Necessary Intrusion or Criminalising the Innocent? An Exploration of Modern Criminal Vetting

Abstract

This article considers the processes of criminal vetting and outlines the legislative framework allowing such disclosures and subsequent judicial interpretation of that framework. The focus is on disclosure of non-conviction (so-called 'soft') materials on 'enhanced' certificates and subsequent challenges to those disclosures at judicial review. Key cases are analysed, including R (on the application of X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (2004) (2011) is scrutinised. The article also highlights interference in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy) and questions whether interference can be justified, and whether the present judicial focus on right of representations in such cases is misplaced. and R (on the application of L) (FC) (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) (2009). The proportionality test in R (L) is noted and its subsequent application in the recent decisions of R (on the application of C) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester; Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011) and R (on the application of B) v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary

The disclosure of police-held ‘non-conviction information’ to employers

“…It also examines the various judicial reviews that have questioned police decision-making over the years and the Statutory Disclosure Guidance that the Home Office produced for the police in 2012 and 2015. We would agree with Baldwin (2012) that this area:… is a multi-faceted area of law which carries much social and legal significance in spite of a relatively low level of academic or public scrutiny.Recent authors have sought to rectify this low level of scrutiny (see e.g. Grace, 2013, 2014; Larrauri, 2014a, 2014b)…”

“…It also examines the various judicial reviews that have questioned police decision-making over the years and the Statutory Disclosure Guidance that the Home Office produced for the police in 2012 and 2015. We would agree with Baldwin (2012) that this area:…”

The Demise of the Criminal Records Bureau

“…They were merely the agency authorised to access the PNC and disseminate checks. The records are the property of the Police, 118 and the responsibility for the unsatisfactory state of the data must, therefore, lie solely with the applicable police forces. It is perhaps fortunate for them that the blame was largely lain almost entirely with the CRB, and unfortunate for the CRB that they found themselves publicly scapegoated for the failings of the Police.…”