Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Old and minor offences dating back decades should be removed from background checks, according to a national charity.

Date - 21st January 2020
By - Chris Smith

The charity Unlock questioned whether people should be prevented from applying for jobs, including those in the police service, or helping young or vulnerable people because of long spent convictions that have not been added to.

It has started a campaign calling on the government to reduce the length of time a record is revealed and remove out of date information from DBS checks.

Unlock highlighted the case of a man who wanted to help his son’s choir but had two minor convictions for cannabis possession and stealing a can of food during his student days in the 1960s which came up on his DBS check.

The charity argued someone who has long reformed from past offending would not be able to become a traffic warden under current rules.

Around one in six people in England & Wales have a criminal record. Whether it resulted in a prison sentence or a fine, a criminal record can be disclosed on a standard or enhanced criminal record check for the rest of their life

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director of Unlock said: “We would like the government to reduce the length of time a record is revealed and remove out of date information from DBS checks. And we are asking MPs to get the government to work out how to do this by launching a major review of the legislation on the disclosure of criminal records.”  

Past offending is a difficult issue for forces. Under the current rules, some past offences are ignored but convictions of family members are taken into consideration because of the potential risk of influence.

The issue is back on the agenda after the government announced ambitious plans to recruit 20,000 new officers.

But what counts as a previous offence can also change as social attitudes change. The government introduced ‘Turing’s Law’ in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, to posthumously pardon men convicted before homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967.

The Supreme Court set out the problems in deciding a case brought by four people who had been convicted of minor offences. The court ruled some of the rules are disproportionate and the government is considering its response.

The judges, led by Lady Hale, said: “Such cases raise problems of great difficulty and sensitivity. They turn on two competing public interests. One is the rehabilitation of ex-offenders. The other is the protection of the public against people whose past record suggests that there may be unacceptable risks in appointing them to certain sensitive occupations.”

The charity argued that the balance is currently too heavily weighted in favour of disclosure.

Mr Stacey added: “An increasing number of employers require DBS checks, and we know that many convictions and cautions that are revealed on these checks can be from many years, sometimes decades, ago.”

He added: “After 10 years offence-free (five years for children), the risk presented by most individuals with a criminal record is not meaningfully different from that of the general population This begs the question why so many convictions from so many years ago keep on being disclosed on DBS checks.”

View On Police Oracle

[BlueBob + 692]

Perhaps there needs to be a filtering system before final disclosure either in a positive or negative manner , so long past conviction for minor theft may be withheld from certain / majority of roles.  It does seem absurd that it gets disclosed and the recipients take no action or over react to the disclosure.  It was a great idea but this does highlight it needs some big reforms and quickly.  

[Sceptre + 2,701]

There was an instance a year or two ago where a man acquitted for rape in 2011 failed in his appeal against the inclusion of his charge and acquittal by GMP on a disclosure which I felt struck the wrong balance between identifying risks and respecting the presumption of innocence. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

Previous criminal history goes right to the quality of a persons character. I knew of very few criminals who got caught on the first offence.

[bensonby + 3,503]

Surely convictions are a matter of historical record? In the case of a conviction in the 1960s it would be up to the organisation conducting the check (offering the job etc) to make a reasoned and proportionate decision based on the individual facts and circumstances of their particular case?

[Sceptre + 2,701]

2 hours ago, bensonby said:

Surely convictions are a matter of historical record? In the case of a conviction in the 1960s it would be up to the organisation conducting the check (offering the job etc) to make a reasoned and proportionate decision based on the individual facts and circumstances of their particular case?

They are, however reformed ex-offenders having their minor convictions hanging round their necks for the rest of their lives isn't desirable for society which was the reason for the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, no longer would rehabilitated people have to rely on their prospective employer having some common sense. Nowadays the number and nature of roles asking for more and more intrusive checks has ballooned, coupled with an extremely zealous attitude to risk and safeguarding in many quarters, and it's probably time that act was examined to ensure it still fulfils its function.

[BlueBob + 692]

32 minutes ago, Sceptre said:

They are, however reformed ex-offenders having their minor convictions hanging round their necks for the rest of their lives isn't desirable for society which was the reason for the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, no longer would rehabilitated people have to rely on their prospective employer having some common sense. Nowadays the number and nature of roles asking for more and more intrusive checks has ballooned, coupled with an extremely zealous attitude to risk and safeguarding in many quarters, and it's probably time that act was examined to ensure it still fulfils its function.

As much as that legislation may want reviewing, is there not an idea that the organisation that seeks the CRB had to have f st one explanation, reasoning etc for wanting / needing historic convictions. The perception seems to be that the company can ask for whatever they like with scant regard to necessity. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

A job applicant would be asked if he had ever appeared in Court and been convicted of any offence.  Should they not declare that then they could be committing a criminal offence by a fraudulent declaration.  Any CRB check could show this up, if not declared. If one is declared then it is for the applicant to explain it. Ther are certain vocations which could not afford to employ/use anyone with a conviction.

As far as Policing goes, I would never expect a person who I had blessed with a CRO number to ever work alongside me.

 

[Sceptre + 2,701]

39 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

A job applicant would be asked if he had ever appeared in Court and been convicted of any offence. 

An employer can ask about unspent convictions only, they cannot ask about ones from the '60s nor would the applicant have to answer such a question. 

[BlueBob + 692]

9 hours ago, Sceptre said:

An employer can ask about unspent convictions only, they cannot ask about ones from the '60s nor would the applicant have to answer such a question. 

That’s pretty much what I understood was the point of the rehabilitation of offenders act, it seems that CRB gets around that, not sure who or how the extended CRB is managed to keep the spent conviction limited to those who really need it.   
 

[SD + 688]

Am I missing something? I thought it was an employer who decides if they get the job or not, not the police. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

12 hours ago, Sceptre said:

An employer can ask about unspent convictions only, they cannot ask about ones from the '60s nor would the applicant have to answer such a question. 

If I was an employer I would ask the question. If I did not get a reply, or a suitable reply I would not entertain employing them.

[Sceptre + 2,701]

3 hours ago, BlueBob said:

That’s pretty much what I understood was the point of the rehabilitation of offenders act, it seems that CRB gets around that, not sure who or how the extended CRB is managed to keep the spent conviction limited to those who really need it.   

I would guess that there's been a significant rise in employers asking for enhanced DBS checks simply because they can, without any reasoned thought about why they require that information, in a way that wasn't happing in the 70s. I would say that even on the most extensive checks low-level crimes from decades ago ought to be disregarded - we're even considering allowing people with such historic convictions into the police now after all.

49 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

If I was an employer I would ask the question. If I did not get a reply, or a suitable reply I would not entertain employing them.

Asking illegal questions in interviews is a big red flag for the candidate not to bother with such an unprofessional employer. If you did that interviewing for me I'd discipline you. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

5 hours ago, Sceptre said:

I would guess that there's been a significant rise in employers asking for enhanced DBS checks simply because they can, without any reasoned thought about why they require that information, in a way that wasn't happing in the 70s. I would say that even on the most extensive checks low-level crimes from decades ago ought to be disregarded - we're even considering allowing people with such historic convictions into the police now after all.

Asking illegal questions in interviews is a big red flag for the candidate not to bother with such an unprofessional employer. If you did that interviewing for me I'd discipline you. 

You would be welcome to try but, an employer will want to offer employment to the best candidate and that includes Honesty and non criminal behaviour. After all it is the employer who is paying the wage bill and protecting his/her business.

There are certain occupations that cannot afford to employ people with a CRO number, both for their clients, business and other emplolyees.

[BlueBob + 692]

36 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

There are certain occupations that cannot afford to employ people with a CRO number, both for their clients, business and other emplolyees.

Exactly, but therdd Ed seem to be a lot looking for enhanced CRB for no real reason. That’s what needs to be explored