FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) calls for repealo of Section 115 Police Act

I am national secretary of FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) www.factuk.org and run their help line. Virtually every day someone rings us over CRB issues affecting Enhanced Certificates of Disclosure. 

At present the law allows Chief Constables to share police intelligence with prospective employers for individuals who require an enhanced certificate of disclosure,

Enhanced CRB's are required by all teachers, care workers, health care professionals, youth workers, workers engaged in community activities with children and/or vulnerable adults/groups – vast numbers of people.

The Chief Constable has absolute discretion to share what ever information he/she feels is relevant. This could include mere gossip, information shared with the police by other agencies e.g social services, or information gathered by the police in the course of their work and irrespective of whether the prospective employer was involved in criminal activity or not.

As a result the police now routinely record the fact that an allegation was made against the prospective employee on enhanced CRBs even though they may have been cleared of any wrong doing by an employer or by a Court.

They also routinely record the fact that a person appeared before a Court even if he/she was found not guilty and was told they leave the Court with their reputation intact. 

Adverse comments on a CRB basically result in that person being unemployable. What is needed is complete repeal of Section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997 or some kind of system which allows for only such information to be placed on it for a limited time (as is the case in the rehab of offenders act)and provides for a proper appeal process. At the moment all you can do is make representation about the content of the disclosure which is invariably ignored. There is no right of appeal. 

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WHICH AFFECTS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR AND FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. 


For further information you might like to read the report of the Children, Schools and Families Subcommittee Report in 2009 which touched on indiscipline in schools which referred to this matter and the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Past Abuse in Children's Homes (on which David Cameron served) which was published in 2002. Both these reports highlight some of the injustices felt by carers and teachers on these issues. 

Our organisation FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers)would be pleased to provide further information mailto:sec@factuk.org

Why is this idea important?

I am national secretary of FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) www.factuk.org and run their help line. Virtually every day someone rings us over CRB issues affecting Enhanced Certificates of Disclosure. 

At present the law allows Chief Constables to share police intelligence with prospective employers for individuals who require an enhanced certificate of disclosure,

Enhanced CRB's are required by all teachers, care workers, health care professionals, youth workers, workers engaged in community activities with children and/or vulnerable adults/groups – vast numbers of people.

The Chief Constable has absolute discretion to share what ever information he/she feels is relevant. This could include mere gossip, information shared with the police by other agencies e.g social services, or information gathered by the police in the course of their work and irrespective of whether the prospective employer was involved in criminal activity or not.

As a result the police now routinely record the fact that an allegation was made against the prospective employee on enhanced CRBs even though they may have been cleared of any wrong doing by an employer or by a Court.

They also routinely record the fact that a person appeared before a Court even if he/she was found not guilty and was told they leave the Court with their reputation intact. 

Adverse comments on a CRB basically result in that person being unemployable. What is needed is complete repeal of Section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997 or some kind of system which allows for only such information to be placed on it for a limited time (as is the case in the rehab of offenders act)and provides for a proper appeal process. At the moment all you can do is make representation about the content of the disclosure which is invariably ignored. There is no right of appeal. 

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WHICH AFFECTS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR AND FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. 


For further information you might like to read the report of the Children, Schools and Families Subcommittee Report in 2009 which touched on indiscipline in schools which referred to this matter and the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Past Abuse in Children's Homes (on which David Cameron served) which was published in 2002. Both these reports highlight some of the injustices felt by carers and teachers on these issues. 

Our organisation FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers)would be pleased to provide further information mailto:sec@factuk.org

CRB checks MUST be abolished as they are not part of the Justice System

CRB checks are wholly inappropriate and the legislation and system MUST be abolished immediately:

A. It'll cut overheads – which we can't afford

B. Criminal activities in Britain are dealt with by the Justice system. CRB checks are indicative of the failed justice system we have. Get that fixed and CRB checks will not be necessary.

C. It works on the 'guilty until proven innocent' basis – opposing traditional British Justice

D. Everyone is penalised (initially) for misdemeanours of the few.

etc.

Why is this idea important?

CRB checks are wholly inappropriate and the legislation and system MUST be abolished immediately:

A. It'll cut overheads – which we can't afford

B. Criminal activities in Britain are dealt with by the Justice system. CRB checks are indicative of the failed justice system we have. Get that fixed and CRB checks will not be necessary.

C. It works on the 'guilty until proven innocent' basis – opposing traditional British Justice

D. Everyone is penalised (initially) for misdemeanours of the few.

etc.

repeal the retention of minor convictions on the police national computer

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?

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.

At the Chief officers discretion Police Act 1997 Section 113 A & B

Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.

This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)

The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.

( so why have the CPS?)

Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.

Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.

You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.

And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.

This is a massive injustice.

They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.

A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.

The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is  ridicolous.

It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.

However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true

Why is this idea important?

Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.

This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)

The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.

( so why have the CPS?)

Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.

Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.

You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.

And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.

This is a massive injustice.

They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.

A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.

The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is  ridicolous.

It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.

However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true

old cautions should not appear on an enhanced CRB

If a teacher had a caution for shoplifing or using a train without a pass when say they were 16 they have to declare it even after 50 years later if they go for a job.If it is stepped down it shows up in the "other relevant information". Surely young people make mistakes and this should not be held against them for the rest of their working life. Most employers want a clean CRB.  

Why is this idea important?

If a teacher had a caution for shoplifing or using a train without a pass when say they were 16 they have to declare it even after 50 years later if they go for a job.If it is stepped down it shows up in the "other relevant information". Surely young people make mistakes and this should not be held against them for the rest of their working life. Most employers want a clean CRB.