CRB - enhanced disclosure

Savvy_Sue

For some types of work, convictions are never considered spent. And I would say that it's possible that you didn't get the job not because of the convictions, but because the care home weren't expecting them, ie you had not disclosed them.

However, if the owner of the care home has breached confidentiality, the CRB would take a very dim view of this. I'm not sure that telling his wife wasn't a breach, never mind his wife telling someone else.

In our office only one person sees the returned CRB checks, unless there's something on them that we weren't expecting. If that happens, the person would be asked why they hadn't disclosed (they might not have realised nothing would be spent or might not have a clear memory of older convictions). Then the results of the check would be discussed anonymously with a member of our management team, ie "would we be happy to accept someone with this conviction?" rather than "X has this conviction, is that a problem?"

I don't know how you'd prove this breach of confidentiality, but you might want to contact the CRB and make a complaint.

musicsmith

It's not really about a breach of confidentiality at all. Its about what on earth does it have to do with anyone in the first place! These convictions were spent many years ago. Can nobody now have a fresh start? Why should the girl in the office, the bloke who opens the mail or the cleaner get to know about my past. I have had no convictions for many years, give me a chance for Gods sake! The owner of the care home could be told I have previous convictions, told the year of the last one and told whether it involved children or old people. Then it would be clear to them that since my last conviction I have been a good guy and my past is past.

Miseryschild

I think they should not show any that are over 5-10 years old. I have got an Enhanced Disclosure (CRB) and thankfully it is completely clean (only 20) as I work with children I needed to get one.

~MC

Savvy_Sue

musicsmith wrote: »

It's not really about a breach of confidentiality at all. Its about what on earth does it have to do with anyone in the first place! These convictions were spent many years ago. Can nobody now have a fresh start? Why should the girl in the office, the bloke who opens the mail or the cleaner get to know about my past. I have had no convictions for many years, give me a chance for Gods sake! The owner of the care home could be told I have previous convictions, told the year of the last one and told whether it involved children or old people. Then it would be clear to them that since my last conviction I have been a good guy and my past is past.

I can see where you are coming from, BUT that's the way the system works. In some situations yes, your past is past, your convictions are spent. In others, they may be spent but should still be declared. In this case you've had a job offer withdrawn (presumably), but having convictions on your CRB check does not automatically bar you from working with children and vulnerable adults.

You might find it helpful to contact NACRO. This problem isn't going to go away, although only certain convictions (and none of the kind you've mentioned) are an automatic bar to working with children and vulnerable adults.

And I would still regard it as a serious breach of CRB rules. Whether or not you have convictions should not be known to all and sundry within the employing organisation - in fact we've set our systems up so that both 'blank' and 'non-blank' disclosures are handled in the same way. As for them being blabbed out beyond the employer - NO!

When I was first handling police disclosure checks, I filed the first few in staff files: they were clear, so no problem. Then one came in which wasn't clear, and I put it in a sealed envelope so it couldn't be read accidentally. THEN I realised that having this one in a sealed envelope and all the others just in the file screamed out that someone had a criminal record. So they ALL went into a sealed envelope!

Now we're not allowed to keep them on file for longer than 6 months, so we record the fact that they've arrived and we didn't see a problem with them (NB: not that it was clear, but that anything that WAS on it was not a problem to us), and then we shred them. And we're doing this because that's what the CRB indicates we should do!

Scousebird_2

Were the CRB were just doing their job on this occasion?? I assume it wouldn't of come up on a basic disclosure. I can see your point but if you were found Not Guilty then am I right in thinking that the CPS thought there was enough evidence to charge you?? I always thought that in any law case the actual act and the mental intention to do it has to be proved for a guilty verdict. And I assume here that in self defence you didn't mean to hit out so thus Not Guilty?? But if you are charged with it then does it not just get removed-or was ther compelling evidence to suggest otherwise which is why after the case notes have been examined, the chief officer decided to leave the charge on file. I have a mate who works in CRB so I may ask and if I get anything helpful, I will post!!

clairec79

I know what I have been told is to declare anything and everything, they may well ignore but if it comes up on the CRB and you haven't declared it then you wouldn't get the job

Savvy_Sue

I think the advice above is spot on. And I say again, if you need help with how to disclose then NACRO are the people to ask.

I agree that it's ridiculous not to let someone work with children because of a 20 year old conviction of a relatively minor nature when someone was under 18. But if someone says "I have no criminal convictions" and then something comes back on the CRB check, what's the person seeing the check to do?

I have helped run an out of school club, and I currently work for a charity where our volunteers need checking because of contact with children and vulnerable adults. In neither line of work has a criminal record been an automatic bar to employment, as long as someone has known BEFORE the check comes back that there's going to be something on it!

I have had someone in tears telling me that they'd only just realised that everything was gong to show up on their check, and it was all a long time ago and they were a different person now. We still employed them to work with children, and I know this person is now working with vulnerable adults. It's a judgement call: if those convictions had been recent it might have been a different matter.

eco123

Been dealing with CRB checks since before the CRB existed

How exactly...if they never existed??

Savvy_Sue

eco123 wrote: »

How exactly...if they never existed??

I apologise for the slight imprecision.

Before the CRB existed, employers could ask for a Police Disclosure Check. So I was getting them, and was aware of all the 'hype' when the CRB was set up, and the difficulties when checks started taking forever to come through.

I've also been made aware of the kind of situation described in the very first post, where the Chief Constable can at his discretion disclose something which wasn't actually a conviction.

Although there's change on the way - we're going to need ISAs as well as CRBs ... Is it significant that this news was released on 1st April?

dodgy_damo

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I apologise for the slight imprecision.

Before the CRB existed, employers could ask for a Police Disclosure Check. So I was getting them, and was aware of all the 'hype' when the CRB was set up, and the difficulties when checks started taking forever to come through.

I've also been made aware of the kind of situation described in the very first post, where the Chief Constable can at his discretion disclose something which wasn't actually a conviction.

Although there's change on the way - we're going to need ISAs as well as CRBs ... Is it significant that this news was released on 1st April?

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "Innocent until proven guilty"!
Anyhow, Savvy Sue thanks for pointing out Nacro, they are very helpful. I have now challenged what was "discretly" put on my enhanced disclosure, which involved ringing CRB's disputes dept, recieving a letter back, outlining dispute in letter, and now the MET police will look at my appeal and decide if they will remove or change what was disclosed.