245 CRB appeals in Greater Manchester since 2006
Regular readers (all of whom have my condolences for their unfortunate reading habits.) will be familiar with my campaign for a fairer deal on Criminal Records Bureau enhanced checks. Since mentioning my worries about these checks, I have been contacted by dozens of people who have had information disclosed on CRB forms which they claim is untrue, and which has never been near a court or jury, let alone resulted in a conviction.
I have always accepted, and continue to accept, the obvious advantages that the CRB system brings, and the evident need for protection of the vulnerable. And I accept that there are times when disclosures of evidence is necessary even if there has been no conviction. The system for appealing and for making sure that there is due process does though need to be clearer and fairer.
With that in mind I have been blogging about the issue and raising it here and there. Last night I received an answer to a question I posed to the Greater Manchester Police Service about the issue. The decision on revealing or withholding information rests with the Chief Constable, who releases it only when he thinks it might be relevant and ought to be released.
I asked about the CRB appeals process, how many appeals against the detail of disclosures had been made, and how many had succeeded. Last night Cllr Roy Walker, Bury MBC’s lead representative to the Greater Manchester Police Authority, revealed the answer to my question, and also his own evident interest in this topic and the fairness of the CRB system.
I was informed that in the last three years, there have been 245 disputed claims involving GMP, of which 111 were upheld, 95 amended and 39 withdrawn. In four cases there was a threat of judicial review, two of which were amended by agreement, one of which was withdrawn, and one of which is ongoing. In the last three years there have been 800,000 CRB applications processed by GMP.
The figures are low, but there are still 245 aggrieved people in Greater Manchester alone, of whom 111 have been judged to be rightfully aggrieved.
The information given in the answer was re-assuring in that it provided some insight into quite a detailed appeals procedure which exists, involving GMP legal staff and independent judicial review if required.
It is clear that this is a complex issue where individual liberties need careful balance against the interests of vulnerable people who need protecting. We need to work to find a way to lower still further the numbers of challenges and those challenges upheld.
Better guidance on relevance might help, as would a more open debate about the relative merits of personal privacy as opposed to CRB disclosures revealing things which aren’t actually convictions. It’s often so difficult to talk sensibly about these types of issues because of tragic and emotive cases where necessary information sharing hasn’t happened. Any suggestion of changes to the rules on CRB disclosures can be seen as playing into the hands of wrong-doers, or being soft on criminals. This is absolutely not what I want to do. What I do want is a system which protects the vulnerable but which also lets innocent people get on with their lives, free of disclosures based on flimsy or even non-existent evidence.
We need to work for this better balance to dramatically reduce the numbers of people appealing against CRB disclosures.
Rick
3 Comments
have your say
Richard,
Do you happen to know whether an individual can see anything held about him/her by the CRB, utilising the Freedom of Information Act?
If so, it gives that individual the opportunity to at least challenge the information, before such information is passed on to other interested parties.
Apparently, the CRB, in consultation with the Police, pass on any information which THEY consider might be relevant to a particular situation. Meaning: some of what they hold, all of what they hold, or nothing that they hold on a person - which seems to me to be a dangerous investment of power in some faceless bureaucrat, Big Brother style.
By having prior knowledge of what might be passed on, and being aware of information which should rightfully be challenged as being either “unproven”, totally false, or whatever, an individual can at least be in a position to make such a challenge before it’s too late, when applying for a particular position.
And if it doesn’t come under the FOI Legislation? Well, maybe now is the time to start a campaign, to ensure that it does. After all, we can find out our Credit information, so why not our CRB files?
whatdotheyknow.com is a handy place to start!!
This type of information is not held by the CRB. The Police are asked by the CRB to provide “relevant” information that “ought to be included”. The CRB have no power to disagree with the Police and must print this information.
This information does not come unde FOI legislation, however you can request to see police records from a specific force under the Data Protection Act, by means of a Subject Access Request. Any information released in this request, does not necessarily mean that it will be printed on your ECRB certificate.
I am currently dealing with a case where a male, who was aged 13 at the time of sexual offences where he was the VICTIM, the police felt this was “relevant” and “ought to be included”. This obviously shows the system isn’t working.
Request for advice:
To whom it may concern,
My name is Kimberley.Corbett. I am writing for a request for advice. I believe I been unfairly treated and tarnished by what could only be described as a foolish error of judgment on my part. On Sept 3rd 2008 I unwisely came to the aid of my boyfriend who was in an altercation with a taxi driver in the early hours of the morning. The Asian taxi driver spat in my face (something that was not recorded in the police officers report, nor was the taxi driver sought by the police later), he punched me in the face and was racist towards me.
I called him a racially abusive name and was instantly arrested by a WPC. I later went to court, and with the expressed request of the solicitor and agreement of the magistrate, that because of my choice of career the incident would not be included on a CRB report. I was told to pay a fine of £60 and given a 12month conditional discharge.
I had just passed a 2 year full-time NVQ Level 3 in Childcare in July 2008. The recession has been tough for most people and there hasn’t been many childcare vacancies until recently. I did apply for one, but as my previous CRB had expired, they had to request an update. To my dismay it noted that I had a blemish on her report which of course prevented me from getting the vacancy. I have since applied for other Nursery vacancies but does not even get an interview due to the CRB report.
Surely this can’t be correct that a whole career can be ruined and not even got off the ground - all through a silly mistake that happened in my youth. There are a lot of vacancies for childcare at the moment – but I cannot apply for any. Can anyone help to dispute the information contained on this report?