Tuesday 26 March 2013

CRB Checks to be Relaxed


The Home Office has today announced plans to relax CRB checks. Thousands of job applicants will consequently no longer have their criminal past disclosed to employers.

The announcement follows a Court of Appeal ruling in January that blanket checks for certain positions did not comply with human rights laws. It was initially thought that the government would appeal the ruling.

Criminal record checks are carried out on new employees for certain positions by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), previously known as the Criminal Records Bureau. For particular positions, such as those involving work with children and vulnerable adults, all of an individual’s previous convictions must always be declared, even if they are very old, very minor and irrelevant to the individual’s new job.

It was this part of the law that the Court of Appeal found incompatible with human rights. It held that the checks were incompatible with an individual’s right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For the original article on the Court of Appeal ruling, see here.

Under the proposed legislation, convictions resulting in a non-custodial sentence will be filtered from CRB checks after 11 years for adults. For young offenders the period will be five and a half years. Cautions will be filtered from CRB checks after 6 years for adults and 2 years for young offenders.

However, serious violent and sexual offences and those offences resulting in a custodial sentence will always be disclosed as part of a criminal record check. A previous conviction will also not be filtered if an individual has other previous convictions.

The new system is expected to be implemented within weeks.

The Home Office article on the new changes can be read here.

The Law and CRB Checks

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (and other laws) creates a system which allows an individual to treat certain convictions and warnings as ‘spent’. That is to say after a certain amount of time an individual can treat themselves as having never committed an offence. They do not need to tell most employers about their offending and cannot be refused employment because of it. A ‘standard CRB check’ would not show spent convictions.

However, for certain positions, many of which involve working with children and vulnerable adults, the law requires all previous offences and warnings to be declared. For these positions a conviction never becomes spent. An ‘enhanced CRB check’ would show all previous convictions, cautions and warnings. It was this part of the law that the Court of Appeal found incompatible with human rights. When the new law is in force, certain convictions and cautions will be filtered from all CRB checks (including enhanced checks), as detailed above, so that the concerns raised by the Court of Appeal are answered.

4 comments:

  1. I had not previouly been aware of this story, it is rather concerning in my eyes! Surely after the light whats been shed on child abuse, that was covered up, CRB checks should be strengthened not relaxed. I myself am aware of two teachers, 1 at primary and 1 at secondary that were repremanded for there behaviour with minors. The teacher at primary was allowed to continue working with children and was only removed from the school by a decision of the governors! It came to light he had complaints made against him in his previous school yet he was alowed to accompany us on a school trip where he showed unacceptable behaviour towards the girls. As far as I am aware he is still teaching, yet the stress of being interviewed by police and the lack of trust,will be with the children involved forever. An offender no matter how reformed has the ability to relapse and should account for there action no matter how old the conviction is. CRB checks should delve further, as with adopting a child, as teachers and nursery staff can spend longer with a child than the parents. If you dont agree to stringent checks, you must either have something to hide or are not passionate enough about the career to complrte it.

    Thought id get the discussion rolling :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for commenting. It makes the discussion much more interesting.

      It sounds like, in relation to the teachers you mention, that no official action was taken against them. If that is the case then the allegations against them would never show up on a CRB check, as they only record convictions, cautions and warnings.

      I think the majority of people agree entirely with checks in principle. But what concerns people is how very old and entirely irrelevant convictions can affect your job prospects. For example,currently a conviction for theft of lipstick when you were 11 would show up on an enhanced CRB check if you applied to be a teacher, and could lead to your application failing simply because you have a conviction and another, equally qualified, candidate does not.

      The task, then, is to strike a balance between protecting vulnerable persons and not letting old, irrelevant, convictions harm job prospects. It could be left to employers to make a fair assessment of whether an old conviction is relevant to your application for a job. However, it is all too easy for an employer simply to dismiss candidates with previous convictions, especially when there is so much competition for positions in the current economic climate. While there are many employers that could be trusted to make a fair assessment there are also many employers that could not be.

      The only other solution, therefore, is to hide certain convictions from CRB checks. The question is, will this protect vulnerable people?

      While it is hard to predict, my thoughts are the new system will work adequately. It will only hide very old convictions that did not result in a prison sentence. It will also, crucially, never hide serious sexual or violent convictions. Also, if a person has more than one conviction then they will not be hidden.

      That said, the new system won't affect the teachers you mention at all as it appears no action was ever taken. If investigations took place and concluded there was no evidence then, in the eyes of the law, they remain innocent and should not be restricted in their work. It is a very hard area to balance. I am not sure a balance could every be struck which is universally accepted.

      It will be very interesting to see how the new system works.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. "An offender no matter how reformed has the ability to relapse and should account for there action no matter how old the conviction is."

      "Their"

      Look, everyone has the potential to be an offender. Having your name on a list for something that happened 10-15 years ago totally unrelated to the job you want to do, and being brought up even if you were found not guilty should not happen.

      To base the suitability for someone's suitability based on if they got caught or not is a false sense of security. After all, I'm sure you'll agree that people can offend all their lives and never get put on a list. If you don't agree, I'll give you Jimmy Saville as a prime example, and to a lesser degree Stuart Hall.

      Both of whom would be deemed "suitable" to be a teacher despite being anything but. It kind of makes a mockery of the poor whelp being asked to explain why he got a caution at 13 for stealing a mars bar and be prevented from teaching because of the stigma of having to bring it up with the fussy parent governor (who indeed could be an uncaught offender themselves!)

      Delete