Cautions and ‘relevant information’ removed from CRB Checks

17 Comments 30th October 2014

All cautions (spent and unspent) and 'relevant information' should be removed from all levels of CRB checks.

 

 

Why does this matter?

Cautions

Cautions should not be included in CRB checks. Why? a) People with them are not protected by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 b) There is nothing to say that 1) the case would have gone to court or that 2) if it went to court the recipient would have been found guilty  c) Most cautions were accepted because the police informed the recipient at the time (verbally) that it is merely a slap on the wrist/it will merely sit on the local police system and be deleted after 5 years ie most people who accepted them do not accept that they are 'guilty' and had they known the goal posts would be later changed, would not have accepted them d) allowing future employers to sit as judge and jury wrt to a recipient's caution is ethically and morally wrong e) the circumstances in which the recipient accepted the caution are most often very grey and police procedures not always followed eg  how many people with cautions were offered a solicitor/how many recipients who requested to see a solicitor were told there were none available for several hours – in short how many people with cautions were cajoled into accepting them by the police officer at the time ?- too many! f) Not all cautions relate to something as trivial as stealing a packet of crips, some events (eg domestic violence) are very traumatic and events which have taken years to get over are now brought up for discussion and judgement by all and sundry. g) How many people with cautions are experiencing trauma/depression because they now cannot get a job or because they are having to relive traumatic events in their past  h) How many people are claiming unemployment /incapacity benefit because their cautions prevent them from getting jobs i) How many people with cautions are a drain on the NHS for treatment for depression/anxiety because traumatic events in their life resurface each time they apply for a job. j) The standard phrase that 'the recipient accepts the caution because they accept they are guilty of the offence' is bunkum in most cases – most cautions were accepted because of the verbal advice they received by the police officer at the time, and only saw the small print once they had agreed to accept the caution. In business law, verbal agreements are legally binding. Given there is so much verbal 'advice'/cajolling by the police when such cautions are 'accepted, the written document should not be relied upon as an acceptance of guilt..and given the cost and administrative nightmare involved in digging up the cases and proving the circumstances in which such cautions were 'accepted', they simply should be omitted from CRB checks.

An independent review during Labour's government suggestedt that people with only one caution should have their cautions ommitted from CRB checks and those cautions received whilst  the recipient was a juvenile should also be ommitted. This is discriminatory and again implies that the the recipient of a caution (or more than one) is of dubious character. The only fair way to ensure people's civil liberties are protected and their lives not destroyed is to have a blanket approach. ALL cautions should be omitted from CRB checks.

Police forces should be made to step-down those cautions which have been 'spent' (and do this automatically rather than at the written request of the recipient) and as they informed recipients they would do when they 'advised' recipients to accept them (the verbal terms which every recipient agreed to 'accept' the caution). DNA samples taken at the time should also be removed once the caution has reached its step-down period. 

Give people back their lives or there will be a bigger drain on government's resources in the long run (unemployment/incapacity benefit, NHS costs..and possibly future crime too).

By allowing cautions to be included in CRB checks, and expanding the list of occupations requiring one, the government is simply discriminating against it's own decent people. Soon we will find that all our jobs are taken up by those from countries who don't subscribe to our over-zealous laws (and thus have no 'criminal record') whilst our own decent people (with employable qualifications, skills and experience will become prozac munching, unemployed, state dependent zombies – basically prisoners of the state because their right to work and provide for themselves has been taken away!

'Relevant Information'

'Relevant Information' is most often malicious gossip and spiteful reports made to the police by disgruntled neighbours with a grudge or unproven 'hearsay'. 'Relevant Information' is therefore most often not fact. As such it must be removed for the same damaging reasons as above.

 

 

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Highlighted posts


17 Responses to Cautions and ‘relevant information’ removed from CRB Checks

  1. Michael Flaherty says:

    I couldn’t agree more, you have took the words straight out of my mouth..I have an experience in the ‘relevant information’section which is absolutely ridiculous and as you say was ‘malicious gossip’….I see lots of literature on this subject but unfortunately no positive action!

  2. jane mercer says:

    in 2007 I was cautioned for insurance fraud. I had not committed any offences before these dates and have not since. However, this has completely wrecked my career prospects,I understand what I did was foolish, but I am paying the price everytime I apply for a job.

  3. mehrez says:

    In 2008 i was arrested following false accusation made by stupid 22 years lady she was working with me at that time in care home we never used to get on well and we always argued about things , so she stated that i harressed her sexualy by touching her and exposing my penis. The allegation was made to the police after 10 days from the last shift i worked with her. i got arrested i denied all her false accusation, the police put pressure on her she start changing her ways of the story anyway week later i recieved letter from police saying that they r not taking it any further because there is no sufficient evidence i carried on working with the same campany last july we all got redandent and the care home shut down. I applied for another job but i was shocked when i saw that all of that is written on my crb under the section of other relevant information, now i lost the job and it’s really disgrasfull. they are trying to destroy people’s lifes ruther than helping them…the worse thing i’ve been told that i can’t do anyhing to get removed.

  4. jan says:

    In this case any one can target by fals complain and I to one of that victims strange low

  5. Lydia says:

    I agree!

    Stupid PND which I got sometimes comes up under this category on CRB

    So silly as a CRB is a criminal records check!!!
    a PND does not constitute as a record so why the hell is it elligible to come up in one

    system is silly, punishing young stupid minors like me for a one time offence forever more. cheers uk government! NOT!

  6. David Ferrett says:

    I entirely agree.
    I was given a police caution by British Transport Police two years ago. The offence was having a quick pee in a remote area of Manchester Piccadilly station. Whilst I agree this action is unacceptable under normal circumstances, I was, at the time, suffering from overactive bladder syndrome, and I was unable to obtain change for the toilets because the change machines were out of order. I agreed to accept the caution to avoid a court appearence, and unwelcome publicity.
    I subsequently complained to the police, and was told that if they had been made aware of all the circumstances, no action would be have been taken, as it was almost certain that the case would never have been brought to court. However, the caution would have to stand as I had agreed to accept it. I was also told that the advice I was given by the police prior to accepting the caution i.e. that by refusing the caution the case would have to go to court, was in fact incorrect.
    CRB checks should include court convictions only.

  7. Human says:

    Individuals who were cautioned by the police are left with a long life sentence without employment prospects when many of these individuals do not deserve such harsh sentences for a very minute mistake which some of this mistakes were probably made by politicians at one point in their lives. The difference is they have never got caught. Why should individuals who committed such minor offences should be given life sentence in an open society? I would rather be given prison sentences because at least in prison I have work to do and purpose to live. This society reminds me the medieval times where offenders were harshly punished for petty offences. What is the difference in our society today? To retain cautions indefinitely for petty offences is to mentally torture those who wish to move on with their lives and make a difference in society but instead many will be registered under the Mental Health Act for mental related illnesses.

  8. frank says:

    hi , my name is frank I was working in my care home I was accused of 3 allegation work with learning difficulties client. in 2003. 2004 was interview by the police at that time. I was very upset about it. this is showing on my crb now on other relevent .i have work in nursing for 20 years . I can’t get a job now . there is no justice at all. I am sick of it with this law.i try everything to have it removed and spent money aswell no chance. my life is over. no job going to get help from benefit now

  9. NJ says:

    I couldn’t agree more. I was misled by the police and agreed to a caution for pushing someone out of the way of a bottle which had been thrown at us. Under current legislation, this blight on my character has and will always p[revent me from doing the type of work I would love to do.
    Never agree to a caution, it is always better to take your chance in court (hind-sight is a wonderful thing).

  10. mandy coates says:

    i think that all people who accept a caution from the police is ruined because these crb checks put a blight on you for the rest of your life i think this is a disgrace and its ruining young peoples lives this needs sorting out now and all these foreigners are coming over here and getting our jobs and their criminal records are non existent

  11. Reg Waite says:

    Please excuse the length of this post….In my early life andfrom the age of 10-21 I was in a lot of bother with the police and convicted of many stupid crimes which I was punished for after the age of 21 I got married and sorted out my life and have never been in any bother since. I’m now 57, I have worked all my adult life in IT and I never had a problem getting jobs with various company’s over the years that is until now. 4 years ago I was made redundent and I have not worked since because every IT position I have applied for has required a CRB check which reveals all the crap of my youth and stops an employer taking a risk with me (even though there is no real risk). So from becoming a productive tax paying member of society I have now been reduced to claiming benefits and am now one of the so called Idle scroungers that people so easilly condem without knowing the true facts. The Government should get to grips with this descriminatory CRB system and use it only for what it was originally intended that is to protect Children and vulnerable citizens….I can’t see them doing that though as it has become another large revenue collection stream for them.

    It’s an unfair and totally unjust system especially for those of us that have strayed off the straight and narrow. How long should we be made to pay for our mistakes, and what right does anyone have to go prying into my past of 30 plus years ago.

  12. Ana kh says:

    Totally agree . I was given a caution for price swaping( first time ever done this as was going through severe depression) I was certainly not on the right frame of mind and also offered to pay it back straight away and sincerely apologised to store manager. I have been cash handling large amounts at work for over 20 years and have never done anything. Above 1 single caution is now going to ruin my new job prospects if I loose my current job even though I never done anything before and as I explained I was going through depression. Is there any way out of this now? A first time caution should not be given such a harsh punishment as things like this will make people turn from good to bad if the caution is preventing them from getting a job. What about all the rapists , money launderers and murderers walking on the streets free? Is there any way I can have this caution removed???

  13. Anon says:

    I agree minor convictions should be removed from the CRB and enhanced CRB. I received a conditional discharge technically not a conviction but it appears of the CRB. The system is crazy. People are being punished for minor errors in life. Employers are paranoid as well and so not understand the purpose of the CRB. The world has gone completely mad

  14. Anon says:

    im going through torture at the moment and cant see a good ending in me keeping my current job as my employer’s decided to do enhanced check on all staff. As I received a caution for “shoplifting” during depression (and having receipts for all other items) 4 yrs ago i reckon when it shows up i will loose my job of 7 yrs (which actually helps me stay sane)

  15. Edward ndou says:

    Crb cautions should be removed from crb because they really stopped from getting a job even though they was no charge and I never even spent 15 minutes in the police station explaining what happened as it was rediculous and worthy a waste of time.

  16. Edward ndou says:

    Crb cautions should be removed from crb because they really stopped me from getting a job even though they was no charge and I never even spent 15 minutes in the police station explaining what happened as it was rediculous and worthy a waste of time.

  17. D says:

    How can we go about getting these minor records removed from PNC and ACPO databases?
    This whole purpose of record keeping seems to be just another revenue generator!
    My research shows many people who accepted cautions under the advice of police officers at the time, were told the records would be deleted after a time period, between 5 – 20 years depending on offence (its now kept until you reach 100) the laws were changed again in 2008 advising the police to fully explain to the suspect the full consequences of accepting a police caution. this appears to be acknowledgement by the government that people accepting cautions previously were misinformed about the ramifications to their lives later.
    Who should be contacted to try and get these unfair and outdated records removed especially pre 2008???

Comment on this idea

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


Back to top