Monday 10 December 2018
Text size: A A A
Supporting
those who care

Bringing you Care News Today

Our Sponsors

Supreme Court to announce ruling on criminal record checks

Judges are set to publish a ruling on whether job applicants should be forced to disclose all of their criminal convictions to potential employers.

Last year the Court of Appeal ruled that CRB checks were not "compatible" with human rights legislation - a decision ministers then appealed.

The Supreme Court heard the case in December and is to reveal its decision.

The case involved a man who was refused a job because of two police cautions he received aged 11.

CRB checks require the automatic disclosure of all convictions and cautions to certain employers, regardless of their relevance to the job.

Around four million people apply for a criminal records check every year.

However, three Court of Appeal judges said that the blanket checks could breach the right to a private or family life.

After making the ruling, the judges said it would be a matter for Parliament to decide what amendments to make to the current system.

The Home Office introduced a system to filter out single minor convictions or cautions.

But the government is still appealing the ruling, saying the "protection of children and vulnerable groups must not be compromised".
Stolen bikes

The case was then heard before the Supreme Court - the highest court in the UK and the final court of appeal in cases of public importance - on 9 December last year, and the judgement is now due to be handed down.

It involved an unnamed man, known as "T", who said he had been forced to reveal that he had received warnings from Greater Manchester Police in connection with two stolen bikes when he was 11.

The man had been CRB checked when he applied for a part-time job at a local football club aged 17 and later for a university course in sports studies.

His case was supported by the human rights group Liberty.

A woman also challenged the checks after she was refused a job in a care home eight years after she received a caution for shoplifting.

They launched judicial review proceedings, claiming that the disclosures were incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applications were initially refused before the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which in turn prompted the government's appeal.