The Supreme Court will hear an appeal by the government this week concerning the disclosure of spent criminal cautions and convictions.
Stephensons Solicitors LLP continues to act on behalf of a young adult who accepted a police caution as an 11-year-old child after being accused of a stealing a bicycle. The person who is the subject of an anonymity order and known as ‘T’, had attempted to have the caution removed from a criminal record certificate at the High Court in February 2012, but the Court felt that its hands were tied by case law.
The issue arose when the adult applied for a position which required an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check to be carried out and the warning, despite being ‘spent’, was still visible on the records.
An appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in November 2012 and judgment provided in January 2013.
This granted the appeal and made findings that T’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy and family life) had been breached by continued disclosure of the caution. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exemptions Order) was illegal.
The government appealed to the Supreme Court and the case is now listed for final hearing on December 9th and 10th at the Supreme Court in London. Judgment is anticipated to be reserved.
The Prudential Regulation Authority, Financial Conduct Authority, Liberty and the Equality and Human Rights Commission are intervening in the case given its importance.
The law has been changed in the meantime and filtering of old and minor convictions and cautions has been occurring since 29 May 2013.
T’s solicitor, Mike Pemberton, a partner and Head of the Civil Liberties Unit at Stephensons Solicitors LLP, said: “This case looks at whether the systems established by the Police Act 1997 and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 requiring an individual to reveal details of past warnings is compatible with the right to privacy and family life under the Human Rights Act.
“While the law has now changed, the case is still important because the findings of the Court of Appeal affect whether questions can ever be asked about spent convictions and whether regard has to be given to their relevance if so.”