until the end of 2006 it was possible to apply to have  one's criminal record erased in the case of minor and long-ago offences. now these offences, although they may only appear on a CRB at police discretion, remain on the PNC until 100 years after the death of the subject.

Why is this idea important?

i think it's important because it means that people who may have very minor offences on their record now find it extremely difficult to travel to the USA. we hear cases like that of a 65 year old man been refused entry because he had committed a minor breach of the law with an air-gun when he was 14. There have been many similar such instances and, whilst one appreciates the importance of cross-border security, it seems clear that many basically honest, law-abidng people are finding it difficult, inconvenient and expensive to enter the US. Due to the nature of the visa-waiver programme, a UK citizen travelling to america who has been forced to apply for a visa, even if successful, is virtually waving a flag saying 'i'm a criminal – strip search me and hold me in immigration for nine hours!'. In the meantime, true criminals and terrorists merrily skip from country to country with false identities and forged papers.

One Reply to “repeal the retention of minor convictions on the police national computer”

  1. I am in the same position I was arrested when I was a young boy still at school. I was arrested for shoplifting some sweets and was given a reprimand by Police. I was told by the issuing officer of this reprimand that it would be removed from my record upon my 18th birthday. they recently changed this ruling so that the reprimand stays on my record until I am 100 years old. don’t get me wrong I understand what I did was completely wrong and unjustified. it sounds silly but I have always wanted to be a Police Officer and did something very silly as a juvenile. When I reached 18 I applied to become a special constable, I passed the initial paper sift and went for my written assessment and interview, I then received an email from the police a few days later informing me that my application has been terminated due to the grounds of a conviction reject. I argued the point that a reprimand is not a conviction and merely a formal slap on the wrist and is not as bad as receiving a caution. I was then told by the police that they consider a reprimand as a conviction as it is an admission of being guilty of the offence. I think it is disgusting that the police can say one thing and do the other. I was shocked to find out that they changed the ruling and that this silly mistake would ruin the rest of my life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *