A ruling in the Supreme Court this week means that not all police cautions and minor convictions should be disclosed in criminal record checks, as any requirement to do so would be incompatible with human rights legislation in England and Wales.
The ruling was in two cases, that of a man identified as “T”, who was forced to disclose a warning he received from Greater Manchester Police in connection with the alleged theft of two bicycles at the age of 11 and “JB”, a woman who challenged the checks after she was refused a job in a care home eight years after receiving a caution for shoplifting.
In T’s case, his record was checked at the age of 17 when he applied for a part-time job at a football club and later when he tried for a university course in sports studies.
Upholding a Court of Appeal ruling last year, when judges said that blanket criminal checks could breach the right to a private or family life, the Supreme Court judges said that the disclosures T and JB had had to make were not necessary “in a democratic society” and were not based on any “rational assessment of risk”.
Since the Court of Appeal ruling, which the Government took to the Supreme Court as the highest court in the UK and the final court of appeal in cases of public importance, the Home Office has introduced a system to filter out single minor convictions or cautions, but insists that the protection of children and vulnerable groups must not be compromised.
However, the new ruling from the Supreme Court will mean that some past cautions and convictions will remain part of a “protected” private life and should play no part in a person’s application for a job.