Add Your Idea

At the Chief officers discretion Police Act 1997 Section 113 A & B

Comment 15th July 2010

Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.

This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)

The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.

( so why have the CPS?)

Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.

Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.

You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.

And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.

This is a massive injustice.

They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.

A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.

The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is  ridicolous.

It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.

However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true

Why does this matter?

Why is my  idea important it is not just my idea I am aware of 1000's of people that are suffering because of this amended ACT, I am currently in the process of setting up a support group to help people in the hope that certain laws can be changed and the government will listen.

Yes I have been personally affected by the amended ACT, yes I am bitter, upset, angry and even at one point suicidal. Why? because I had an allegation made against me and I know that if all the information was disclosed to me it would enable me to sue the police for the distress, humiliation, injury to feelings, financial ruin, ill health.

But suing is not what its about, its about the injustice of being innocent and having a disclosure stating otherwise when the evidence proves I am innocent.

Its about the Police being a law unto themselves and you allowing this.

I have worked in Care/Education for the past 23 years working with the most vulnerable clients studying hard being passionate about the people I care for and support, empowering  them to make positive life choices. Safeguarding, challenging discrimination, impact assessing policies and procedures on Equality and Diversity, Inclusion in society and Education, Offering Advice & guidance,  Why? because its what I love, its what I do, its what I am about,  its rewarding and most of all its because I care.

In the 23 years my working ethics have never once been questioned, I exceed all expectations and the only thing I have ever been accused of is being too passionate, well I can live with that.

I fully back the government on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults thats the sharing of information, intergrated teams and applying the models of care  its what my career is  based on; but you need a reality check on your current laws. You are ruining peoples careers, peoples well being and life itself.

Have safeguarding measures but consider the facts not what might be true.

Have a system that is fair and one that risks assesses on all facts, evidential facts, medical facts, physical facts. The truth.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Highlighted posts


Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea