CRB - enhanced disclosure

Savvy_Sue

I'm glad you've come back with that, d_d, because having re-read the post I wondered how you became aware of the Chief Constable's 'concerns'?

You see, I thought that if anything like that WAS added, it was only for the employer / person requesting the CRB to see, and that it did NOT appear on the individual's copy of the CRB.

What's more, I thought that if there were such details, they were supposed to be kept confidential, and NOT discussed with the individual?

Which always has struck me as very worrying - if you'd applied for a new job, and this had come up on your disclosure, and the job had been withdrawn, your 'new' employer would not be allowed to tell you that there was something on your disclosure which gave them concern.

So, was it on your copy of the disclosure, or did someone let it slip? Just out of interest, you understand ...

dodgy_damo

yeah my copy of the CRB was sent to me, the other to HR at work.
It's my information so I assume I'm privvy to it?
I suppose how can I disclose things to an employer if Im not aware they were on there?
Lets see what the MET say?
Apparantly on watchdog the other night a chap who had applied for the Fire service 4 times was knocked back due to crimainal convictions, he was only aware of these convictions when he applied for a crb...the poor chap has never been arrested! I didnt see it, but it shows how innocent people can be misjudged!

Savvy_Sue

dodgy_damo wrote: »

yeah my copy of the CRB was sent to me, the other to HR at work.
It's my information so I assume I'm privvy to it?

Apparently not ALL the information which may be disclosed to an employer HAS to be disclosed to the individual. I've just had a look here, which seems to confirm that what happened in your case was correct, in that you did get information about a non-conviction on your copy of the disclosure.

However it is still possible that information could be released by letter, and the individual would never know ...

Would be interested to hear how you get on with appealing this.

dodgy_damo

It is a big minefield. The only exception I could think of where the letter may be sent would be for a serial offender (ie rapist) who has been to Court on countless occasions, but never convicted.

thorshammer_2

Hello to all, I am a new user and here's my tuppence worth!

CRBs? what are they REALLY for? Sadly, it seems. is to allow people who actually have absolutely no need to know what-so-ever the past miscalculations of one's troubled history. They exist to create the illusion of safety and security amongst the general public that only the good guys ever get the "sensitive" jobs and all the baddies will be kept at bay. What a load of male cow excreta! Sorry, I wont even talk about the reality of identity theft and the oh so convenient means by which those of a flawless non-criminal past can "loan", knowingly or otherwise their identity to those with unlawful and questionable motives.

The obvious point that is sadly missed and therefore avoided here is this. If the aim in society of the CRB check was to keep at bay those with extreme violent or sexually malicious tendencies from potential victims, then why on earth do we bother even letting them out onto the streets in the first place? If a crime has been committed then subjected to the due process of law and 'appropriate' punishment dished out, there would be absolutely no need for anyone to know what the criminal background of anyone was, because they simply would not be free to even apply for such jobs and therefore, "dangerous".

If we have a penal system that imprisons/fines etc, gross or repeat offenders, and they serve whatever time or punishment the law dictates, even then, once the sentence has been served, the crime should technically cease to exist, as due punishment and consequent loss of liberty/financial penalty will have been served according to the actual sentence issued at time of the conviction. To further punish a perpetrator of crime indefinitely without actual recourse to the original specific sentencing is surely an abuse of power and a complete whitewash of the personal rights of anyone to subsequently be considered a "free" man or woman no longer bound by the paid-for actions of their past.

Even if one is convicted of murder and serves 30 years, that in itself is the only specific punishment allowed for by law. There would be nothing in the judge's summing up that requires upon release of the guilty person that they be further subject to restricted work patterns for the rest of their natural life and the subsequent disclosure of their past into the public domain upon a fee, paid to a private company, using information stored supposedly sensitively, on the Police national computer!

To further compound this by the necessity to divulge ones past having effectively paid for the crime as dictated to by the state's own legal processes should be totally unnecessary and without justification. If society considers that such individuals are actually still dangerous and unsuitable for work in sensitive areas, why the hell assume the general public should be at liberty to suffer any potential latent criminality that society obviously believes remains?

The punishment should fit the crime. Once the crime has been paid for in whatever terms the law lays down, then that is it, finished. The state nor any individual does NOT need to know what you do, or where, thereafter. Otherwise, it acts with a force not legitimately given to it by any court of law, in the execution of court's original responsibilities to issue punishment relevant to the crime as tried and recorded.

thorshammer_2

Going for a cup of tea now.

dodgy_damo

Well said Thors Hammer...enjoy that well earned cuppa!

Update:

Well I did (kind of?)successfully appeal this. The CRB had some wording jigged about, and inverted commas taken away from "not guilty".
It still doesnt paint a great picture, but at least I have had some changes.

I suppose I'm really waiting on this current test case before I would try any other appeal?
http://www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/press%20release%20-%20pinnington.doc

JimmyTheWig

My CRB came back with a conviction for assult that I'd never even heard about before!
Had to go through all sorts of rigmarole to get it removed, including going to the police station (scenes of crime department) and giving my fingerprints. (4yo DS was well chuffed, as they did his too, but I was a bit miffed.)

They've now agreed it wasn't me (was someone whose details were similar to mine, apparently!) but no-one said sorry or anything - even though it was my time and money wasted in getting it sorted.

dodgy_damo

Jimmy
That is seriously worrying!
It's sad that you had to even provide finger prints to prove this. Surely there is a claim in there somewhere? Glad you got it sorted though...I hope it didnt affect your job offers?

surreysaver

And I suppose Jimmy's prints and DNA is now permanantly on the database.