The Supreme Court has today given judgment in the appeal by the Government against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in January 2013.
Stephensons Solicitors LLP acts on behalf of the respondent known as ‘T’, a young adult who accepted a police warning as an 11-year-old child after being accused of a stealing a bicycle.
The Supreme Court has:
- Upheld the Court of Appeal’s findings that the disclosure of the warning breached T’s right to privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it could not be justified.
- Confirmed the Court of Appeal’s declaration of incompatibility in respect of the Police Act 1997 and noted that the law had subsequently been changed when amendments to the Act were made.
- From 29/5/13 a filtering scheme came into existence and now operates so that minor convictions and cautions are not disclosed.
The Court has therefore allowed the appeal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of the Court of Appeal’s declaration that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1975 (Exemptions Order) was illegal. This had cast doubt on the legality of all Criminal Record Checks that had been undertaken prior to the 29/5/13.
The Supreme Court has taken a practical view and concluded that as the law has been changed, there is no need to quash the Exemptions Order and cause uncertainty in respect of criminal records disclosure Criminal Records Disclosure prior to the change in the law in May 2013.
T had obtained his remedy by that change in law, the declaration and fact that in the future his warnings will not be disclosed.
The Prudential Regulation Authority, Financial Conduct Authority, Liberty and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in the case and made submissions to the Supreme Court.
The young adult’s solicitor, Mike Pemberton, a partner and Head of the Civil Liberties Unit at Stephensons Solicitors LLP, said: “This case has looked at whether the systems established by the Police Act 1997 and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 requiring disclosure of every past warning or misdemeanour is compatible with the right to privacy and family life under the Human Rights Act.
“It defied common sense that a minor caution at the age of 11 should have to be disclosed on every application for a job of certain types in the future and have to explain the matter again and again.
“The Court of Appeal took a rational approach in January 2013 and concluded that disclosure of minor issues that were in no way relevant to positions being applied for could not be justified. The judgment caused some potential difficulties because the effect of it may have undermined the legality of all Criminal Record checks.
“The Supreme Court has therefore had to balance the rights of individuals with the proportionate needs of society in what is an important area involving public protection. It has applied common sense to the situation. The judgment makes clear that there has to be relevance of the disclosure of personal information to the purpose of the Criminal Record check.”
The judgment can be read in full here
ENDS
Media information: Lianne Tracey
Stephensons Solicitors LLP
Tel: 01616 966 229
Email: lct@stephensons.co.uk