It makes you wonder if there is any point in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I am fully aware of the exemptions rule, but the ROA should be the absolute guide in terms of the offence and proportionality of the response in relation to that offence. In this case police warnings about bikes when he was 11 and nothing more in 10 years, the ‘employers’ response is completely disproportionate. I was told that a police warning was spent as soon as it has been administered. When you look at it even a custodial sentence has a “life” beyond which it becomes largely irrelevant to the person.
It does highlight how abused the CRB system has become, giving ignorant jumped types their ‘Andy Warhol’ and potentially ruining people’s lives into the bargain.
They never completely go from your record, but are classed as spent (differnt offences have different durations before being spent, some never, such as certain violent crimes, sexual offences etc).
So whilst spent, and not necessarily disclosable to your employer (should they ask) they’ll still show on a CRB disclosure.
Only if you apply for an enhanced CRB check. Under a standard one I don’t think warnings, cautions, spent convictions and the like count. Could be wrong though! Never understood why if you were getting a crb done you wouldn’t apply for an enhanced one anyway!
This is what I’ve always wondered, the times I’ve been asked to complete a CRB check is if the role will bring me in unsupervised contact with children, which of course means the CRB must be enhanced. I’ve never been asked to do a standard CRB check, nor have I seen any jobs advertised saying just a standard one will be required.
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=3734]They never completely go from your record, but are classed as spent (differnt offences have different durations before being spent, some never, such as certain violent crimes, sexual offences etc).
So whilst spent, and not necessarily disclosable to your employer (should they ask) they’ll still show on a CRB disclosure.[/quote]
The problem lies I think with those in personnel tasked with making a decision not having any experience or understanding and making a decision based on a few lines on a sheet of paper.
In the case of this young lad I reeckon they’ve seen police caution/warning and jumped to conclusions.
I was chatting to a recruiter and they said one of the problems they find is that since the mid-90s there has been a jump in cautions, warnings and prosecutions for really menial things, as police in his opinion are encouraged to chase easy wins, that blight some applications.
If a cadet attends a Squadron on the eve of his 18th birthday then he/she is allowed to fully participate in ACO life. Come midnight and then becomes 18 unless there is a crb in place that cadet cannot attend until the crb come back. what has changed in that short time? Also when is a cadet going to have unsupervised access to other cadets? 100% behind CRB for adult staff though!!!
The rider on Article 8 giving respect for private and family life says there shall be no interference except in accordance with the law…the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (paraphrased) ([i]9th edition cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law page 417 by Allen and Thompson)
I can understand the stance taken against this young man but come on, The lads trying to put things behind him, he does something when he is a child and then leads a blameworthy life since! what is the problem? I think we all do things as a child that we wish we had not done due to either peer pressure, the need to be accepted etc, but everyone deserves a second chance. If he was an officer it would be put down to high spirits!
It is also entirely possible for a cadet aged 15 to have a criminal record and appear on various sex-offenders lists without the knowledge of any member of the squadron and this will not be discovered until a check is run at around 18.
While they are not going to be adults with respect to the various child-care acts or be seen as “probationary staff” they are likely at some point to be billeted with other children (perhaps even in a 2-man room, which is definitely “unsupervised access”). They may also hold rank and be trusted to be in a position of control over others too.
I am not saying that we should CRB check every cadet nor that we can be lax about checking our legal adults but it does make a bit of a farce of the requirement to suspend a cadet who is well known to the unit rather than simply applying direct supervision until the CRB is through.
[quote=“the fixer” post=3775]My Wing’s policy is to not suspend cadet if their papers have been submitted. I though this was Corps wide now?[/quote]I think it has but it seems to flip-flop up here. Conflicts with the Scottish system can confuse some - occasionally me
Thats certainly the practice here and should be elsewhere as far as I know.
Incubus has the “hitting 18” point right - they have (both legally and within the organisation) different responsibilities as an over 18 adult, than as a 17 year old. I see no problem the with the current system in general or the way it is applied within the ATC.
What I think is not right is that the sort of minor offence/warning/caution as highlighted in the original story, is reported on and can still affect someone’s employment.
I can’t see this happening. I would have thought in the case of a sex offence the police would be duty bound to inform their school and any youth organisation/group they were in, purely in terms of safeguarding on both sides. Could you imagine the media fall out if something happened and they hadn’t said anything.
Other offences would probably not be such a priority, but I doubt we wouldn’t hear through the grapevine or facebook etc.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3804]I can’t see this happening. I would have thought in the case of a sex offence the police would be duty bound to inform their school and any youth organisation/group they were in, purely in terms of safeguarding on both sides. [/quote]I don’t know what the police’s obligations might be or how closely such a person may be watched or restricted subsequently but I’ll tweak the scenario slightly - Kid aged 16, has left school and family has moved to a new area due to adverse publicity. Kid joins local cadet unit.
These things can slip through the cracks and for all I know the police are not permitted to pass on this private information to other organisations - was this not why we’ve needed to re-invent the CRB/Disclosure system so that new offences are notified immediately to employers/organisations?
I can’t see this happening. I would have thought in the case of a sex offence the police would be duty bound to inform their school and any youth organisation/group they were in, purely in terms of safeguarding on both sides. Could you imagine the media fall out if something happened and they hadn’t said anything.
Other offences would probably not be such a priority, but I doubt we wouldn’t hear through the grapevine or facebook etc.[/quote]
I’m afraid your view is a little naive - the communication is simply not that good. We had a presentation from the Child Protection Officer last year or the year before who gave us some interesting stats from when the CRBing of 18yr olds in teh Corps started. Some of the offences whihc came to light were pretty high-order and no-one bothered to tell the ACO.
Every offender who is on the register has an Offender Supervisor (the title changes for each constabulary but the role is largely the same) who is responsible for monitoring the “well-being” of the offender, but also oversees the movements of them, it is the offender who reports to the supervisor when they are going anywhere abroad or elsewhere in UK for 2 nights or more. They also should know all of the connections the offender has, such as if they go to school/college/university, but weirdly it’s not a legal requirement for the offender to tell the supervisor where their place of work is, though many supervisors ask on an informal basis. With regards to situations such as being a member of the ATC, I would strongly believe that the supervisor should inform the Sqn of the offender’s situation, however this might not happen. Supervisors tend to manage a heck of a lot of offenders and the offender may (wrongly) just never tell them they are a cadet; therefore resulting in a break-down in communication
Indeed the CRB will then catch them out should they still be around at 18.
Unless there is a reason in law why an individual is barred from participating in a particular activity; cf Firearms Act 1968 Section 21; then the police will only be able to offer “advice” on the matter. This will not include the basis on which that “advice” is offered. The individual in question should be made aware by the police that “advice” has been given and be offered the opportunity to discuss the matter with the officer who provided it.
If the individual wishes to continue you are then in a position to ask them for a full disclosure of the facts, authority for the police to provide verification and; if you wish; an explanation as to why they did not reveal the matter earlier.
I’ve had chat with my mate who was a probation offender manager until last year dealing with high risk cases.
He said sex offenders have to inform people where they work, rest and play and if they get a sopo (this will normally last 3 yrs although could last 5) it will outline these in detail and they can also be subject to something called marac, where high risk cases are discussed with different bodies. If they are under 18 they have the same. He said that they have detailed interviews with police and offender managers or youth offending case workers and these cover absolutely every aspect of their lives. The police workers attached can call at anytime of the day or night and if they’re not where they said they were or are found where they shouldn’t be, it can be do not pass go as he referred to it. He said that of all the people he works with sex offenders are the most compliant. He also said it surprised him how many youngsters were handed over from youth offending with 2 or more years on their order. He said that membership of something like youth groups would be practically impossible as many teenage sopos forbid unaccompanied association with certain age groups, using the internet and phones can be monitored.
As for other things, I suppose it’s what is regarded as high order. I stll doubt that if it was serious we wouldn’t know.
