Supreme Court rejects government appeal on criminal record checks

Victoria Jones/PA Archive/PA Images

The Supreme Court has rejected a government appeal against a human rights ruling won by a group of people who claimed their minor past convictions held them back in life. 

The UK’s highest court ruled that having to disclose youth reprimands to an employer was incompatible with human rights legislation – so a child issued with a youth caution, for example, should not have to disclose this when applying for a job.

Supreme Court justices found that a revised criminal records disclosure scheme was “disproportionate” in two respects, and the government will now have to consider reforming employers’ and candidates’ legal obligations when disclosing past criminal convictions during the hiring process.

The decision upholds a 2017 ruling by the Court of Appeal, and rules that the disclosure of youth reprimands on DBS forms is “directly inconsistent” with their intended purpose as a diversion from the criminal justice system.

One claimant’s case was brought by the children’s charity Just for Kids Law, on behalf of a young person who challenged the policy of disclosing records of reprimands he received when he was 13 years old. He had been reprimanded for sexually assaulting two younger boys, which records show were carried out as “dares” and experimentation and the individual has not offended since. He has since been unable to apply for any job with an enhanced criminal records check.

While certain offences clearly should be disclosed to employers, it is plain common sense that a fair system should not unnecessarily blight the lives of people who are trying to get on in life by disclosing old, minor and irrelevant information which holds them back and stops them from reaching their potential” – Christopher Stacey, Unlock

Under current law, these reprimands would appear on standard and enhanced DBS checks until he is 100 years old. His legal team argued that this policy fails to treat children differently to adults and contravenes Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which affords the “right to a private and family life”.

Another claimant, a woman referred to in court as P, was charged with shoplifting a 99p book in 1999 while suffering from a then undiagnosed mental illness. P now wants to work as a teaching assistant, but with each application she is required to disclose her historic convictions, and by association also her mental health issues.

Enver Solomon, chief executive of Just for Kids Law, said of the judgment: “Our client should never have been given a criminal record that stays with him for life. This judgment makes clear that the disclosure of reprimands and cautions, the legal equivalent of a slap on the wrist, is disproportionate and damaging to the future rehabilitation of children, preventing them from moving on from their past.”

“There is now an overwhelming view shared by the higher courts and MPs that the government should act immediately to ensure no child who is given a caution ends up with a criminal record that stigmatises them for life. The government should also now conduct a wide-ranging review of the entire criminal records disclosure regime for children and young people.”

In October 2017, a parliamentary inquiry found that disclosure mechanisms for juvenile offences could fall short of the UK’s obligations on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, which campaigns for fair treatment of those with criminal convictions, said of today’s judgment:

“We are pleased the court has ruled that two aspects of the criminal records disclosure scheme are disproportionate and in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; in particular, the blanket rules which require the automatic disclosure of all convictions where a person has more than one conviction, and the requirement that some childhood cautions be disclosed indefinitely.

“This is an important ruling which stands to affect many thousands of people with old and minor criminal records who have been unnecessarily anchored to their past.”

This judgment makes clear that the disclosure of reprimands and cautions, the legal equivalent of a slap on the wrist, is disproportionate and damaging to the future rehabilitation of children” – Enver Solomon

He urged the government to take “prompt and considered action on the filtering system” and to carry out a fundamental review of the criminal records disclosure regime.

He wants ministers to consider removing the multiple convictions rule (which requires candidates to disclose all convictions if there is more than one on record), to reduce the list of offences that are not eligible to be filtered in job applications, and creating a distinct system for disclosing criminal records acquired in childhood, as well as a “more nuanced approach to those acquired in early adulthood”.

He added: “While certain offences clearly should be disclosed to employers, it is plain common sense that a fair system should not unnecessarily blight the lives of people who are trying to get on in life by disclosing old, minor and irrelevant information which holds them back and stops them from reaching their potential.

“A fair, proportionate and flexible filtering system should be developed which protects the public without unduly harming the ability of people to move forward positively with their lives.”

A government spokesperson said: “We have noted the Supreme Court judgment and will consider the ruling carefully before responding.”

Adele Downey, chief executive of the Disclosure and Barring Service, said: “In light of today’s judgement by the Supreme Court we will be working closely with the Home Office and Ministry of Justice and will agree with them the steps necessary to ensure we adhere to the findings of the judgement.”

11 Responses to Supreme Court rejects government appeal on criminal record checks

  1. Avatar
    Christine Hogg 30 Jan 2019 at 2:34 pm #

    Perhaps these young offenders should have thought about their criminal records may cause a problem with future employment

    • Avatar
      Paul Matthews 30 Jan 2019 at 8:53 pm #

      Simple and simplistic response without rationale or reason. Who better to explain to young people what they had to go through to help others. Don’t you just love the never give people a chance commentators

    • Avatar
      Beverley Rayner 30 Jan 2019 at 10:31 pm #

      Perhaps these young offenders had a hard start in life and deserve a second chance

    • Avatar
      Yvon Jones 30 Jan 2019 at 11:35 pm #

      For non-violent/non-sexual crimes, I think that where a person of any age, has paid the price for their misdemeanor/s, they deserve a chance to improve their lives and the lives of others by continuing on a good and moral path. It is not fair to make them wear a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives.

    • Avatar
      Christopher McFarlane Baxter 31 Jan 2019 at 10:20 am #

      Yes, absolutely, because when you’re 13 years old, you really take the time to think through the ramifications and repercussions of every action you might take, and make a rational, informed decision before proceeding.

    • Avatar
      Jeremy Barker 1 Feb 2019 at 11:32 am #

      When most people commit crimes matters like that are far from their thoughts. It is completely proper that things which happened years ago are wiped from the record.

      There also needs to be a massive change in employer attitudes. It is simply wrong that any employer legally entitled to a DBS check should require a “clean” record. They are supposed to exercise discretion which means they should carefully evaluate the risks that a conviction or caution give rise to and only refuse employment if the risks are clearly too great to be reasonably mitigated.

    • Avatar
      Simon 2 Feb 2019 at 11:24 pm #

      The UK is one of the only countries in the world to hold a criminal record over someone long after rehabilitation periods are over. It should be said that most (not all) young eople commit crime usually in relation to their circumstances. The crime should fit the punishment and once time time done move on.Also, its been disproven repeatedly that holding such records is any indication of criminal intent. It is the record itself that is the barrier and society’s view of it as noted within the comment above.

  2. Avatar
    Barry Shiel 30 Jan 2019 at 10:42 pm #

    What about persons who have never offended. Their lives are blighted due to processing, transmitting and disclosing of criminal records which belong to offenders. Because their personal data is recorded as alias data on offenders records, regardless of police/ courts etc, acknowledging the misuse?

  3. Avatar
    Notallblackarecriminal 1 Feb 2019 at 2:25 am #

    Police conned me to receive a caution of being drunk and disorderly while I was the victim in 2013.

    I have being and still in employment 14 consecutive years paying my tax. I work in a sensitive industry that requires criminal record disclose.

    I have lost over 5K on refuse naturalisation and lawyers fee. the police know am not a criminal but a black male stereotype we stand less chance.

    This is an important ruling. yes I believe criminal should be arrested and locked up if necessary but the police sometime make young black male criminal for nothing.

    So of us care we want to make a difference and we do male contribution; I will be taking on the police as I believe my caution was unlawful. to date I remember the officer appealing to me in my cell to sign and he will let me go.

  4. Avatar
    sylvia kenna 1 Feb 2019 at 8:43 am #

    So the decision is to ‘cover up’ or not be obliged to disclose offences as opposted to the alternative which is to allow employers to make their own decision based on the full facts. Interesting strategy. I wonder if the supreme court is going to adopt the same rules when it comes to providing evidence in order for the court to make a decision.

  5. Avatar
    June Summers Shaw 5 Feb 2019 at 11:30 am #

    I doubt that any of us thought of the consequences of our actions as a minor. That is why the criminal justice system does treat a child differently.
    If we are to support a legal system that believes in rehabilitation, why tether a child with a disadvantage for the rest of their life? That does not make sense.
    Yes, employers are supposed to look at the Disclosing and Barring check and make an informed decision as to whether the misdemeanour has any bearing on the post being offered. Does that happen? Not in my opinion and I work across many different organisations. It almost becomes ” the computer says no “.

Leave a Reply