Criminal records to be wiped for minor offences after a period of time

[Veni Vidi Vici]

BBC News - Criminal record checks to be relaxed

Good idea I think, not that I have a criminal record but I imagine it holds a lot of people back with getting a job after doing something as a teenager or when drunk.

What do you reckon?

"Convictions resulting in a non-custodial sentence will be filtered from record checks after 11 years for adults and five-and-a-half years for young offenders, the Home Office announced.

Cautions will be filtered from record checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formerly known as the Criminal Records Bureau, after six years for adults and two years for young offenders.

Serious violent and sexual offences, offences with a jail sentence and some other offences will remain on checks. A conviction will only be filtered if there is no other offence on the individual's record.

The move comes after the Court of Appeal ruled the law which requires people to disclose all previous convictions to certain employers is a breach of human rights."

 

[Mr.D]

Well I'm slightly annoyed my fingerprints and DNA are still on record for a charge I was aquitted of 10 years ago. As I have a completely clean record I would like this data removed.

Europena Court on Human rights regarded this practice as innapropriate and in breach of a section of the European Human rights bill.

 

[blue max]

Surely common sense to do that. On what grounds would you think otherwise?

 

[Veni Vidi Vici]

Well I'm slightly annoyed my fingerprints and DNA are still on record for a charge I was aquitted of 10 years ago. As I have a completely clean record I would like this data removed.

Europena Court on Human rights regarded this practice as innapropriate and in breach of a section of the European Human rights bill.

Can you not apply for it to be removed?

 

[Sonic67]

Surely common sense to do that. On what grounds would you think otherwise?

The police want to keep DNA forever as it means they can catch people easier in future.

Some people want everyone's DNA kept on a big database from the start.

Others are against it as it gets into human rights and big brother stuff. Why should a government hold everything on you and what if in the future a bad government is in power with all this information on you.

BBC News - Police allowed to keep convicts' DNA samples forever

http://www.avforums.com/forums/general-chat/877950-your-dna-national-database.html


From 2008:
BBC NEWS | UK | DNA database 'breach of rights'


Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Government defeat on DNA database

BBC NEWS | UK | Innocent - but battling a DNA record

BBC NEWS | England | Police ordered to delete records

GeneWatch UK - Home

http://www.avforums.com/forums/8275306-post16.html

http://www.avforums.com/forums/general-chat/762930-surveillance-state-extend-powers.html

 

[Exemplar]

Another question then... How will this affect holidays to the USA? As of now you have to state all criminal convictions before departing on holiday and can risk being deported if inaccurate information is given.

 

[ODB_69]

whats in the list of 'minor offences'? Surely it depends on what they are

 

[Exemplar]

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

 

[imightbewrong]

Another question then... How will this affect holidays to the USA? As of now you have to state all criminal convictions before departing on holiday and can risk being deported if inaccurate information is given.

What question do the USA ask exactly?

 

[Exemplar]

http://www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/IAG/travel/TravellingtotheUS.pdf

“Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offence or crime involving moral turpitude or a
violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more
offences for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a
controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?”

In the further information section, it states:
“Crimes involving moral turpitude - Such offences generally involve conduct which is inherently base,
vile, or depraved and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to persons or
society in general. There are factors, such as the age of the offender or the date of the offence, that
may affect whether an offence will be considered a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
For further information refer to § 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(2), § 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) and
corresponding regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations.”

 

[nheather]

Unsure.

I think it is a good idea but more thought is needed on the implementation.

For example, should persistent non-custodial offences be removed?

Also, is the period of 11 years too long.

If the concern really is about getting jobs, then if you haven't been able to get a job because of a previous conviction for 11 years, then when it is cleared you have lost 11 years of working life (about 25%), have an 11 year blank on your CV. Even when the conviction is lifted, I think you would find it difficult to find work.

Personally, I think things should start to be wiped after 3 years (assuming no reoccurence). So if someone has a warning or conviction for something minor and they don't reoffend then it should be wiped after 3 years. If they subsequently reoffend then the old one should be put back on.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[liamt]

The police want to keep DNA forever as it means they can catch people easier in future.

Some people want everyone's DNA kept on a big database from the start.

Others are against it as it gets into human rights and big brother stuff. Why should a government hold everything on you and what if in the future a bad government is in power with all this information on you.

BBC News - Police allowed to keep convicts' DNA samples forever

http://www.avforums.com/forums/general-chat/877950-your-dna-national-database.html


From 2008:
BBC NEWS | UK | DNA database 'breach of rights'


Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Government defeat on DNA database

BBC NEWS | UK | Innocent - but battling a DNA record

BBC NEWS | England | Police ordered to delete records

GeneWatch UK - Home

http://www.avforums.com/forums/8275306-post16.html

http://www.avforums.com/forums/general-chat/762930-surveillance-state-extend-powers.html

especially considering how many breeches of trust the police have given us lately. i wouldnt trust them now (sorry dave, i know some of you are good eggs but as they say, the minority ruin it for the majority)

i guess this is ok really. a caution should really be wiped after 10 years as long as its nothing serious.

 

[liamt]

Unsure.

I think it is a good idea but more thought is needed on the implementation.

For example, should persistent non-custodial offences be removed?

Also, is the period of 11 years too long.

If the concern really is about getting jobs, then if you haven't been able to get a job because of a previous conviction for 11 years, then when it is cleared you have lost 11 years of working life (about 25%), have an 11 year blank on your CV. Even when the conviction is lifted, I think you would find it difficult to find work.

Personally, I think things should start to be wiped after 3 years (assuming no reoccurence). So if someone has a warning or conviction for something minor and they don't reoffend then it should be wiped after 3 years. If they subsequently reoffend then the old one should be put back on.

Cheers,

Nigel

how many people here have actually had a CRB check for a job? i never have.

 

[Exemplar]

Several here...

 

[blue max]

Essential when you work with kids. Sad reflection on society really.

 

[ODB_69]

How is it?

 

[Orson]

I voted no, I think they should be kept forever. It's history, it happened, why try and hide/alter it?

 

[blue max]

How is it?

Even helping out at the cubs when my boy was one required a check. Just lending a hand at a barbecue outside. All part of the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality.

I'm not necessarily saying the organisations are doing anything less than they are required to do, but rather the fact that they have to do it at all.

 

[kav]

I voted no, I think they should be kept forever. It's history, it happened, why try and hide/alter it?

If that were the case, employers would need to factor for this, rather than - as most do - having a black and white policy of not hiring someone with criminal convictions.

 

[imightbewrong]

Another question then... How will this affect holidays to the USA? As of now you have to state all criminal convictions before departing on holiday and can risk being deported if inaccurate information is given.

http://www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/IAG/travel/TravellingtotheUS.pdf

“Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offence or crime involving moral turpitude or a
violation related to a controlled substance; or have been arrested or convicted for two or more
offences for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or have been a
controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?”

In the further information section, it states:
“Crimes involving moral turpitude - Such offences generally involve conduct which is inherently base,
vile, or depraved and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to persons or
society in general. There are factors, such as the age of the offender or the date of the offence, that
may affect whether an offence will be considered a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
For further information refer to § 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(2), § 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) and
corresponding regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations.”

So sounds like it would have no effect for two reasons.

- the offences mentioned here would seem to be more severe than those considerd above
- they use the language 'have you ever' - so that sounds like you have to tell them everything

 

[ODB_69]

Even helping out at the cubs when my boy was one required a check. Just lending a hand at a barbecue outside. All part of the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality.

I'm not necessarily saying the organisations are doing anything less than they are required to do, but rather the fact that they have to do it at all.

I dont think its a sad refelection on society, all societies have certain undesirable elements in them, therefore it would be a sad reflection on society if CRB's were not issued to those working with Children etc as it shows that as much as anyone possibly knows, short of lie detectors etc, that the person is deemed acceptable to work with certain groups

I'd rather know they had one that have to guess to their past behaviour if you see what I mean

Sad in the sense there are people in the world that are capable of horrific acts yes but not a sad reflection on society as a whole

 

[Jamezinho]

As long as it doesn't go beyond minor offences then I think this makes sense.

 

[nheather]

how many people here have actually had a CRB check for a job? i never have.

Would you know if you had?

We aren't talking about applying for a CRB Certificate that you need to do to work with children - you have to complete an application form for one of those - so you would know whether you have done one or not.

We are talking about the prospective employer's HR department making a basic check against you. I suspect they only make them at the point of making you an offer. I would suggest that you have no idea what checks have been made when you you apply for a job.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[liamt]

Would you know if you had?

We aren't talking about applying for a CRB Certificate that you need to do to work with children - you have to complete an application form for one of those - so you would know whether you have done one or not.

We are talking about the prospective employer's HR department making a basic check against you. I suspect they only make them at the point of making you an offer. I would suggest that you have no idea what checks have been made when you you apply for a job.

Cheers,

Nigel

oh, believe me. i would have known

AFAIK they have to ask you for consent anyway, none ever have for me. i guess i have been lucky that for the last 15 years i have only had 2 employers and have been in constant employment.

 

[imightbewrong]

Would you know if you had?

according to:

Completely CRB: What is CRB? Criminal record checks, Employee vetting

Can anyone apply for a check on me?

No, the forms requesting a CRB check must be signed by you to say that you give your permission for the check to take place. If you haven't signed, then it is rejected.