Police Records.

[geoffrey]

A young man who had a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) fine for making a 'V' sign in the street found it disclosed on his CRB as 'For outraging public decency in a public place' although he could prove what actually happened. He is well qualified to be a teacher but his applications were constantly rejected. Then he was told that the education authority automatically bar any person with offence records containing the words 'Disorder', 'Obscene', ,Indecent', 'Violent' and 'Urinating' however trivial the actual p offences were and however long ago they happened We understand that many churches and youth organisations now do similar.

Does he have to abandon all attempts to work as a teacher for which he is well qualified or in fact work with any children or vulnerable adults in a paid or voluntary capacity or is there some way forward other than moving to another country?

[stevemLS]

Re: Police Records.

In order to receive the PND her must have admitted the offence and it sounds incredibly hard now.


My only suggestion is that he admit it in advance giving explanation, youthful indiscretion etc.

There is guidance to employers not to exclude previous offenders, but schools should have a policy on treatment and he should be able to explain the circumstances and have it considered on its merits.

[righty]

Re: Police Records.

A PND is NOT evidence of guilt (so say the Supreme Court)

Only a caution requires an admission of guilt

I'm sure if you google it and find it you can then cut & paste it placing it somewhere were it will come in handy should you need to refer to it from time to time

[stevemLS]

Re: Police Records.

This MoJ advice suggest we are both in fact right, whereas it does not require an admission of guilt, it still will be disclosed.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads...dance-oocd.pdf

In which case, my original suggestion remains goods.

[righty]

Re: Police Records.

But the Supreme Court disagrees in that such notices and minor crimes need not be disclosed to anyone including an employer The Police being the data controller should not divulge such information

The SC judgement was very recent in fact only months ago so I suppose everyone else police, CRB (or whatever their new name is) etc have yet to catch up

[wales01man]

Re: Police Records.

But what will the School decide after getting the Info they want be going to supreme court records?
Best for them to be honest and take the chance they will ignore this Hard as it may seem Checks are their to protect sometimes discretion in ignoring some detail can be right ?

[des8]

Re: Police Records.

SC ruling can be found here:http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-c...essSummary.pdf
and a commentary here: http://www.unlock.org.uk/supreme-cou...ocess-remains/

[geoffrey]

Re: Police Records.

Thje problem is that many organisations that employ people who have or may have contact with children will not engage anyone with certain words on their CRB / DBS They usually include 'Disorder' 'Violence,' 'obscene'', 'Indecency' and 'Urinating' however trivial and harmless the offence can be proven to have been.

The young man in question has now left the country for good and is a teacher in France. His trivial offence record cannot follow him there as under French law that would be illegal. Yes, he has fled the country of his birth due to British Extremism.

[wales01man]

Re: Police Records.

There is an important lesson to be learnt here never do anything that MAY come back on you

[righty]

Re: Police Records.

Thje problem is that many organisations that employ people who have or may have contact with children will not engage anyone with certain words on their CRB / DBS They usually include 'Disorder' 'Violence,' 'obscene'', 'Indecency' and 'Urinating' however trivial and harmless the offence can be proven to have been.

The young man in question has now left the country for good and is a teacher in France. His trivial offence record cannot follow him there as under French law that would be illegal. Yes, he has fled the country of his birth due to British Extremism.

I understand but according to the SC the matter should never have been disclosed in the 1st place Also as the prospective employer acted on it they themselves may have committed an offence