Repeal the CJ&IAct 2008 s49sch10 which treats cautions as ‘convictions’.

Section 49, Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act (2008) provides protection for spent cautions in Section 8a of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in England and Wales. 

In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Whilst some would argue that this is a good thing in that after 5 years the 'conviction' is spent and is non-declarable unless when applying for a non-exempt post,  I argue that it is treating those people with cautions as 'rehabilitated' 'convicts' and 'ex-offenders' when this is not the case.

Most often recipients of cautions are not 'ex-offenders', were not 'convicted' of any crime in a court of law and were not 'rehabilitated'. So why should they be treated as such in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of future employers? THIS IS WRONG.

People have been claiming quite rightly that their civil liberties are being blighted by the fact that all cautions and other non-conviction data are declared on CRB checks. So what do they do? They  treat them as 'convictions' which then become 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' but are still disclosable to most employers as they've expanded the list of occupations exempt from The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not provide recipients of cautions with any protection but instead labels them as 'ex-offenders' with 'convictions'.

WRONG.

UNTIL SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, ONLY THEN SHOULD THEY BE LABELLED AS AN EX-OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN REHABILITATED AND WHO HAS A STATUTORY CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A CAUTION IS NOT STATUTORY BUT INFORMAL, GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT BY A POLICEMAN WHO IN MANY CASES ADVISED OR CAJOLLED  THEM INTO 'ACCEPTING' IT AND WHICH WAS 'ACCEPTED' BY THE RECIPIENT OFTEN WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE AND NOT IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE PROCEDURES CAN BE ADHERED TO.

AS SUCH, NON-STATUTORY INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT APPLIED FOR.

This whole mess needs to be unwound, starting with:

1) Repeal Section 115(7)a and 115(7)b of the Police Act 1997 which states that 'relevant matters' which 'might be useful' 'ought to be included' in CRB checks,

2) Repeal Section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997 which states that cautions are a 'relevant matter'.

3) Repeal the numerous amendments made by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act which provide exemption of occupations from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

4) Repeal the Criminal & Justice Act 2008 S49,sch10 which states 'it protects cautions by treating them as 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' when in fact it treats cautions as 'convictions' and recipients as 'ex-offenders' who have or have been 'rehabilitated'.

5) Delete all non-conviction data including cautions, bind overs, reprimands and malicious hearsay from police databases that feed the CRB system and remove fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc.

In my view a caution is a caution, it was spent as soon as it was given.

Why is this idea important?

Section 49, Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act (2008) provides protection for spent cautions in Section 8a of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in England and Wales. 

In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Whilst some would argue that this is a good thing in that after 5 years the 'conviction' is spent and is non-declarable unless when applying for a non-exempt post,  I argue that it is treating those people with cautions as 'rehabilitated' 'convicts' and 'ex-offenders' when this is not the case.

Most often recipients of cautions are not 'ex-offenders', were not 'convicted' of any crime in a court of law and were not 'rehabilitated'. So why should they be treated as such in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of future employers? THIS IS WRONG.

People have been claiming quite rightly that their civil liberties are being blighted by the fact that all cautions and other non-conviction data are declared on CRB checks. So what do they do? They  treat them as 'convictions' which then become 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' but are still disclosable to most employers as they've expanded the list of occupations exempt from The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not provide recipients of cautions with any protection but instead labels them as 'ex-offenders' with 'convictions'.

WRONG.

UNTIL SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, ONLY THEN SHOULD THEY BE LABELLED AS AN EX-OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN REHABILITATED AND WHO HAS A STATUTORY CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A CAUTION IS NOT STATUTORY BUT INFORMAL, GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT BY A POLICEMAN WHO IN MANY CASES ADVISED OR CAJOLLED  THEM INTO 'ACCEPTING' IT AND WHICH WAS 'ACCEPTED' BY THE RECIPIENT OFTEN WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE AND NOT IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE PROCEDURES CAN BE ADHERED TO.

AS SUCH, NON-STATUTORY INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT APPLIED FOR.

This whole mess needs to be unwound, starting with:

1) Repeal Section 115(7)a and 115(7)b of the Police Act 1997 which states that 'relevant matters' which 'might be useful' 'ought to be included' in CRB checks,

2) Repeal Section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997 which states that cautions are a 'relevant matter'.

3) Repeal the numerous amendments made by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act which provide exemption of occupations from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

4) Repeal the Criminal & Justice Act 2008 S49,sch10 which states 'it protects cautions by treating them as 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' when in fact it treats cautions as 'convictions' and recipients as 'ex-offenders' who have or have been 'rehabilitated'.

5) Delete all non-conviction data including cautions, bind overs, reprimands and malicious hearsay from police databases that feed the CRB system and remove fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc.

In my view a caution is a caution, it was spent as soon as it was given.

The government MUST review CRB checks as well as the Vetting and Barring System

In the coalition government's manifesto ' The Coalition: Our Programme for Government' published in May 2010, it states, in Section 3: Civil Liberties, Page 11 :

We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

In order to do this the Government MUST review the information included in CRB checks as well as the effectiveness of the Vetting & Barring Scheme and arrive at the conclusion that only true convictions where a person has defended him/herself in a court of law yet has still been found guilty by tiral and jury are included in the checks made available to employers.

As cautions, reprimands, warnings etc do not fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, CRB checks currently provide no protection whatsoever for people's freedoms with the inclusion of NON-CONVICTION data held on Police databases. 

Instead, each time a CRB check is returned with non-conviction data, the subject is effectively forced to stand trial by his/her future employer without any ability to defend themselves. Forcing a person to explain themselves (if they get as far as interview) and thus discuss very private data in order to be deemed guilty or not by a future employer (not a judge in a court of law but joe bloggs)  is just MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG. Why not just set up public stocks or brand people across their foreheads as this procedure is archaic!

The only way to protect people's freedoms and also privacy (relying on future employers to not discuss very private and often unproven incidents is no protection at all is to have a blanket approach and that is to:

OMIT ALL NON-CONVICTION DATA (INCLUDING CAUTIONS, REPRIMANDS, WARNINGS, NFA's, OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, ETC) FOR EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR IMPLIED SEVERITY OF EVENTS MENTIONED.
 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

In the coalition government's manifesto ' The Coalition: Our Programme for Government' published in May 2010, it states, in Section 3: Civil Liberties, Page 11 :

We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

In order to do this the Government MUST review the information included in CRB checks as well as the effectiveness of the Vetting & Barring Scheme and arrive at the conclusion that only true convictions where a person has defended him/herself in a court of law yet has still been found guilty by tiral and jury are included in the checks made available to employers.

As cautions, reprimands, warnings etc do not fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, CRB checks currently provide no protection whatsoever for people's freedoms with the inclusion of NON-CONVICTION data held on Police databases. 

Instead, each time a CRB check is returned with non-conviction data, the subject is effectively forced to stand trial by his/her future employer without any ability to defend themselves. Forcing a person to explain themselves (if they get as far as interview) and thus discuss very private data in order to be deemed guilty or not by a future employer (not a judge in a court of law but joe bloggs)  is just MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG. Why not just set up public stocks or brand people across their foreheads as this procedure is archaic!

The only way to protect people's freedoms and also privacy (relying on future employers to not discuss very private and often unproven incidents is no protection at all is to have a blanket approach and that is to:

OMIT ALL NON-CONVICTION DATA (INCLUDING CAUTIONS, REPRIMANDS, WARNINGS, NFA's, OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, ETC) FOR EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR IMPLIED SEVERITY OF EVENTS MENTIONED.
 

 

 

Remove cautions from CRB Checks

Remove cautions from CRB checks

 

UNTIL A PERSON IS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE IN A COURT OF LAW THEY DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND AS SUCH ANY CAUTIONS (ADMINISTERED BY THE POLICE) OR MALICIOUS HEARSAY REPORTED TO THE POLICE MUST BE OMMITTED FROM CRB CHECKS.

PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE BEING DESTROYED.

Why is this idea important?

Remove cautions from CRB checks

 

UNTIL A PERSON IS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE IN A COURT OF LAW THEY DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND AS SUCH ANY CAUTIONS (ADMINISTERED BY THE POLICE) OR MALICIOUS HEARSAY REPORTED TO THE POLICE MUST BE OMMITTED FROM CRB CHECKS.

PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE BEING DESTROYED.