And if that came out at trial as the cases you would cite would show I suggest the judge in any subsequent hearing such as the one relevant here would take that into account so what's the issue?
Should future employers be warned you were found not guilty in a rape trial??
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
And if that came out at trial as the cases you would cite would show I suggest the judge in any subsequent hearing such as the one relevant here would take that into account so what's the issue?
Caporegime
Because they didn't come out at trial. Due to the 'incompetence' of the CPS, a number of innocent men have been proven to have been jailed for rapes they didn't commit.
The CPS are not impartial. They have targets to hit. What they send to court one day may not make it to court the next.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...rs-terrifying-incompetence-on-sex-crimes.html
literally the first result on google for 'cps incompetence'.
"There were no witnesses, no forensic evidence and his accuser also failed to pick Mr Pearson out in a police line-up."
"The only problem was that the CCTV footage showed no assault at all. On the contrary, it showed Mark Pearson walking through the station minding his own business, his hands clearly visible at all times, the right one clutching his shoulder bag strap, his left hand – the one he is supposed to have thrust up the actress’s dress – clearly holding a newspaper."
"The CPS, in mind-boggling defiance, continues to insist there was “sufficient evidence” for this case to go to trial despite all the evidence to the contrary."
So from that woman's statement, she would ensure this man would suffer for the foreseeable future all because CPS.
Another lovely line elsewhere
"Even with incontrovertible video evidence that the “rape” against Faress was nothing but her malicious, ego-boosting fantasy, Saunders’ CPS wanted an additional scalp. This is nothing new, though: in 2014, an extra 5,000 rape prosecutions were initiated, resulting in only another 77 convictions."
Gooooo CPS! Totally trustworthy.
Last edited:
No more of a risk than from one who has so far never been suspected or accused.
That is a problem, people are just statistics and they don't seem to care if it screws up someone's life. Got to look good in front of the press for increasing the number of rape convictions. Shaky evidence or not.
This is basically the truth.
If the Police think you done it, you done it. They don't need a jury to declare you guilty, and you're going to get punished even if acquitted.
The police are obviously never wrong, if if they suspect you of a crime, you're ****ed.
Well it's just as well that in all the cases you can point to that we have a judicial system that's fairly good at weeding out the bad cases.
You have still posted precisely nothing that would suggest that in any future appeal of a police decision to disclose a non conviction matter that the judge(s) considering the case would not consider all the relevant circumstances.
From the original article....
In this particular case the ruling went against the person appealing based on the particular circumstances of their criminal case. But the ring is clear its not a blanket you have been charged in the past ergo you will get an adverse report. Rather each case needs to be reviewed individually on its own.
Another peraon that missed the due process via an appeal process?
???
Really are we dealing with the sorts of epic levels of ridculeness where a person potentially found not guilty on more than one occasion of sexual offence(s) definitely doesn't represents a higher statistical risk of sexual offending then a person who has never been to court?
Each case of course needs to be reviewed on its individual merits but the criminal burden is (rightly) a very high one. Its completely unsuitable for assessing the risk to children and vulnerable adults.
Caporegime
Again...I'll point out...this guy has been found not guilty. Innocent men have been found guilty when the cases should never have even passed the cps. Their judgement is worth zip. It should count for nothing. It was just 2 years ago there were serious calls for them to be disbanded!
Now you're saying that they should have the power to condemn those found not guilty on the whim of 'evidence' that wasn't good enough to convict them in a criminal court in this country.
What in your mind makes them have the right to do this. Before you reply though I'll just remind you of that first search result from Google. No evidence whatsoever yet the cps deemed it fit to go to court. And then defended themselves over that decision afterwards. Repeatedly. But that's ok, it went to court so clearly this guy can't be trusted around kids.
Thinking of it as a risk vs reward proposition may give people an alternative way to see it.
With it appearing on DBS, the risk is that some people might struggle to get the job they want (in a few particular career sectors), the reward is improved protection of potentially vulnerable people.
With it not appearing, the risk is that potentially vulnerable people could be exposed to offenders that could have been prevented, the reward is that other people can get the job they want in particular career sectors.
I think it's important to remember that the 'punishment of the innocent' here is a possible rejection from a relative few certain jobs. We're not talking mistaken imprisonment, a life of unemployment, ostracision from society etc.
With it appearing on DBS, the risk is that some people might struggle to get the job they want (in a few particular career sectors), the reward is improved protection of potentially vulnerable people.
With it not appearing, the risk is that potentially vulnerable people could be exposed to offenders that could have been prevented, the reward is that other people can get the job they want in particular career sectors.
I think it's important to remember that the 'punishment of the innocent' here is a possible rejection from a relative few certain jobs. We're not talking mistaken imprisonment, a life of unemployment, ostracision from society etc.
And again I will remind you that this is to the criminal standard ......
Employment matters are rather sensibly generally adjudicated at the lower balance of probabilities standard.
If you are taking your former employee to court you don't have to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt.
If the police wish to hold a disciplinary hearing against a constable they use the balance of probabilities.
How is it inconsistent to apply the same test as to the suitability of a potential applicant for a sensitive role?
Caporegime
Again there is only a question of civil matters here due to criminal proceedings.
Yet again I'll refer you to the cps taking a man to court WITH NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.
Are you quite happy and comfortable that you could be accused of something tomorrow and then denied your ideal job or a promotion? Not someone else but you? Because that's what this means. You could be completely innocent and then accused of something. But you are saying it is the right course of action for you to be denied a job in the future based on that false accusation.
** Yes I know he was proven not guilty rather than proven innocent but for the purposes of this example it is the same thing.
But what's the relevance here?
The ruling, in this matter, was quite clear about the care needed to consider each case individually.
If a case was found to be so weak at criminal court as your example what do you imagine the appeal court would say if a DBS decision was subsequently appealed?
See my previous post about my feelings on what is best for society vs best for particular individuals.
We also need to bear in mind this is not barring, it is not guaranteed that you will be denied the job, albeit it is likely, given the specific circumstances this applies.
Caporegime
Jesus...the argument about allowing this guy to be subject to this appearing on his record was that the cps deemed it sufficient to go to trial. I am pointing out that the cps allowing something to go to trial is meaningless.
You could be 'accused' of gross misconduct at work tomorrow and be fired on the basis of it.
If you took your employer to court for wrongful dismissal the court would adjudicate the case on the same standard of evidence as used for this matter.
And the ruling was quite clear that being charged (on cps advice) was not sufficient to rule someone was correctly given an adverse DBS report. The individual circumstances need to be considered carefully for each case.
That is a completely different scenario because your employer would be the one accusing you, rather that your employer being advised about a situation they do not know about.
I think we're all missing the point here.
Why get involved in a career working with children if it can all be flushed down the toilet on one accusation? Your innocence stripped at the utterance of a word.
Where is the balance being struck?! I've always had issue with CRBs and the like (in the way they are used to say, "hey, this person is clean, they can be trusted), they only show what you've been caught doing and anyone has the potential to do a child harm at any point in their lives. If you're going to use arrests and charges to "protect" the vulnerable - then we should all just throw our innocence in the pit of despair that is modern society as it is not protected at all by the legal system.
Children will just have to fend for themselves. Let's see what protection they get when no one wants to go near them.
Why get involved in a career working with children if it can all be flushed down the toilet on one accusation? Your innocence stripped at the utterance of a word.
Where is the balance being struck?! I've always had issue with CRBs and the like (in the way they are used to say, "hey, this person is clean, they can be trusted), they only show what you've been caught doing and anyone has the potential to do a child harm at any point in their lives. If you're going to use arrests and charges to "protect" the vulnerable - then we should all just throw our innocence in the pit of despair that is modern society as it is not protected at all by the legal system.
Children will just have to fend for themselves. Let's see what protection they get when no one wants to go near them.
In many occupations you can be fired for your conduct out of work.
Let's say you work with children or vulnerable adults and are charged with a sexual offence that occurred outside of work but three out of the twelve jury members on the jury couldn't quite be sure that you were guilty beyond reasonable doubt (in reality only the jury members should know the exact split on a verdict) and the complainant couldn't face a retrial after a hung jury so you remain (Criminally) innconent.
Your employer is very likely to consider your suitability to remain employed in the role.
But don't just take it from me.....
Here a magazine dedicated to HR issues providing advice re the subject
So non conviction matters outside of the workplace absolutely can be considered in assessing your suitability to start of continue working in a job.
Last edited: