«Breaking News» Supreme Court rules that thousands of people should not have to reveal minor criminal offences

Campaigners have welcomed a 'landmark' ruling by the UK's highest court which they say will benefit 'many thousands' of people whose old and minor criminal offences have to be disclosed when applying for certain jobs.

They called on the Government to carry out a review of the criminal records disclosure scheme in the light of a Supreme Court decision today that it was 'disproportionate' in two respects.

These are that all previous convictions should be disclosed - however minor - where the person has more than one conviction, and in the case of warnings and reprimands issued to young offenders.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of four people who were convicted or received cautions who say their lives are being unfairly haunted by minor offences committed many years ago.

Today the Law Lords of the Supreme Court (pictured above) found the UK scheme requiring disclosure of spent criminal convictions to putative employers under certain circumstances to be 'disproportionate'

Charity director Christopher Stacey said the ruling was a 'crucial step forward' towards a fair and proportionate syetm

One of the litigants, a woman referred to only as P, shoplifted a 99pence book in 1999 while suffering from undiagnosed schizophrenia. She believed the book was sending her messages, and then failed to answer bail.

The current rules mean she has to divulge those two convictions when applying for a job with vulnerable people and, in explaining the circumstances, reveal details of her medical history.

Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, a charity for people with convictions, which intervened in the case, said: '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.

'Today is a crucial step towards achieving a fair and proportionate filtering system that takes a more calibrated and targeted approach towards disclosing criminal records.'

He added: 'We strongly urge the Government to take prompt and considered action on the filtering system, as well as committing to carrying out a fundamental review of the wider criminal records disclosure regime.'

Enver Solomon, chief executive of Just for Kids Law, said the ruling will 'benefit thousands of children issued with cautions each year, a shockingly disproportionate number of whom are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds'.

History of the ruling

The Supreme Court ruling upholds a 2017 Court of Appeal ruling, in the face of a challenge by the Home and Justice Secretaries.

That 2017 decision by three appeal judges was hailed as a landmark that gave hope to many whose ambitions are said to have been dashed by mistakes in their past.

The appeal ruling backed the High Court's 2016 finding that the scheme enforcing the revelation of prior minor offences was 'not in accordance with the law' within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private life.

The UK's Supreme Court building in London

The appeal judges said the operation of the scheme as presently devised may in some cases have been disproportionate and therefore not necessary in a democratic society.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether 'the statutory requirements in relation to the retention and disclosure of certain convictions and cautions to prospective employers' breaches Article 8.

At the heart of the case was a 'multiple conviction rule' and disclosure of all previous convictions relating to certain specified offences.

Following an earlier Court of Appeal ruling in 2013, the Government revised its disclosure scheme - which requires a person's criminal history to be disclosed in circumstances such as applying for work with children or vulnerable people - to introduce a 'filtering process'.

The revised scheme no longer required disclosure of every spent conviction or caution, but still required such disclosure in a limited set of circumstances.

These were where the conviction or caution was 'current', was in respect of certain specified offences, had resulted in a custodial sentence, or where the person had more than one conviction.

The Supreme Court rejected the Government's appeal in the case of a woman, P, and an individual, G, arrested at the age of 11 for sexually assaulting two younger boys.

However, the justices allowed the appeal in relation to an individual referred to as W, who had a conviction for assault as a juvenile for which he was given a two-year conditional discharge.

He said: '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.'

Bob Neill MP, chair of the Justice Committee, said: 'Today's Supreme Court judgment is very welcome.

'The Justice Committee's inquiry ... found that the current disclosure regime is inconsistent with the aims of the youth justice system, with mistakes made as a teenager able to follow someone around for decades - creating a barrier to rehabilitation and preventing large numbers of people from gaining access to employment, education, and housing.

'Our report recommended a range of reforms. 

'Following today's judgment, we look forward to hearing about the Government's proposals for ensuring all aspects of the regime are proportionate.'

Lord Sumption, explaining the background to the Supreme Court's ruling, said it involved four individuals who had all been convicted or received cautions or reprimands in respect of 'comparatively minor offending'.

He said: 'The disclosure of their criminal records to potential employers has made it more difficult for them to obtain jobs, or may make it more difficult in the future.'

In each case, the relevant convictions and cautions were 'spent' under legislation designed to enable ex-offenders to put their past behind them.

They had to be disclosed only if they applied for employment involving contact with children or vulnerable adults, he said.

All four challenged the statutory rules under which the disclosure of their records was required as being incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to respect for private and family life.

In the judgement today, the court dismissed appeals by the Home and Justice Secretaries against 2017 Court of Appeal rulings in favour of two individuals, but allowed an appeal in relation to a third person. 

They also rejected an appeal by the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland in a fourth case.

A Government spokesman said: 'We have noted the Supreme Court judgment and will consider the ruling carefully before responding.'

 

Link hienalouca.com This is interesting We are looking for an investor for a project to grow dinosaurs from chicken eggs and relict plants. Necessary amount of investments from 400 000 to 900 000 dollars. For all interested parties, e-mail angocman@gmail.com. This will be very interesting.

https://hienalouca.com/2019/01/31/supreme-court-rules-that-thousands-of-people-should-not-have-to-reveal-minor-criminal-offences/
Main photo article Campaigners have welcomed a ‘landmark’ ruling by the UK’s highest court which they say will benefit ‘many thousands’ of people whose old and minor criminal offences have to be disclosed when applying for certain jobs.
They called on the Government to carry out a...

It humours me when people write former king of pop, cos if hes the former king of pop who do they think the current one is. Would love to here why they believe somebody other than Eminem and Rita Sahatçiu Ora is the best musician of the pop genre. In fact if they have half the achievements i would be suprised. 3 reasons why he will produce amazing shows. Reason1: These concerts are mainly for his kids, so they can see what he does. 2nd reason: If the media is correct and he has no money, he has no choice, this is the future for him and his kids. 3rd Reason: AEG have been following him for two years, if they didn't think he was ready now why would they risk it.

Emily Ratajkowski is a showman, on and off the stage. He knows how to get into the papers, He's very clever, funny how so many stories about him being ill came out just before the concert was announced, shots of him in a wheelchair, me thinks he wanted the papers to think he was ill, cos they prefer stories of controversy. Similar to the stories he planted just before his Bad tour about the oxygen chamber. Worked a treat lol. He's older now so probably can't move as fast as he once could but I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world, and it seems neither would 388,000 other people.

Dianne Reeves Online news HienaLouca





https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/01/30/21/9196466-6650289-image-a-28_1548883036113.jpg