

Good point Charh.  In many European countries, the disclosure of criminal records is handled by the police.  I have lived in one.  Police issued my driving licence, you went to the police station and paid 15E for your details and it came back three days later.  Problem with the UK is, it is all back-handers and the elitists helping the elitists.  They don't have this problem on the continent, they are much more relaxed about crime.  They don't have the paranoia we have here.  They have less crime and they are more into rehabilitation than we are. 

 

It's all to do with money. Mrs Mason's report was very balanced and I do agree employers should not bear the sole responsibility of making the decisions based on what they read. The UK has made life very hard for themselves in the quest to gain more money. Employers are not capable of making balanced and levelled judgements on what they read on a CRB check and I agree with Aspire, the standard procedure is the one which is abused the most. It is up to us with convictions to know the guidelines of who is allowed to apply for ECRB. There are guidelines for them to adhere to, which seem to be overlooked on many occasions and companies are not allowed to apply for any CRB check without permission. They could lose their registration. Our rights are buried under those of the legal aspects. But we do have some.

The multi-nationals, Eustace. That's who's running the country. Absolutely, there needs to be a checking system in place. I don't think for a minute any person who is devoid of any intelligence would deny this is necessary. You're correct in your points and I find it hard to disagree with any of them. I don't know the nature of your crime, or what difficulties you are up against, for me, under the current system I can never work in my field again. However, given I am fluent in three languages, I have managed to find myself work and operate a business partnership. I got off my rear end and went and found work and worked damn hard to find it. I was going down the route of education, but then I think of my age, 45 almost. I am a qualified teacher and I have extensive training in marketing and sales. I have put my skills to good use and managed to form myself an income purely from networking. Having a criminal record has not prevented me in this. My clients are not interested in me, they are interested in the work I produce and that's what keeps the wolf from the door. I am done in the rat race, the line is too damn long.

The ROA is an act that doesn't need messing around with. I see nothing wrong with the act in its own entity. I do see the problem lies with employers who do not understand and this zipped up Britishness that we have about talking about our crimes when it comes to disclosing them. Bizarrely, the system has loop holes, just like our tax system, our welfare system and any other system we have in place. How can we claim to protect our children and vulnerable people, when companies like Provident allow any Tom Dick or Harry to collect money for loan repayments from some of the most vulnerable people in society? How can I have a fraud charge against me, not be allowed a bank account, yet have full control over my schizophrenic mother's financial affairs issued by the Office of Public Guardian? Yet until we are in the eye of the storm, we have no idea what is going on... It is up to us, to evercise our rights and when faced with them, furnish ourselves with the knowledge to know where we stand. We have to be our own activists and support our own cause.

The Brits? Well, look at history. While Kings were busy chasing skirt, armies were going around stoking the flag in other people's soils...

Well, there are some who will always blame others for their own mistakes.  That's a mindset and many people are set in their ways.  Reforming is about change as a person.  We are all judged on our actions from others.  But it is only each individual who really knows why they have done what they have.  I was dishonest without a thought for who I would hurt and I certainly knew when the game was up.  Pleading guilty was not my only option, but I was sick of lying and I knew that eventually the evidence would be there.  I put myself where I am.  It wasn't a false allegation.  It was a very true one.  That said, I haven't hidden away, nor have I flaunted my actions as easily written off.   

The DBS needs some attention, I agree.  I don't believe enough emphasis is placed on the ROA.  It needs the same attention as other equality and diversity claims from companies.  However, we know this is not going to happen.  What should happen and what does happen?  Never the twain shall meet.  The reasons reach far deeper than protecting the vulnerable and children of our society, the DBS is a money maker.  The ROA was set up almost 40 years ago, since then it has been over shadowed by the exceptions order which has clear guidelines, but people don't understand the guideline, they are not solid any longer and the act is almost defunct.  The ROA needs highlighting, but it should still remain in place and have more people fight for that, rather than trying to change the system.  Back in the 90s prior to me moving overseas, I went for a job in the UK and I remember it very clearly, the ROA was stated on the application form.  It was my word that was good enough that I had no unspent convictions.  We all know the Soham case brought about reforms, (can't remember the name of the guy who put together this report) and in essence, the ECRB is not the problem, it protects children.  But, it does not help those who have reformed, who are leading law-abding lives, despite what they once have done.   We have a duty as a society to care for our young and those who are vulnerable.  But vulnerable is also an arbitrary term.  My mother is classed as vulnerable, yet she is one of the most cunning and sly people I know.  What is vulnerable?  

The answer is glaringly obvious.  ROA applies and the register for exempt positions should be made very clear.  Old convictions should be archived when spent.  They may not be expunged, but archived.  Minor offences (and there's another areas that needs attention, what classifies a minor offence?) should not be raised again after spent and cautions which are spent as soon as they are issued, or should be, should never be used three decades later against people.  And I can never see the point of standard checks.  It appears employers are not clear on what their obligations are.  They ask the question, they insist on checks and they have little idea of what they are asking or how to handle a marked cetificate. 

the government said to the court they cant impose a filtering process mainly because there is no definition of a minor offence. But cautions by definition are only given for minor offences and so should be automatically filtered after a couple of years.