Remove Gross Indecency Convictions from all records

The European Court of Human Rights in the case ADT versus The UK (July 2000) found the old gross indecency law (men who have sex with other men – consenting adult sex) to be contravene human rights.

The UK government repealed the gross indecency law, which only applied to gay male sex, in December 2000. Yet those historic convictions remain in place on police and court records to be used over and over again to perpetuate the discrimination against gay men who engaged in consensual adult sex.

Amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (which is in the Coalition Agreement) does nothing to remove those records from the PNC, court records, and other local police records -and DNA,  fingerprint and photo databases.

Remove all records relating to the decriminalised offence of gross indecency.

Why is this idea important?

The European Court of Human Rights in the case ADT versus The UK (July 2000) found the old gross indecency law (men who have sex with other men – consenting adult sex) to be contravene human rights.

The UK government repealed the gross indecency law, which only applied to gay male sex, in December 2000. Yet those historic convictions remain in place on police and court records to be used over and over again to perpetuate the discrimination against gay men who engaged in consensual adult sex.

Amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (which is in the Coalition Agreement) does nothing to remove those records from the PNC, court records, and other local police records -and DNA,  fingerprint and photo databases.

Remove all records relating to the decriminalised offence of gross indecency.

Removal of All SPENT Criminal Records from PNC, etc

If British society truly believes in rehabilitation (and I often doubt it does) then when a conviction becomes SPENT  the record should be removed from the PNC, local police databases, IDENT 1 fingerprint and photograph databases.

The weeding of this information will save money. And it would allow those individuals who have rehabilitated themselves to move on with their lives -and contribute to this new "Big Society" that the government talks about.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is outdated and needs to be brought up to date to reflect CRB, ISA, ECHR (Human Rights Laws).

Furthermore, court records must also be subject to weeding – fully subject to the Data Protection Act.

 

Why is this idea important?

If British society truly believes in rehabilitation (and I often doubt it does) then when a conviction becomes SPENT  the record should be removed from the PNC, local police databases, IDENT 1 fingerprint and photograph databases.

The weeding of this information will save money. And it would allow those individuals who have rehabilitated themselves to move on with their lives -and contribute to this new "Big Society" that the government talks about.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is outdated and needs to be brought up to date to reflect CRB, ISA, ECHR (Human Rights Laws).

Furthermore, court records must also be subject to weeding – fully subject to the Data Protection Act.

 

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

Change the rehabilitation of offenders act that anyone, irrespective of sentence, has a rehabiltation period. Due to the 30 month ruling, people sentenced to over 30 months cannot get home insurance, car insurance, jobs etc due to having to declare unspent convictions.

If a person sentenced to 29 months and 30 days can be rehabilitated how can a person, sentenced for the same crime, to a sentence of 30 months or over, not be rehabilitated. If a person over 30 months sentence cannot be rehabilitated then they should not be released back into the community. This government wants people off unemployment and into jobs then they are going to have to change the Rehabilitation of offenders act that any sentence has a rehabiltation period of non offending. one in every four people in the UK has a criminal record but a chance has to be given to people who are rehabilitated or whats the point.

Why is this idea important?

Change the rehabilitation of offenders act that anyone, irrespective of sentence, has a rehabiltation period. Due to the 30 month ruling, people sentenced to over 30 months cannot get home insurance, car insurance, jobs etc due to having to declare unspent convictions.

If a person sentenced to 29 months and 30 days can be rehabilitated how can a person, sentenced for the same crime, to a sentence of 30 months or over, not be rehabilitated. If a person over 30 months sentence cannot be rehabilitated then they should not be released back into the community. This government wants people off unemployment and into jobs then they are going to have to change the Rehabilitation of offenders act that any sentence has a rehabiltation period of non offending. one in every four people in the UK has a criminal record but a chance has to be given to people who are rehabilitated or whats the point.

Make the offence of Gross Indecency subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

An act of homosexuality in a public toilet was deemed an act of Gross Indecency in 1975.  Anyone convicted in the Mill Hill Police area by the homophobic Officer who used to stand on milk crates outside the toilet window and who went on to frighten men to plead guilty as I did have suffered for years.  Gross Indecency is seen as a sexual offense and there is no 'good behaviour' slate-cleaning as a sexual offence is not subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders provisions, even what today might be considered a minor one.

So 35 years later, I must declare all the time I have a criminal record, I am prevented from doing any form of volentary work as a CRB check is required and that which I was doing, one for 25 years, I have had to give up as CRB checks are gradually introduced into every sphere.

I have not re offended, I have had no form of complaint against me since 1975 yet I am unable to be 'forgiven' and start a new life.  As things are, I will carry it to the grave despite my actual inocense, but that is not a consideration as the offense is a matter of public record.

Why is this idea important?

An act of homosexuality in a public toilet was deemed an act of Gross Indecency in 1975.  Anyone convicted in the Mill Hill Police area by the homophobic Officer who used to stand on milk crates outside the toilet window and who went on to frighten men to plead guilty as I did have suffered for years.  Gross Indecency is seen as a sexual offense and there is no 'good behaviour' slate-cleaning as a sexual offence is not subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders provisions, even what today might be considered a minor one.

So 35 years later, I must declare all the time I have a criminal record, I am prevented from doing any form of volentary work as a CRB check is required and that which I was doing, one for 25 years, I have had to give up as CRB checks are gradually introduced into every sphere.

I have not re offended, I have had no form of complaint against me since 1975 yet I am unable to be 'forgiven' and start a new life.  As things are, I will carry it to the grave despite my actual inocense, but that is not a consideration as the offense is a matter of public record.