The Supreme Court ruled this week on the
disclosure of criminal convictions. This has been an interesting case as it
deals with those wanting to work with children and vulnerable adults.
Generally ‘spent’ criminal convictions
do not have to be disclosed and someone with a spent conviction is entitled to
state that they have a clean record. The exception to this was when working
with certain classes of individuals.
Disclosure of criminal convictions has
been a hotly debated topic, with Vicky Pryce (remember she went to prison for perverting
the course of justice) declaring support for getting ex-convicts back into
work.
Employers are VERY wary of criminal
convictions, if a person discloses they have been to prison it raises concerns
regarding honesty, respect and even violence. The situation is even more
sensitive when it comes to working with vulnerable groups such as children and
the elderly.
Employers are free not to employ someone
who has an unspent conviction; however they are prevented from using knowledge of
a spent conviction to exclude someone from employment.
The exception relating to vulnerable
groups, i.e. even if a potential employee had a spent conviction it had to be
disclosed for certain classes of work has now been challenged and the Supreme
Court has ruled in favour of non-disclosure.
Under the ruling, it is not a necessary
and proportionate interference of the Article 8 right to a private life. The
case related to two very minor offences, an 11 year old who had been given a
warning for stealing 2 bicycles who years later applied to work in a football
club. The second individual who stole a set of false nails who 8 years later
was unable to get a job as a care worker. Neither individual had any other
criminal record.
The Supreme Court stated that this
violated their private life and that such interference was not justified and
that the criminal records system should be scaled back to ‘common sense levels’.
It is a tough one for employers.
Employers working with children and other vulnerable groups have been heavily
criticised for not checking thoroughly enough when employing individuals where
subsequent crimes have been committed. However, is it right that an individual
should be judged on an isolated criminal activity committed as a child?
We imagine this case will spark debate.
Keep an eye out for further blogs on this issue as the discussion develops.
No comments:
Post a Comment