Publication of cautions / minor offences and equal opportunities employment law

Is The Law Requiring The Publication Of Cautions / Minor Offences When Applying For A Job Incompatible With Equal Opportunities Employment Law?

Is the government’s policy or UK law requiring the publication of any cautions for minor offences when applying for a job incompatible with equal opportunities employment law which makes it illegal for a prospective employer to discriminate based on race?

For example, if a UK citizen with a caution for a minor offense will show up on DBS check for up to 6 years when applying for certain jobs in the UK. A German citizen, with exactly the same minor offence, committed at the same time will only have to declare that offense for 3 years when applying for the same job as the UK citizen. After the first 3 years there is a 3 year period when the UK citizen would be discriminated against. The German doesn’t need to declare, indeed his/her record has been deleted, whereas the UK citizen would have to declare.

No matter how much the government insists companies should not discriminate on this, and be fair when assessing such situations, there is undoubtedly a human reaction to knowing a candidate has a criminal record which will affect many employment decisions.

Why is this idea important?

Is The Law Requiring The Publication Of Cautions / Minor Offences When Applying For A Job Incompatible With Equal Opportunities Employment Law?

Is the government’s policy or UK law requiring the publication of any cautions for minor offences when applying for a job incompatible with equal opportunities employment law which makes it illegal for a prospective employer to discriminate based on race?

For example, if a UK citizen with a caution for a minor offense will show up on DBS check for up to 6 years when applying for certain jobs in the UK. A German citizen, with exactly the same minor offence, committed at the same time will only have to declare that offense for 3 years when applying for the same job as the UK citizen. After the first 3 years there is a 3 year period when the UK citizen would be discriminated against. The German doesn’t need to declare, indeed his/her record has been deleted, whereas the UK citizen would have to declare.

No matter how much the government insists companies should not discriminate on this, and be fair when assessing such situations, there is undoubtedly a human reaction to knowing a candidate has a criminal record which will affect many employment decisions.

Single Police caution must be removed from Enhanced CRB after 3 years

one- minor- single-first- mistake-misunderstanding and a police caution for life its completely unfair..this way caution becomes lifetime punishment..every day one has to live with caution…depression…humiliation…for single mistake for life..job prospect becomes limited lead to frustration and unemployment..UK police… Government must give positive chance for single -minor mistakes cautions and must not punish any one to suffer every day and night with it ..else caution is life time punishment not slap on wrist and ruining life for single mistake is not right – single caution must be removed from Enhanced CRB after 3 years to allow and support victim of caution to live normal life and not made them suffer for lifetime..its unfair if you don’t give enough support and chance to live normal life after single mistake

Why is this idea important?

one- minor- single-first- mistake-misunderstanding and a police caution for life its completely unfair..this way caution becomes lifetime punishment..every day one has to live with caution…depression…humiliation…for single mistake for life..job prospect becomes limited lead to frustration and unemployment..UK police… Government must give positive chance for single -minor mistakes cautions and must not punish any one to suffer every day and night with it ..else caution is life time punishment not slap on wrist and ruining life for single mistake is not right – single caution must be removed from Enhanced CRB after 3 years to allow and support victim of caution to live normal life and not made them suffer for lifetime..its unfair if you don’t give enough support and chance to live normal life after single mistake

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.

Remove cautions from CRB

Cautions are blighting people's job prospects and ruining lives. I received a caution after my abusive ex-husband reported me to the police for common assault.  He had threatened my life and the lives of my children and had assaulted me on several occasions (including when pregnant).  Whilst feeling under threat and duress I I used reasonable force to remove him from my house.  I ended up with a caution (very much sold to me by the police) after spending hours without food in the police station.  I was too scared of the consequences of going to court , but now very much regret having my day in court.  The police did not charge my ex-husband despite him admitting to kicking me whilst pregnant in his statement!

I have a PhD and hoped to train as a teacher (my ex knew this and knew the consequences of his malicious complaint).  I do not want to have to discuss my appalling marriage every time I apply for a job, so I only apply for those that do not require a CRB. These tend to be low paid jobs.

My ex-husband also got cautioned, but due to his career will never need a CRB check…

I should never have been cautioned in the first place. Now my earning potential has plumetted and my ability to forge a career is pretty much ruined. 

Cautions were supposed to be a 'telling off', not a black mark that sticks for life,

Remove cautions fom CRB checks and allow people such as myself to have the career opportunities that we deserve.

Why is this idea important?

Cautions are blighting people's job prospects and ruining lives. I received a caution after my abusive ex-husband reported me to the police for common assault.  He had threatened my life and the lives of my children and had assaulted me on several occasions (including when pregnant).  Whilst feeling under threat and duress I I used reasonable force to remove him from my house.  I ended up with a caution (very much sold to me by the police) after spending hours without food in the police station.  I was too scared of the consequences of going to court , but now very much regret having my day in court.  The police did not charge my ex-husband despite him admitting to kicking me whilst pregnant in his statement!

I have a PhD and hoped to train as a teacher (my ex knew this and knew the consequences of his malicious complaint).  I do not want to have to discuss my appalling marriage every time I apply for a job, so I only apply for those that do not require a CRB. These tend to be low paid jobs.

My ex-husband also got cautioned, but due to his career will never need a CRB check…

I should never have been cautioned in the first place. Now my earning potential has plumetted and my ability to forge a career is pretty much ruined. 

Cautions were supposed to be a 'telling off', not a black mark that sticks for life,

Remove cautions fom CRB checks and allow people such as myself to have the career opportunities that we deserve.

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.

Low-cost tribunals for reviewing police cautions

From the experience of a friend of mine I believe many people have been pressured into accepting police cautions by target-chasing police, for trivial offences or where they were innocent or even a victim of crime. (The last is certainly possible in cases of domestic violence, here if an incident is reported police they are under pressure to issue a sanction against someone, and they may not care too much who it is.). The legacy of these poisons relations between the police and the public. They are administered without proper safeguards by officers who need a success and accused people may be 'defended' by duty solicitors on fixed fees with no particular incentive to put themselves out for their clients.  They are administered so easily and are so difficult to remove: it involves a judicial review for which no public funding is available and is either ferociously expensive or, if the applicant is unrepresented, very difficult.   I am sure many vulnerable people have accepted cautions just to get out of the police station, without realising the consequences until later..  If they are administered so easily they ought to be reviewed easily, by people independent of the police, lay people, similar to magistrates.  I am sure there would be no shortage of ideas in the ‘Big Society’.  Applicants could pay a modest fee, to deter trivial applications.  Perhaps also there should be a cooling-off period for those who have been pressured into accepting cautions.  If cautions were judged by the same standards as the selling of financial services I am sure there would be found to be many cases of mis-selling.

I invite the administrator to contact me directly if they wish to know more detail about the case which has caused me to reflect on these issues.

Why is this idea important?

From the experience of a friend of mine I believe many people have been pressured into accepting police cautions by target-chasing police, for trivial offences or where they were innocent or even a victim of crime. (The last is certainly possible in cases of domestic violence, here if an incident is reported police they are under pressure to issue a sanction against someone, and they may not care too much who it is.). The legacy of these poisons relations between the police and the public. They are administered without proper safeguards by officers who need a success and accused people may be 'defended' by duty solicitors on fixed fees with no particular incentive to put themselves out for their clients.  They are administered so easily and are so difficult to remove: it involves a judicial review for which no public funding is available and is either ferociously expensive or, if the applicant is unrepresented, very difficult.   I am sure many vulnerable people have accepted cautions just to get out of the police station, without realising the consequences until later..  If they are administered so easily they ought to be reviewed easily, by people independent of the police, lay people, similar to magistrates.  I am sure there would be no shortage of ideas in the ‘Big Society’.  Applicants could pay a modest fee, to deter trivial applications.  Perhaps also there should be a cooling-off period for those who have been pressured into accepting cautions.  If cautions were judged by the same standards as the selling of financial services I am sure there would be found to be many cases of mis-selling.

I invite the administrator to contact me directly if they wish to know more detail about the case which has caused me to reflect on these issues.

POLICE CAUTION

Police cautions should not show up on CRB or enhanced CRB checks after a short period of time i.e. 2/3 years.

The current system means they will show up for life.

This is extremely unfair and disappointing.

From personal circumstances, I received a police caution whilst at university for a one off offence that was totally out of character. Fast forward two years and I am having extreme difficulty in pursuing a career as a teacher.

I feel police cautions should not be included in CRB checks and Enhanced CRB checks after a short period of time, unless the crime for which the offence was commited is extremely serious i.e. sex crime. However, in this circumstance a police caution is unlikely to be administered anyway.

Why is this idea important?

Police cautions should not show up on CRB or enhanced CRB checks after a short period of time i.e. 2/3 years.

The current system means they will show up for life.

This is extremely unfair and disappointing.

From personal circumstances, I received a police caution whilst at university for a one off offence that was totally out of character. Fast forward two years and I am having extreme difficulty in pursuing a career as a teacher.

I feel police cautions should not be included in CRB checks and Enhanced CRB checks after a short period of time, unless the crime for which the offence was commited is extremely serious i.e. sex crime. However, in this circumstance a police caution is unlikely to be administered anyway.

Remove old and trivial convictions

Please remove old and trivial convictions from the CRB.  I mean things like convictions for credit violations, juvenile theft, using bad cheques or minor deception.  Why not give these people another chance in later life if their records have remained unchanged for, say, 10 years. 

Why is this idea important?

Please remove old and trivial convictions from the CRB.  I mean things like convictions for credit violations, juvenile theft, using bad cheques or minor deception.  Why not give these people another chance in later life if their records have remained unchanged for, say, 10 years. 

Delete DNA for people who have only been cautioned

I think it is wrong that somebody with Simple Caution should be retained on the database for life.

Remember, people who have been cautioned have not been arrested, have not been charged, have not been to court, and do not have a criminal record.

It is my opinion that those cautioned should have their details (DNA, fingerprints, photographs) removed from the database at the point at which their caution ‘expires’ and is ’stepped down’ on the database.

Why is this idea important?

I think it is wrong that somebody with Simple Caution should be retained on the database for life.

Remember, people who have been cautioned have not been arrested, have not been charged, have not been to court, and do not have a criminal record.

It is my opinion that those cautioned should have their details (DNA, fingerprints, photographs) removed from the database at the point at which their caution ‘expires’ and is ’stepped down’ on the database.

Cautions on CRBs

I thougth that CRB checks were to protect children from paedophiles. I know someone who had a caution for having a small amount of cannabis at a music festival as a 18 year old. This was a mistake, and he has learnt a hard lesson as he has been penalised for this in the jobs market even though he has gone onto get a Degree and does not have a drugs problem at all. Is it necessary for this and other minor cautions to go on record? The police should be able to use their discretion a bit more and give one off offences a 'ticking off' without it blighting their lives and ruining their chances. The majority of youths make a mistake and learn form it, they should not be criminalised.

Why is this idea important?

I thougth that CRB checks were to protect children from paedophiles. I know someone who had a caution for having a small amount of cannabis at a music festival as a 18 year old. This was a mistake, and he has learnt a hard lesson as he has been penalised for this in the jobs market even though he has gone onto get a Degree and does not have a drugs problem at all. Is it necessary for this and other minor cautions to go on record? The police should be able to use their discretion a bit more and give one off offences a 'ticking off' without it blighting their lives and ruining their chances. The majority of youths make a mistake and learn form it, they should not be criminalised.

The Police caution

That the current Police Caution should be revised and the phrase,

 

' but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned,something which you may later rely on in court'   be removed

Why is this idea important?

That the current Police Caution should be revised and the phrase,

 

' but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned,something which you may later rely on in court'   be removed

Criminal record for small amounts of drugs

I think that we should stop criminalising people for the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal consumption and concentrate our efforts on tackling drug dealers and importers coupled with education to reduce the problem.

Giving people criminal records in their teens and early twenties does not act as a deterrent and simply makes it harder to get a job in the future making them more likely to feel hopeless and, guess what, take more drugs!

Maybe being sent for enforcable "rehab" but with no criminal record would be a good approach for people caught with small amounts?

Why is this idea important?

I think that we should stop criminalising people for the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal consumption and concentrate our efforts on tackling drug dealers and importers coupled with education to reduce the problem.

Giving people criminal records in their teens and early twenties does not act as a deterrent and simply makes it harder to get a job in the future making them more likely to feel hopeless and, guess what, take more drugs!

Maybe being sent for enforcable "rehab" but with no criminal record would be a good approach for people caught with small amounts?