It is a question of risk management (as I believe has already been mentioned). When you are employing someone to work with vulnerable people, you cannot know that the prospective employee will never harm the vulnerable person in their charge (nor that they will), but you can look at as much information as is available so that you can reduce that risk.Ah so you don't believe anyone can be reformed then is that it?
Some people do reform, completely.Ah so you don't believe anyone can be reformed then is that it?
And even poor risk management is much better than no risk management at all.It is a question of risk management (as I believe has already been mentioned). When you are employing someone to work with vulnerable people, you cannot know that the prospective employee will never harm the vulnerable person in their charge (nor that they will), but you can look at as much information as is available so that you can reduce that risk.
This thread has illustrated while in England and Wales (and ignoring the cases where juries cannot reach a decision) a defendant at the end of the court case is, in the eyes of the law, innocent or guilty, but life is more complicated.
We don't know (and almost certainly we will never know) how the not guilty verdict occurred
Did the case go to completion and the jury retire to consider their verdict?
Did the judge direct the jury to return a not guilty verdict?
Did the CPS, who I assume believed there was a good chance of a guilty verdict, withdraw from the case at some point (not entirely sure this would result in a not guilty verdict)?
Did some new compelling evidence come to light during the case that resulted in the not guilty verdict?
However, it clear from this comment by one of the judges in the appeal that there are some concerns about what has happened -
Lord Carnwath added: "We have been shown reports which emphasise the importance of not excluding the convicted from consideration for employment, but they say nothing about the acquitted, who surely deserve greater protection from unfair stigmatisation."
Dave
Points system
Guilty = 3
Not Guilty = 2
Charged but not to trial (charges dropped) = 1
Arrested but never charged = 0
Some people do reform, completely.
I knew a guy who, in his youth, attacked and badly beat up an asian taxi driver simply because another asian taxi driver had beaten up one of his mates, he was sent to prison and became a totally reformed character, and an active anti-racist. But reformation is fairly rare, most people tend to behave in the future as they have behaved in the past.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows for convictions to be 'spent' after a period of time, this allows people to get insurance without having to pay extra, and to get a job, but it is limited in that there is no rehabilitation for offences that result in a prison sentence of four years or more, and some jobs (including jobs in the police, prison service, legal profession, health, care of vulnerable adults and children etc are exempt, and so they should be.
And even poor risk management is much better than no risk management at all.
Is this something that exists or have you plucked it out of thin air? I dont know what point you are trying to make here?
"reoffending rate" actually means reconviction rate. These two figures would only be the same if all offenders were caught, and if the CPS then agreed to all of them being charged, and if they all then went to Court and either pleaded guilty or were convicted. As only a small minority of offenders of most crimes are caught, and then charged, and then convicted, the true "reoffending rate" must be far, far higher than the official figures, that's obvious.Thats a massive generalisation that the figures simply don't support. The latest reoffending rates published on gov.uk are an overall reoffending rate of 29.5%. Im not saying that's great but its not supportive of rare
Ouch. really? The problem with poor risk management is that its poor, ie not done right if at all and becomes a tick box excercise at best therefore risks are essentially ignored.
So, your own assumption is thatWell it's obvious certainly if you make assumptions yes.
Im not sure what point you are making here with the quote from Lord Carnwath. You seem to be saying that theres evidence to say theres good reason to keep the information on his dbs check when in fact the quote doesnt say that at all?
So, your own assumption is that
1. All crimes are reported to the police
2. The police investigate all crimes reported to them
3. They arrest the guilty person, every time
4. The CPS decide that the police will charge, in every case
5. The person charged will actually turn up at Court
6. s/he will then either plead guilty or will be found guilty.
I, and others, have tried to educate you on the realities of life in the real world, but I've now given up - some battles just can't be won.
I think Lord Carnwath's comment indicates that consideration should be given to a convicted person who has served their sentence and then seeks employment but there appears to be no guidance to assist employers if someone found not guilty of an offence, and therefore is, in the eyes of the law innocent, applies for a job.
I'm not sure if I think a record of the offence should be included in the ECRC. I can see a reason for not including - the jury found him not guilty, but I can also see why a Chief Police Officer might decide it was relevant.
It depends on the circumstances of the court case. I think a not guilty verdict after the jury has listened to all the evidence but decides the prosecution has not, beyond reasonable doubt, proved the person to be guilty, is different to a not guilty verdict based on new evidence that came to light during the trial which proves the defendant could not have committed the crime.However, both will be recorded as not guilty, but should both be recorded on the ECRC?
Which goes back to an earlier post on this thread about a need for some discussion (which would have to include the public) and official guidance in such cases.
Dave
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?
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?
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?
The reality is today, if you’re charged and taken to court for rape, while the old tenet of innocent until proven guilty stands, it’s also true that some form of corroborating evidence must exist for you to be in the 3%.
.
I hope people don't leave their kids with brothers, uncles or grandads!!!
only a slight gender bias there...
Didn't the investigation into the circumstances show that whilst really unfortunate for those concerned, it was a lack of compliance with procedures by individuals that created those cases, and no further instances were discovered?Or, as in several high profile cases this year alone, the police have simply ignored / witheld compelling evidence which would have resulted in the CPS not pursuing charges at all.
Didn't the investigation into the circumstances show that whilst really unfortunate for those concerned, it was a lack of compliance with procedures by individuals that created those cases, and no further instances were discovered?
Yes, that's pretty well it. In some cases, the texts proved a relationship that the accused had claimed to exist but that the "victim" had claimed not to exist, and in other cases there were texts from the "victim" sent AFTER the alleged rape that indicated that she had fully consented to what had occurred.As I understand it, police were failing to include all digital evidence (mostly texts) into evidence, and when defence finally obtained it on discovery, trials were halted and convictions overturned (5 in 4 weeks at one point).
Back in January this resulted in the CPS reviewing ALL (then) current rape and sexual assault cases, and quite a few cases being summarily dismissed.
As summarised in the old Joke.these losses are so common that judges tend to just accept it as something that happens,
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.
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?
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?
Well he went on to murder a further child and is to be retried for the original offence he was not convicted of.You are asking hypothetical questions that are nothing to do with the issue of "should a person who has been proved by a court to be not guilty of any offence have a record of that court appearance".
And Phil how on earth do you come up with "definitely guilty but not convicted" what the ... is that!
Your being drawn off track (good job I stepped in ) Reformation is not the issue. Keep to the point is about those who have stood trial and been tested in court as to their guilt and then in fact been found not guilty.Ah so you don't believe anyone can be reformed then is that it?
Undoubtably a few police officers are corrupt, more are incompetent and even more are self-serving, and generally the higher up they reach in rank, the worse it gets. BUT they are also the people who are best placed to form a sound opinion on whether or not information about their suspicions about an individual should be available to others.Your being drawn off track (good job I stepped in ) Reformation is not the issue. Keep to the point is about those who have stood trial and been tested in court as to their guilt and then in fact been found not guilty.
After that when they apply for a job should they be subject to disclosure of that trial to a prospective employer at which they found not guilty.
What has to be kept in mind (read the judgment) is that the person who decides on whether or not to make the disclosure is the chief constable, the police the very same people who prosecuted and lost the case. Now is that a wise decision
I think that it should be an independant body that decides if the information should be disclosed not in every case such as convicted people. But the police should have no place in disclosing cases to employers or anyone where they lost the case. The police are left open to suggetions of revenge.
Judgement. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0144-press-summary.pdf
Undoubtably a few police officers are corrupt, more are incompetent and even more are self-serving, and generally the higher up they reach in rank, the worse it gets. BUT they are also the people who are best placed to form a sound opinion on whether or not information about their suspicions about an individual should be available to others.
Yes, it's the way that the world works, I'm sorry if you don't understand that.So the corrupt, incompetent and self serving are included as the best people to form this sound opinion? Really.??
I understand it, Im just not someone thats willing to blindly accept it as you seem to be.
From what little we know, the accused in this case was working as a taxi driver. A female passenger complained that he had raped her. He said that not only did he not rape her, he had had no physical contact whatever with her.What I believe is that while it may be a storm in a teacup to some, it certainly isn't to anyone thats found themselves in the situation the OP's post is about, and there is the potential that this could happen to anyone for any reason.
Im not trying to pretend anything, I don't believe that its the biggest travesty of justice since the birmingham 6 either and frankly it's a bit condescending to resort to such statements.
Let's try to keep things in context:What I believe is that while it may be a storm in a teacup to some, it certainly isn't to anyone thats found themselves in the situation the OP's post is about, and there is the potential that this could happen to anyone for any reason.
Like I said, my post was supposed to show that there's more common ground here than difference ; yet you seem intent on creating a drama.Im not trying to pretend anything, I don't believe that its the biggest travesty of justice since the birmingham 6 either and frankly it's a bit condescending to resort to such statements.