job centre CRB check?

Rochdale_Guy

Because if you were arrested for something and not charged or taken to court, why should it show up up?

A person could have done nothing wrong and is now tarnished by their incompetence.

browneyedbazzi

Rochdale_Guy wrote: »

Because if you were arrested for something and not charged or taken to court, why should it show up up?

A person could have done nothing wrong and is now tarnished by their incompetence.

An arrest should show up because it happened and is a fact. The fact that the arrest didn't lead to a charge also shows up. What you seem to be worried about is how the facts may be interpreted or used and that is an entirely separate issue to them being recorded.

As I mentioned in my previous post, while many things that wouldn't show up on a basic disclosure will show up on a PNC check, authorities are not allowed to take those things into account when making a decision about things like licenses etc. The framework for making most decisions includes restrictions on the information that can be considered when making the decision and if things are taken into account that the framework says should not be then the decision would almost certainly be overturned.

The information on PNC is important and serves many purposes. There are also very strict controls on who can access information on PNC and how that information is used (police officers and staff have in the past gone to jail for inappropriately accessing information on PNC, so it is taken very seriously). If you want to learn more about PNC the link below might be of interest.
http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10508.htm

System

The problem with a PNC SAR printout is that it does not take in to account the Rehailitation of Offenders Act and any spent convictions will also be shown. May be more pertinent if you intend to go for a job that requires an enhanced CRB but can be a hindrance otherwise as it will give employers information to which they are not entitled.

The conviction may be spent under ROA but if an employer sees it they will act on it (human nature)

Rochdale_Guy

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

An arrest should show up because it happened and is a fact. The fact that the arrest didn't lead to a charge also shows up. What you seem to be worried about is how the facts may be interpreted or used and that is an entirely separate issue to them being recorded.

As I mentioned in my previous post, while many things that wouldn't show up on a basic disclosure will show up on a PNC check, authorities are not allowed to take those things into account when making a decision about things like licenses etc. The framework for making most decisions includes restrictions on the information that can be considered when making the decision and if things are taken into account that the framework says should not be then the decision would almost certainly be overturned.

The information on PNC is important and serves many purposes. There are also very strict controls on who can access information on PNC and how that information is used (police officers and staff have in the past gone to jail for inappropriately accessing information on PNC, so it is taken very seriously). If you want to learn more about PNC the link below might be of interest.
http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10508.htm

Thanks, so if someone applied for the £10 SAR, if there is anything about them on the PNC, it will show up and state they were arrested and would say why so, and also that no charges were brought, or an NFA (No Further Action) was issued - if that was what happened?

What if this person was fingerprinted, had a DNA swab taken and also photographed (as I believe is the norm for anyone arrested), then released with no charge (NFA)?

Can they get their details taken off the PNC? Seems mighty unfair for the innocent people who are wrongly arrested and released then have this on their record until they die, along with their mugshot, DNA and fingerprints on the PNC.

If you're not guilty as you never did anything, all this should be fairly wiped clean? Yes/No?

I think yes..... but cue avalanche of disagreement

Rochdale_Guy

Anyone on here ever done a SAR?

browneyedbazzi

!!!!!! wrote: »

The problem with a PNC SAR printout is that it does not take in to account the Rehailitation of Offenders Act and any spent convictions will also be shown. May be more pertinent if you intend to go for a job that requires an enhanced CRB but can be a hindrance otherwise as it will give employers information to which they are not entitled.

The conviction may be spent under ROA but if an employer sees it they will act on it (human nature)

The OP is enquiring about obtaining a personal licence to sell alcohol, (not providing a crb for an employer) so no employer will see the PNC print. The licensing authority will see all of the information on the PNC check but can only take specific information (unspent convictions for relevant offences as defined by the Licensing Act 2003) into account when making a decision about whether or not to grant a licence.

Rochdale Guy - There have been court cases regarding retention of DNA taken when people are arrested and then not charged/convicted of an offence. I'm not a specialist in this area of law but last I heard there was a judgement saying that DNA for people who weren't charged/convicted shouldn't be retained. I don't think there's any similar ruling in relation to arrest details stored on PNC.

Also, I completely disagree with your assessment that an arrest that does not lead to a charge is 'incompetence'. The police (and others who are tasked with investigating crimes) are required by law to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry when investigating a crime. This will often lead to people being arrested and questioned then not charged...because their answers to questions cleared them of the offence, other evidence came to light proving guilt of another etc.

Rochdale_Guy

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Rochdale Guy - There have been court cases regarding retention of DNA taken when people are arrested and then not charged/convicted of an offence. I'm not a specialist in this area of law but last I heard there was a judgement saying that DNA for people who weren't charged/convicted shouldn't be retained. I don't think there's any similar ruling in relation to arrest details stored on PNC.

Thanks. It's how would a person approach this to get their DNA destroyed.

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Also, I completely disagree with your assessment that an arrest that does not lead to a charge is 'incompetence'. The police (and others who are tasked with investigating crimes) are required by law to follow all reasonable lines of enquiry when investigating a crime. This will often lead to people being arrested and questioned then not charged...because their answers to questions cleared them of the offence, other evidence came to light proving guilt of another etc.

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion, I accept that. I stand by my opinion.

Rochdale_Guy

Over 24 hours on and no one has ever requested an SAR from their local Police then?

browneyedbazzi

Rochdale_Guy wrote: »

Over 24 hours on and no one has ever requested an SAR from their local Police then?

It's not a very common thing to do...sadly the vast majority of people have no idea what a SAR is.

Rochdale_Guy

Cheers for the reply.