Guilty - even when innocent!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulF said:
Nope, that's not what I am saying (assuming you were responding to my post), no one's rights have been infringed unless of course the judge put a ban on releasing any information from the trial, that information will be available to the general public.
What I am saying is that the checks and clearances (general clearances including but not exclusively classes as Security/Higher Vetting) are gathering/checking information for an assessment of risk to judge whether a person is suitable for a role. For instance lets say Bob applies for a job, the initial questionnaire includes a question regarding any criminal convictions/proceedings to be declared which Bob answers No, the background check shows this to be a lie, is that person the best person for the job where a high level of trust is required?

I must add, I do not know the specifics of the OP case, as I have not looked into it.
Click to expand...

It was you I was replying to and you still don't see the issue. If you were found NOT guilty why is acceptable for this to come up on a check? that is the issue and thats where the rights get infringed and follows a person for the rest of their lives. The issues not about someone having an actual criminal conviction and lying about it.


PaulF said:
I'd guess those that are outraged have never worked in a field that requires any type of clearance, the rules in such work places are vastly different to other more normal (for want of a better word) roles.
Click to expand...

Well you would be wrong again, at least in my case!

Marc said:
It's on THE record because it's what happened. No-one (police or otherwise) has "decided" to put it on there.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it can be put on the enhanced DBS by the police at their discretion, its on the DBS website in black and white.

jakeblu said:
Actually its on the Criminal Record Check, if the person does not have a criminal record, ie has not been convicted of a crime, then it really shouldn't be there, imo.
Click to expand...

This^^
 
Donnie said:
Wrong, it can be put on the enhanced DBS by the police at their discretion, its on the DBS website in black and white.
Click to expand...
You seem to be fixated on the DBS check. If you don't mind me saying so, you're in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.

Convictions, cautions, and court appearances (whether guilty or not) are a matter of public record. So if an employer wants to make it a condition of employment that all convictions, cautions, and court appearances (whether guilty or not) must be disclosed, then the data are out there. All the DBS check does - mostly - is save employers time and money by pulling together all the information which is already on the public record in one convenient package.

One issue that I have real problems with is the police adding judgemental information into the process. ('Yes, he was found not guilty, but we think the jury got it wrong' and such like, which seems to be what might have has happened in the case which started this thread.) It seems to me that it would be preferable for the facts of the matter - the verdict, and the court transcript - to stand on their own here.

And the biggest issue, to my mind at least, is what is done with all this information. There is a DBS code of conduct which says that employers must not discriminate against potential employees on the basis of them having a criminal record. But as far as I can tell, it does not say that they must not discriminate on the basis of 'not guilty' court appearances.
 
StewartR said:
least, is what is done with all this information. There is a DBS code of conduct which says that employers must not discriminate against potential employees on the basis of them having a criminal record. But as far as I can tell, it does not say that they must not discriminate on the basis of 'not guilty' court appearances.
Click to expand...
the actual requirement is to not discriminate on the basis of a criminal conviction or other information supplied in the DBS check.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-sample-policy-on-the-recruitment-of-ex-offenders

That link also answers your previous point about disclosing how the employer uses the DBS information as that usage must be detailed in a written policy before the organisation can apply for a DBS check.

StewartR said:
No, sorry, I disagree. The DBS check is not a pass/fail criterion, as others have noted here. It provides information which employers can use in their processes, but (so far as I am aware) employers are not required to disclose how they use that information. That's the problem.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
You seem to be fixated on the DBS check. If you don't mind me saying so, you're in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.

Convictions, cautions, and court appearances (whether guilty or not) are a matter of public record. So if an employer wants to make it a condition of employment that all convictions, cautions, and court appearances (whether guilty or not) must be disclosed, then the data are out there. All the DBS check does - mostly - is save employers time and money by pulling together all the information which is already on the public record in one convenient package.

One issue that I have real problems with is the police adding judgemental information into the process. ('Yes, he was found not guilty, but we think the jury got it wrong' and such like, which seems to be what might have has happened in the case which started this thread.) It seems to me that it would be preferable for the facts of the matter - the verdict, and the court transcript - to stand on their own here.

And the biggest issue, to my mind at least, is what is done with all this information. There is a DBS code of conduct which says that employers must not discriminate against potential employees on the basis of them having a criminal record. But as far as I can tell, it does not say that they must not discriminate on the basis of 'not guilty' court appearances.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how Im not getting my point across on the fact that not guilty should NOT be on a DBS check. Yes they are public record if you look them up, I get that I really do, I can google to my hearts content and see whats been to court and who was found guilty and who was not, but only the guilty and therefore sentenced should be on the Criminal record.

My point is that its unjustifiable for a non guilty verdict to be on file in the first place to even come up on a DBS check and follow someone for eternity. Especially when some spent convictions have a shelf life.
 
Donnie said:
No, the issue is that anyone can be accused of anything genuinely or maliciously and that a not guilty verdict stains your reputation, record and future life and employment forever.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that an accusation automatically creates a court case. In these days of cash strapped public services, there’s a huge amount of deliberation of the evidence at every turn before more public funds are committed.

That doesn’t mean ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ it means this hangs on much more than ‘an accusation’.
 
Donnie said:
I don't understand how Im not getting my point across on the fact that not guilty should NOT be on a DBS check.
Click to expand...

Maybe the lack of understanding isn’t ours. ;)

You keep suggesting that someone has been found to be ‘innocent’, when legally they’ve been acquitted.

And you seem fixated on a check as if it’s a pass/fail, there’s no guidance to tell the school to not hire someone acquitted of rape, they decided that off their own bats.
 
Yes. In Scotland, it's called "Not Proven" IIRC.
 
Donnie said:
So basically it appears theres innocent guilty and a grey area in between in the legal system.
Click to expand...
In English law there is no innocent. There is a presumption of innocence which merely means that the police, courts and such must treat us all as being innocent until such time as we are pronounced quilty but that is not the same as actually being innocent. After the court case there is either guilty or not guilty (or case dismissed which means there is no verdict).
 
Phil V said:
Maybe the lack of understanding isn’t ours. ;)

You keep suggesting that someone has been found to be ‘innocent’, when legally they’ve been acquitted.

And you seem fixated on a check as if it’s a pass/fail, there’s no guidance to tell the school to not hire someone acquitted of rape, they decided that off their own bats.
Click to expand...
They were never found to be innocent as the law states that they are until proven otherwise. Presumption of innocence old boy, cornerstone of the English legal system, or at least it used to be.
 
Donnie said:
So basically it appears theres innocent guilty and a grey area in between in the legal system.
Click to expand...
Yes.
In England and Wales, "Not Guilty" means that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the Court that the accused person has committed the offence with which s/he has been charged beyond all reasonable doubt.
1. This may be because the accused is innocent (definately did not commit the offence) or
2. The Magistrate or jury cannot be sure that the accused is guilty or
3. The accused has been wrongly charged, i.e. is guilty of something but perhaps not of the precise offence with which s/he has been charged.

A good example of (2) is the "Babes in the wood" murders of two little girls in 1986. The man accused of their murders, Russell Bishop, pleaded not guilty and claimed that he could not have murdered them as he was busy breaking into someone's house at the time. The Jury found him "Not Guilty" but the police did not re-open the case because they believed that he was in fact guilty. This is an interesting case, because it is one of those very rare "Double Jepardy" cases that can now be re-tried, and in fact the case is due to come back to Crown Court on 15/10/18. I don't know whether Bishop is guilty or not, but it's pretty clear that he wasn't innocent, especially as he was convicted of a very similar offence involving a 7 year old girl in 1990. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Now, it seems to me that those who feel that it is wrong to record court appearances that result in aquittal would be happy for men like Russell Bishop to have unrestricted access to young girls. Even though he was found "Not Guilty", he is clearly not someone who should be allowed to work with vulnerable people.
 
john.margetts said:
In English law there is no innocent. There is a presumption of innocence which merely means that the police, courts and such must treat us all as being innocent until such time as we are pronounced quilty but that is not the same as actually being innocent. After the court case there is either guilty or not guilty (or case dismissed which means there is no verdict).
Click to expand...

I disagree, John.

As I put in a previous post on this thread the two judges in cases where I was a member of the jury were very clear. The defendants were innocent of all charges unless the prosecution could prove to the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that they had committed the charges with which they were charged.

Dave
 
Donnie said:
But in bishops case his 1990 guilty verdict would come up on the dbs rendering all your assumptions and presumptions about him being guilty of the 86 murder (because thats what they are as he was found not guilty) are moot.
Click to expand...
So between 86 and 90, your happy that if he applied to work as a caretaker in a primary school that school should not be informed of the previous trial? I mean he was found not guilty after all but found guilty of a similar offence in 90.

I think that case alone demonstrates the justification for the trial appearing on an enhanced check.

I have taken a look at the op link too. He lost the appeal as he was arguing that his right to privacy had been infringed by the disclosure of publicly available information! Perhaps teaching is not really the right profession for him.
 
I'd have been as happy as anyone else as in 1987 for example no one would be aware as the fact he was guilty of a similar offence 4 years later doesn't mean he was guilty of the earlier one, thats again a presumption based on hindsight and nothing else. Additionally I would say that there was no such thing as the crb or dbs back in 1986 so again it's a moot arguement.

As for the op link, he was arguing about being found not guilty being put on the DBS check, not that it was on publicly available (only if you go digging) information, there's a difference.
 
Donnie said:
But in bishops case his 1990 guilty verdict would come up on the dbs rendering all your assumptions and presumptions about him being guilty of the 86 murder (because thats what they are as he was found not guilty) are moot.
Click to expand...
I made it clear that I haven't presumed or assumed guilt, that's what the jury is for.
He may be a lovely fella, for all I know. I didn't know him, although I did know his mother (who campaigned vigorously after his aquittal, complaining that because the police had publicly stated that they weren't going to look for anyone else for the murders, her poor son was finding it difficult to get work, which I always found strange as he had never worked) but I did know his mother well. I may have come across him once though, my car was broken into when I visited his mother once, but again I'm not assuming that he was responsible.

Getting further back on topic, rape cases are extremely difficult to prove, largely because sex is usually something that happens in private, with no witnesses. The common rape defence is that sex did occur, but that the woman consented to it, or that the man believed that she had consented. Because of the difficulty in convincing juries that consent did not take place, there must be a lot of guilty men who have been aquitted, making it even more important that the aquittal shows up on the DBS check, so that prospective employers have information available and can make a fully informed decision.
 
Donnie said:
I'd have been as happy as anyone else as in 1987 for example no one would be aware as the fact he was guilty of a similar offence 4 years later doesn't mean he was guilty of the earlier one, thats again a presumption based on hindsight and nothing else. Additionally I would say that there was no such thing as the crb or dbs back in 1986 so again it's a moot arguement.

As for the op link, he was arguing about being found not guilty being put on the DBS check, not that it was on publicly available (only if you go digging) information, there's a difference.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll say this again, the checks form part of a risk assessment. In a hypothetical world, if your child was attending a school were a previously suspected (to the point of the CPS being satisfied to go to trial) child murderer was working, would you really be happy that the school had not been informed of that fact or would you complain if to the school if the worst was to happen as it did in 1990?

The chap in the op link was arguing that the fact it appeared on his DBS infringed his privacy, which it didn't and the supreme court judges agreed it didn't, so any difference is a little moot.
 
Tringa said:
I disagree, John.

As I put in a previous post on this thread the two judges in cases where I was a member of the jury were very clear. The defendants were innocent of all charges unless the prosecution could prove to the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that they had committed the charges with which they were charged.

Dave
Click to expand...
If those judges had been talking to law students and not jurors I doubt they would have said that. They were talking to a group of unknown people of unknown intelligence and unknown education and needed to get across complex ideas so would have simplified as much as they dared.

I do not mean to refer to you in my comments as to Intelligence and education, but to the judge's knowledge of (plural) you.
 
There are also 2 distinct definitions for something in law.
The criminal definition of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ and the civil definition which only relies on a balance of probability.
 
Donnie said:
But in bishops case his 1990 guilty verdict would come up on the dbs rendering all your assumptions and presumptions about him being guilty of the 86 murder (because thats what they are as he was found not guilty) are moot.
Click to expand...
There’s be no DBS necessary as he’s been jailed for life.
Are you happy that he’s be a safe person to work with your kids prior to 1990?
Because I’m a big old softy liberal and I flipping wouldn’t.
 
My final words on this are simply I wouldn't want anyone who had been accused and tried for rape walking my dog let alone working with children and I also doubt if anyone here would be honest enough to say otherwise.
For me an accusation that leads to trial is a serious thing.
An accusation that leads to no charges being bought is different.
 
Mr Bump said:
My final words on this are simply I wouldn't want anyone who had been accused and tried for rape walking my dog let alone working with children and I also doubt if anyone here would be honest enough to say otherwise.
For me an accusation that leads to trial is a serious thing.
An accusation that leads to no charges being bought is different.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because there are never any miscarriages of justice are there....oh wait.
 
Phil V said:
There’s be no DBS necessary as he’s been jailed for life.
Are you happy that he’s be a safe person to work with your kids prior to 1990?
Because I’m a big old softy liberal and I flipping wouldn’t.
Click to expand...

Again though, prior to 1990 he hadnt been jailed so you'd have been ignorant of the issues, its moot.

Mr Bump said:
My final words on this are simply I wouldn't want anyone who had been accused and tried for rape walking my dog let alone working with children and I also doubt if anyone here would be honest enough to say otherwise.
For me an accusation that leads to trial is a serious thing.
An accusation that leads to no charges being bought is different.
Click to expand...

jakeblu said:
Yeah, because there are never any miscarriages of justice are there....oh wait.
Click to expand...

This^^^^
 
Donnie said:
Again though, prior to 1990 he hadnt been jailed so you'd have been ignorant of the issues, its moot.





This^^^^
Click to expand...
It’s no moot at all.
You wouldn’t have been ignorant of the issues (as per the point of this thread) it’d have shown up on his DBS. So would you have been happy leaving your kids with him?
Simple yes or no?
 
Donnie said:
Its not a simple yes or no because your basing it on the dbs, which did not exist in 1986.
Click to expand...
Before we had these safeguarding systems in place, we relied on local knowledge, which sort of worked in the case of Bishop because just about everyone in Brighton, where he lived, knew all about him - but there was nothing to stop him stealing a car and going somewhere else...

I think that we need to stop worrying too much about occasional injustices to those who are entirely innocent, and think instead about society's obligation to protect the public in general.
If DBS information makes it difficult for them to get a job in England or Wales that places them in a position to abuse vulnerable people then they can work elsewhere, or they can work in a similar field but where they do not have unsupervised access to vulnerable people.
I'm old, I hope that I don't live long enough to need professional care, but if I do then I don't want someone who has been tried for rape carrying out the care, and I don't want that person taking care of, or educating my grandchildren either. Someone who has been questioned by police is very different, this could happen to anyone, but for a case to actually go to trial means that there was a lot of evidence indicating guilt - maybe not enough to actually convict, but a lot none the less.

Look at what has gone on in the past, in all sorts or organisations but mainly in children's homes, orphanages etc, usually run by local authorities or even worse, by the churches - no legislation can possibly prevent all forms of abuse or other crime, but do we really want to go back to the bad old days of having no checks at all, and no safeguarding systems in place?
 
Garry Edwards said:
Look at what has gone on in the past, in all sorts or organisations but mainly in children's homes, orphanages etc, usually run by local authorities or even worse, by the churches - no legislation can possibly prevent all forms of abuse or other crime, but do we really want to go back to the bad old days of having no checks at all, and no safeguarding systems in place?
Click to expand...

Im not saying there should be no checks, ive never said that.

Garry Edwards said:
I think that we need to stop worrying too much about occasional injustices to those who are entirely innocent, and think instead about society's obligation to protect the public in general.
Click to expand...

Yes, as a society thats what we should be doing, not caring about the odd innocent person o_Oo_Oo_O

Garry Edwards said:
If DBS information makes it difficult for them to get a job in England or Wales that places them in a position to abuse vulnerable people then they can work elsewhere, or they can work in a similar field but where they do not have unsupervised access to vulnerable people.
I'm old, I hope that I don't live long enough to need professional care, but if I do then I don't want someone who has been tried for rape carrying out the care, and I don't want that person taking care of, or educating my grandchildren either. Someone who has been questioned by police is very different, this could happen to anyone, but for a case to actually go to trial means that there was a lot of evidence indicating guilt - maybe not enough to actually convict, but a lot none the less.
Click to expand...

It's all very well but you've really not thought that through at all. Have you looked at the NHS workforce? Just over 12% of all NHS workers are foreign nationals. When you are old how will you possibly know anything about those caring for you when the DBS cannot access records from overseas! not even ones where someone was actually found guilty!
 
[QUOTE="Donnie, post: 8230744, member: 45832"
It's all very well but you've really not thought that through at all. Have you looked at the NHS workforce? Just over 12% of all NHS workers are foreign nationals. When you are old how will you possibly know anything about those caring for you when the DBS cannot access records from overseas! not even ones where someone was actually found guilty![/QUOTE]
You're wrong about that, but sadly once we've left the EU you may end up being right:(
 
Donnie said:
Its not a simple yes or no because your basing it on the dbs, which did not exist in 1986.
Click to expand...
But surely you are capable of using the facts of that case, and comparing them to the case that is in the OP?
I don’t believe you’re too stupid to see a dangerous parallel, so are you just being wilfully obtuse in order to press a point that’s definitely dangerous at best.

As Garry says, the DBS system is far from perfect, but are you suggesting that scrapping it would be safer?

Or do you have anything positive to add?

But back to the question, would you be happy with a suspected (and definitely guilt but not convicted) child killer looking after your kids?
 
Ah, it wasn't clear you were trying to apply what happened with bishop with the op's case, problem there is the introduction of prejudice which is what courts and jurys try to avoid at all costs don't they to come to fair and just verdicts? I don't call being non prejudicial obtuse.

As for scrapping the DBS, I'm not suggesting that at all, my point about the DBS has consistantly been people happily accept it as it is and therefore are happy to see a few miscarraiges of justice for the "greater good". That is, as Ive said several times, the sad state of society we seem to have found ourselves in.

You keep trying to justify your position through asking a provocative question about a child killer looking after my kids, but you keep asking an impossible one.

ie. you say "would you be happy with a suspected (and definitely guilt but not convicted) child killer looking after your kids?"

Without being too pedantic lets assume you mean murder and not manslaughter which introduces a whole raft of other issues as I dont want you to think Im being obtuse.

So, a child murderer. So, to answer your question fully, I wouldn't be happy with a convicted child murderer looking after my kids. However I suspect you wont be happy with that as you say suspected, definitly guilty but not convicted, in that case Id wonder how youve determined his guilt and yet theres no conviction??
 
ok so what about a convicted killer who served a life sentence 20 years ago and is no a reformed practising bishop?

would you trust him to look after your kids?
 
Garry Edwards said:
I think that we need to stop worrying too much about occasional injustices to those who are entirely innocent, and think instead about society's obligation to protect the public in general.
Click to expand...
This the nub. Do we accept that a few innocent people should suffer to catch more of the guilty, or do we accept that a few guilty people go free so we (society in the form of the criminal justice system 'we' in this context) don't harm any any innocents?

I'm in the "better a guilty man walk free than an innocent one be wrongly punished" camp. Because I'm one of them liberals that are so unpopular.
 
Donnie said:
You did say he'd served his sentence and was reformed didn't you?
Click to expand...

that's right in the eyes of his probation officer and he will have ticked the "I don't plan on doing it again " BOX [ ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top