Criminal record checks, Article 8 and fairness
On Tuesday the Court of Appeal issued an important judgment on the disclosure of criminal records and its relationship to the right to a private and family life; protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
The main question before the Court was whether the requirement for applicants to certain types of job to disclose all previous convictions was incompatible with the ECHR. The Court of Appeal held that the requirement to disclose all convictions was disproportionate to the aims of the policy; consequentially it found that there was a breach of Article 8. Yesterday, the Government announced that it intended to appeal that decision to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
The decision by the Government to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court is a disappointing one. It demonstrates a lack of commitment to their so called “rehabilitation revolution”. Not so long ago the Prime Minister gave a major criminal justice speech which promised a “tough but intelligent” approach to criminal justice from his Government. The decision to appeal this Court of Appeal seems to fly in the face of the promise of an intelligent approach to justice.
Clearly there is a legitimate aim in ensuring that those who are genuinely unsuitable to work with children or other vulnerable people are prevented from doing so. No sensible person is suggesting that this shouldn’t be the case. However, the current approach is really rather ridiculous.
Each and every single one of us gets things wrong; we make bad decisions and that can have consequences for us. If we commit a criminal offence and that is detected then quite rightly there will be a consequence: a fine, community service or even a prison sentence. Those who break the law are punished by the Court in the way that the Court; taking account of all the circumstances of the case, decides is appropriate.
Once a person has served their sentence; the punishment for the crime that they have committed, they should be able to get on with their lives. There should be no restrictions placed upon their life unless absolutely necessary for the protection of the public. Rehabilitation requires that people are able to get jobs and when whole professions are closed off to them because of some minor convictions (some of which may well be extremely old) then this becomes significantly harder; it may even act as a disincentive for a person to desist from crime.
There were some fantastically stupid examples of criminal convictions that were so old that they may as well never have existed preventing people from standing as candidates for the Office of Police and Crime Commissioner in their area. Some of these convictions were40 years old and the individuals in question had dedicated their life to public service. How can it be right that convictions that old can still be considered relevant when the individuals have clearly demonstrated that they have been successfully rehabilitated? It just seems to be part of a never-ending punishment that our society largely considers it acceptable to place upon those who transgressed the law in their past.
It is entirely possible to devise a system which ensures that vulnerable groups are protected from those who pose them harm whilst also ensuring that those who have changed their lives or have simply made a few bad choices in their past can get on with life and not be forever reminded of and plagued by their past. It’s not easy to do, but that shouldn’t stop the Government from devising such a system; it might well take them some considerable time. However, if we want to progress as a society and ensure that those who want to be rehabilitated can actually be so; then we need to ensure that we provide an environment in which that can be achieved. The present system cannot facilitate that and the Court was quite right to find that there was an unjustified interference with a person’s Article 8 rights as a consequence. The Government should be spending time and money on a replacement system rather than appealing to the Supreme Court.