Should future employers be warned you were found not guilty in a rape trial??

Hades · 30 Jul 2018 at 17:52

This story really doesn't sit right with me. A man was accused of rape and found not guilty at trial. But the rape accusation and trial, are being mentioned in criminal record checks by potential employers.

The check does mention that he was found not guilty. But clearly this is still going to make a future employer pause and think there is no smoke without fire.

Should an accusation, particularly one of a sexual nature, be mentioned on a CRB check, even when you were found not guilty?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45004290

Nasher · 30 Jul 2018 at 17:53

Not guilty is not guilty. I don't see why it needs to be there other than for the court's internal use.

It isn't a criminal record unless they were convicted, surely? Can this even be justified under GDPR?

adolf hamster · 30 Jul 2018 at 17:57

oh ffs, it's bad enough the media gets to put people on trial now employers are too?

i'm sorry but this is a steaming pile of various domesticated animal faeces.

the only time it's acceptable to put peoples names out there for a crime is after they've been sentenced as guilty in a court of law, or when there is a clear and present danger to public safety.

suspected? nope
accused? nope
acquited? nope
convicted? ok fine chuck that name in the gutter

200sols · 30 Jul 2018 at 18:22

So a man, not guilty in eyes of the courts will have his life ruined. Nobody will employ him.

VincentHanna · 30 Jul 2018 at 18:25

200sols said:
So a man, not guilty in eyes of the courts will have his life ruined. Nobody will employ him.

Well that's a bit of a leap.

Firstly this only shows on an enhanced CRB check, not even the standard one. An enhanced one is when police disclose information that could be pertinent to the role in question.

Secondly - was he turned down for the job after the check?

Note he can't be named for legal reasons, so it's not like his identity is plastered all over the news/internet.

200sols · 30 Jul 2018 at 18:32

VincentHanna said:
Well that's a bit of a leap.

Firstly this only shows on an enhanced CRB check, not even the standard one. An enhanced one is when police disclose information that could be pertinent to the role in question.

Secondly - was he turned down for the job after the check?

Note he can't be named for legal reasons, so it's not like his identity is plastered all over the news/internet.

I don’t think so myself, he is a teacher, so one would assume the highest level of check will be used.

FoxEye · 30 Jul 2018 at 18:32

This does send a message to kids in schools that they are untouchable.

Children are not stupid. They know now how much power they have - if they don't like a teacher they can ruin his/her life with a simple accusation.

FoxEye · 30 Jul 2018 at 18:34

VincentHanna said:
Well that's a bit of a leap.

Firstly this only shows on an enhanced CRB check, not even the standard one. An enhanced one is when police disclose information that could be pertinent to the role in question.

He won't be able to work with children. He's trained as a teacher.

Put 2+2 together before you post?

Sure he might be able to get a job as burger flipper.

VincentHanna · 30 Jul 2018 at 18:42

FoxEye said:
He won't be able to work with children. He's trained as a teacher.

Put 2+2 together before you post?

Sure he might be able to get a job as burger flipper.

He won't be able to work with "children" if the potential employer decides his acquittal is somehow important.

Bear in mind he wants to be a lecturer. That implies a university where most students will be 18 year old adults.

FluffySheep · 30 Jul 2018 at 18:47

FoxEye said:
He won't be able to work with children. He's trained as a teacher.

Put 2+2 together before you post?

Sure he might be able to get a job as burger flipper.

I'm a teacher. DBS (new name for CRB) checks only get done after appointment but before starting in my experience. Doesn't necessarily mean no job. I know people who have been found guilty who have worked around kids (no I won't expand on this). Employer will ask for an explanation but some might not take the chance with public perception. Only option I can see is for him to change his name. All will still come out on the DBS but public will probably not make the link.

FluffySheep

Eurofighter · 30 Jul 2018 at 20:20

Shouldn't show, the man was found innocent.

enkoda · 30 Jul 2018 at 20:29

Eurofighter said:
Shouldn't show, the man was found innocent.

No, he was found not guilty which isn't the same as innocent - it's possible that the jury may have believed he did it but there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did do it.

FoxEye · 30 Jul 2018 at 20:43

enkoda said:
No, he was found not guilty which isn't the same as innocent - it's possible that the jury may have believed he did it but there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did do it.

So basically, once accused you can never be innocent again.

Even if unanimously found not guilty, people like yourself will still be saying (in places like these) "he could be guilty".

So he really is damned.

adolf hamster · 30 Jul 2018 at 20:45

enkoda said:
No, he was found not guilty which isn't the same as innocent - it's possible that the jury may have believed he did it but there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did do it.

this response summarises perfectly why this sort of information shouldn't be disclosed.

you know our justice system works on innocent until proven guilty right? not innocent until proven not guilty but still presumed guilty by society

cheesyboy · 30 Jul 2018 at 21:02

Of course, the enhanced crb check would have disallowed Ian Huntley from working in a school, which is why it was introduced.

There's a balance to be struck, but it's worth bearing in mind that being legally innocent isn't the same thing as being confirmed not to have done the crime.

Was Ian Huntley really innocent, in a physical sense rather than legal, of those past sexual offenses? On the balance of probabilities, you might say not.

Wizzfizz · 30 Jul 2018 at 21:08

enkoda said:
No, he was found not guilty which isn't the same as innocent - it's possible that the jury may have believed he did it but there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did do it.

Disagree entirely.

Mr Jack · 30 Jul 2018 at 21:09

enkoda said:
No, he was found not guilty which isn't the same as innocent - it's possible that the jury may have believed he did it but there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did do it.

In the eyes of the law, there should be no distinction.

Although perhaps we should go to the Scottish system?

enkoda · 30 Jul 2018 at 21:19

adolf hamster said:
this response summarises perfectly why this sort of information shouldn't be disclosed.

you know our justice system works on innocent until proven guilty right? not innocent until proven not guilty but still presumed guilty by society

We all like to think it does, but locking up someone on remand kind of nullifies that argument.

It's also entirely feasible that the jury decided he was completely innocent, but they aren't there to make a judgement on innocence, only if he was guilty or not.

Wizzfizz said:
Disagree entirely.

You can disagree all you like, the law makes no statement on whether the accused is innocent, just on the question of guilt.
A jury returns a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty", not "guilty" or "innocent".

Diddums · 30 Jul 2018 at 21:20

adolf hamster said:
oh ffs, it's bad enough the media gets to put people on trial now employers are too?

i'm sorry but this is a steaming pile of various domesticated animal faeces.

the only time it's acceptable to put peoples names out there for a crime is after they've been sentenced as guilty in a court of law, or when there is a clear and present danger to public safety.

suspected? nope
accused? nope
acquited? nope
convicted? ok fine chuck that name in the gutter

Not much I can add to this, the hamster is bang on.

adolf hamster · 30 Jul 2018 at 21:33

enkoda said:
We all like to think it does, but locking up someone on remand kind of nullifies that argument.

It's also entirely feasible that the jury decided he was completely innocent, but they aren't there to make a judgement on innocence, only if he was guilty or not.

You can disagree all you like, the law makes no statement on whether the accused is innocent, just on the question of guilt.
A jury returns a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty", not "guilty" or "innocent".

so you'd rather we live in a society that means you can ruin anyone's life with a false allegation?

i'd say i'm glad people like you aren't in charge, but sadly it seems that's not the case.