Random criminal question!!!!!!!!!!

Vomityspice

Working with children will require an Enhanced CRB. This will show up EVERY criminal conviction, irrespective of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (and that includes cautions which as we all know are admissions of guilt!). Additionally, CRB's now include 'soft' information i.e. allegation made or investigations that the applicants were a involved with.

How accurate this is, is a moot point...... For example, a Social Worker I know very well (I was his Practice Teacher) left his job with the Local Authority voluntarily (he wanted to run his own business). However, when he applied for a new CRB (Enhanced) it was returned with details of an investigation which gave the impression that he had been inappropriate with a child he was working with.

What had actually happen was that he had hugged his client would had broken down at the funeral of a friend (they had lived together in a foster home). However, an adult at the service had complained (for their own malicious reasons) and so it was investigated. He has now spent the last 5 months trying to correct the details on his CRB with everyone denying there involvement in passing this information.


Additionally, I have read many application forms (with CRB's) which contain many youthful errors of judgements. Normally, most employers wouldn't look too unfavourably at petty adolescent crime, however adult events will certainly be a major obstacle to employment.......

pixiedust_2

Ok - I can only talk from one side of this, so I'm not entirely sure of all the ins and outs, but I've filled enough of the damn things in, and certified more than enough, to have a basic knowledge of the system!

When you fill a (Enhanced) CRB in, assuming you complete it *correctly*, it should pick up any criminal convictions against you. If you are working with children, it will check for Police Records, Info under the Education Act, Protection of Children List, (only if working with adults as well, although its a bit vague when older teenagers come into it) Protection of Vulnerable Adults, and "Relevant Information disclosed". The Police Records section should list any convictions, cautions, reprimands, and final warnings (copying this off of my CRB!) - in other words, it will only be listed if it has either gone to court, or has been passed to the convictions people (can't remember the name lol). If the Chief Police Officer, at the "local" station, believes that something that was dropped should be listed, it would be put under the "Relevant Information" section.

BUT - Just because something comes up on a CRB check, does not neccessarily mean that a person would not be allowed to work with children. There are (I believe) 3 status' that a Disclosure can be returned with - pretty much like a traffic light system. A CRB with nothing to report would come back clear, one with a major offence (listed on a sex offenders register, major crimes against children, etc), would state that the person that it is about should not be working with children in any capacity, and then something which reports a "minor" offence (haven't a clue what the hell they count as minor!) come back with a kinda "proceed with caution" type thing - CRB do not tell you not to employ said person, but recommend you either only allow them to work under supervision, or check references etc.

Please don't quote me on any of this - and definately get other details to double check! All of the info is from working on a voluntary basis, and may have changed since my last set of training (early last year)

Lucy

Alfie_E

It might be possible to have some information removed in future; see Police ordered to delete records. The fact that the cases are going to appeal reinforces my belief in the shovel-it-all-in mentality of officials, when it comes to computerised records. From the BBC article, it seems these are four separate cases concerning specific individuals and none of them are testing the overall principle. The police may still fight any future cases all the way to the bitter end.

newfoundglory

It was interesting that the Information Comissioner required the Police to delete the data. This was to do with not storing data for longer than is necessary. If the Police are holding information about you which you think or know appears as creating a misleading impression, this is also covered by Data Protection Act 1998. This is often overlooked, as the Act is large and complex.

The 4th Data Protection Principle is: Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

But what's accuracy? Many people dont realise the Act actually defines it!

Section 70(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 says:

For the purposes of this Act data are inaccurate if they are incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact.

You could argue this is why credit reference agencies are required to allow you to use notice of correction on your file... as that would allow you to address any parts which could be considered factually misleading - and therefore in breach of the act.

If you think any Police or CRB records about you could be considered factually misleading, then they would be legally required to update, correct or delete the said information. For example, if you were arrested for a crime and not convicted or charged, it may appear as though you had broken the law but without sufficient evidence to be charged - when in fact you hadn't done anything wrong at all.

Many types of Data can be exempt from the 1st data protection principle (must be fairly and lawfully processed).... such as for the "prevention or detection of crime".... however organisations would still be required to comply with the other principles of the Act (ie. can information be used for the prevention or detection of crime if the data itself is inaccurate?)