Chapter One - The Disclosure of Criminal Records to Employers
Introduction
The Early Days
· The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
The Expansion of the Disclosure System after 1986
'On the Record' and the Police Act 1997
The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)
The Vetting and Barring Service (VBS)
The Coalition Government
The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)
· The 'filtering' of criminal records
Summary
Chapter Two - The Nature of 'Non-conviction Information'?
Introduction
'Hard' Information
· The Police National Computer
'Soft' Information
· The Police National Database (PND)
· Law Enforcement Data Services (LEDS)
Sources of 'Soft' Information
· Safeguarding Children and Young People
· Anti-social Behaviour
· Sex Offenders and other Violent People
· Voluntary Organisations
· Other People known to the Police
Summary
Chapter Three - The Disclosure of 'Non-Conviction Information' to Employers 1986 to 2010
Introduction
The 1985 Joint Review and Subsequent Circulars
Did we need 'non-conviction information'?
'On the Record' (1996)
The Police Act 1997
· R(X) v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police ([2005 1 WLR 65; [2004] EWCA Civ 1068)
· The Bichard Inquiry 2004
· Home Office Circular 5/2005
The Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information (MOPI)
R(L) v Chief Constable of the Metropolis [2009] UKSC 3
Summary
Chapter Four - The Police Disclosure of 'Non-Conviction Information' to Employers 2010 to the present day
Introduction
The Mason Reports (2010-2011)
The CRB role in the disclosure of 'non conviction information'
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
· The Independent Monitor
Young People, Criminal Records and 'non conviction information'
A Unilateral Police Decision?
The Unemployed Person and Enhanced Disclosure Checks
Summary
Chapter Five - Making the Decision to Disclose 'Non-Conviction Information'
Introduction
Early Guidance
Guidance after the Police Act 1997
· X v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police
· Home Office Circular 5/2005
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
· Quality Assurance Framework
· Statutory Disclosure Guidance
Summary
Chapter Six - Human Rights
Introduction
Background
European Convention on Human Rights - Article 6
European Convention on Human Rights - Article 8
Proportionality
Summary
Chapter Seven - Conclusions
Introduction
Employers in Receipt of CRB 'non conviction information'
'Non conviction information' - A Lack of Justification in the Literature
Does the ECRD regime undermine the criminal justice process?
The Effects of the Stigma associated with Disclosed Information
Recent Developments
Terry Thomas was awarded the title of Emeritus Professor at Leeds Beckett University, UK. He was formerly employed as a senior medical social worker at Leeds General Infirmary and senior social worker in a local authority social services department area office. His publications have focused on questions relating to personal information databases and the criminal justice system i.e. criminal records, DNA and fingerprints.
Kevin Bennett is a postgraduate student at the University of Sunderland, UK.
This book provides a critical overview of the policy frameworks underpinning the contemporary practices of non-conviction information disclosure during pre-employment ‘screening’. It questions how a man can walk free from a criminal court as an innocent person only to have all the court details of his acquittal passed to any potential employer.Despite several million ‘enhanced’ criminal background checks being performed each year, there has been little discussion of these issues within academic literature. Non-conviction information, also known as 'police intelligence', is a less well-known check provided alongside the criminal record check. This book seeks to define what is meant by non-conviction information and to provide a clear and simple explanation of how this decision making process of police disclosure to employers is made. It also considers the extent to which these practices have been subjected to legal challenges within the UK and explores how public protection is balanced against individual rights.