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

[Caracus2k]

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.

Please read the ruling!

No one gets barred from working with children just on the basis or one unproven allegation!

That's not sufficient. I can personally attest to the fact that many teachers for example have had allegations made against them and that they still continue to work in the same role.

The merits of each individual case have to considered.

How many times do I have to repeat that if a person is fired (even for stuff outside of work) that the burden used to adjudicate cases is the balance of probabilities not the higher criminal burden?

 

[Hades]

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 compliant 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.

I agree that you can sometimes be fired for your actions outside of work. I work for a bank so that would happen to me. I don't see how that makes my point invalid about it being wrong for a person found not guilty of a crime to be prevented from working in certain jobs.

 

[Caracus2k]

I agree that you can sometimes be fired for your actions outside of work. I work for a bank so that would happen to me. I don't see how that makes my point invalid about it being wrong for a person found not guilty of a crime to be prevented from working in certain jobs.

So you can be fired for stuff not criminally proven that occurred outside of work, that isn't directly connected to your work, on one hand

But it doesn't make sense to consider the same test when hiring someone in the first place?

Care to explain how that makes any sense?

 

[BaroUK2]

Well i am 50 / 50 on this. If guilty but didnt get convicted due to not enough evidence then that would put public or kids in danger but on the otherside with todays feminist agenda we hear rape and sexual attacks everyday now so if anyone is falsely accused by some **** and taken to court and found not guilty then that would effect that persons future career.

 

[Hades]

So you can be fired for stuff not criminally proven that occurred outside of work, that isn't directly connected to your work, on one hand

But it doesn't make sense to consider the same test when hiring someone in the first place?

Care to explain how that makes any sense?

Happy to explain. You'll be fired for bringing the company into disrepute, not because you were accused of a particular crime. So if your name is dragged through the papers then your employer would likely fire you in case it looked bad on them. They wouldn't wait for the court case to be over and then fire you.

Let's take an example:

Let's say I was accused of stealing customer account details at work. That is directly relevant to working for a bank. So if I were found guilty then I would be quite rightly fired. But, if I were found not guilty then I could not be fired. If I were fired then I could seek compensation for unlawful dismissal.

However if my name is dragged through the papers because "Hades, working for Bank ABC prosecuted over alleged stealing of customer account details" then I would be in breach of contract for bringing the bank into disrepute. I would be sacked for the negative publicity brought upon the bank rather than the crime itself.

 

[Caracus2k]

Anyones who is up in arms about non criminal convictions being considered in DBS matters might want to look away now.....

Police can apply for sexual risk orders which impose conditions on unconvicted (and even uncharged) individuals at the civil burden of proof!

There are three civil orders available under Part 2 of the 2003 Act which can be applied to
relevant sex offenders and those who pose a risk of harm: Sexual Harm Prevention
Orders, Sexual Risk Orders, and Notification Orders.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 amended the 2003 Act to repeal
three civil orders (Sexual Offences Prevention Order, Foreign Travel Order, and Risk of
Sexual Harm Order), and replace them with two new orders in England and Wales:

• Sexual Harm Prevention Orders can be applied to anyone convicted or cautioned
for a sexual or violent offence who poses a risk of sexual harm to the public in the
UK and/or children or vulnerable adults abroad.

Sexual Risk Orders can be applied to any individual who poses a risk of harm to
the public in the UK and/or children or vulnerable adults abroad, including
individuals without a relevant conviction or caution.

Its almost as if there is some sort of official acknowledgement that relying solely on criminal convictions to form the basis of child and vulnerable adult protection may not be sufficient......

 

[Caracus2k]

Happy to explain. You'll be fired for bringing the company into disrepute, not because you were accused of a particular crime. So if your name is dragged through the papers then your employer would likely fire you in case it looked bad on them. They wouldn't wait for the court case to be over and then fire you.

So under your suggested rules how does it look for a school if it hires a caretaker who has been repeatedly investigated for sexual offences (like Ian Huntley) who then goes on to sexually abuse and murder some pupils?

This is obviously an extreme case but you actions pre dating your potential employment are still relevant to your suitability tobe hired or remain employed.

 

[Hades]

So under your suggested rules how does it look for a school if it hires a caretaker who has been repeatedly investigated for sexual offences (like Ian Huntley) who then goes on to sexually abuse and murder some pupils?

This is obviously an extreme case but you actions pre dating your potential employment are still relevant to your suitability tobe hired or remain employed.

How many times was the person in the opening story accused?

 

[Caracus2k]

How many times was the person in the opening story accused?

As far as I know once.


And when this person made a DBS application the police considered the circumstances of that prior case and gave an adverse DBS report on the basis of it.

The applicant appealed this decision to a court, which reviewed the case and concluded, to the civil burden of evidence, that the police were correct in this instance to have provided an adverse DBS report but they specified that special care was needed to consider each individual case where a person had not been convicted.

 

[Kenai]

I agree that you can sometimes be fired for your actions outside of work. I work for a bank so that would happen to me. I don't see how that makes my point invalid about it being wrong for a person found not guilty of a crime to be prevented from working in certain jobs.

Neither option is right. Given the low conviction rates, you can be fairly sure some of these people are guilty.

You can either stop potentially innocent people getting their preferred jobs or you can help stop vulnerable people being exposed to unconvicted sex offenders.

It's not possible to do both, the choice is which is the lesser evil? Taking into account the point that not all accusations would make it to the check and requires consideration of the individual cases, I think harming a few job opportunities is the lesser evil here.

 

[Hades]

As far as I know once.


And when this person made a DBS application the police considered the circumstances of that prior case and gave an adverse DBS report on the basis of it.

The applicant appealed this decision to a court, which reviewed the case and concluded, to the civil burden of evidence, that the police were correct in this instance to have provided an adverse DBS report but they specified that special care was needed to consider each individual case where a person had not been convicted.

There will always be extremes. So for those I would be OK for a decision to be made by a panel of judges. But this should be in advance of the event. It should certainly not be down to a random person such as a police officer to make such a decision unilaterally, regardless of whether a judge later decided it was right. This policeman should not be making a decision like this. It is a matter for judges in a court to do so. I am very uncomfortable with someone outside of a court making such a decision.

 

[Nasher]

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.

Well there is already a shortage of teachers. Why a man would want to work anywhere near kids these days I don't know. The risks of some spiteful little scrote making a false accusation and having to go through the whole process would worry me too much.

 

[Caracus2k]

There will always be extremes. So for those I would be OK for a decision to be made by a panel of judges. But this should be in advance of the event. It should certainly not be down to a random person such as a police officer to make such a decision unilaterally, regardless of whether a judge later decided it was right. This policeman should not be making a decision like this. It is a matter for judges in a court to do so. I am very uncomfortable with someone outside of a court making such a decision.

But a court did make the final decision here and endorsed the prior action taken. Its not at all practical to have every DBS application assessed by a panel of judges. Let's employ a little common sense here

 

[Hades]

But a court did make the final decision here and endorsed the prior action taken. Its not at all practical to have every DBS application assessed by a panel of judges. Let's employ a little common sense here

The court made a decision that the random person who completed the CRB check had reasonable justification in including it. That's not the same as a court deciding, in advance of it being included, whether it is correct to do so. The affected person had no opportunity for his legal defense to prevent it happening. They are very different things.

What happened here is that the affected person had no opportunity to prevent it being included. The person who decided to include it had no legal training and was, probably, just making their own decision on whether it should be. Going to court after the event, regardless of the outcome, is absolutely not the same as being able to challenge it in court before a random person decides to include it.

I agree there are difficulties in doing so to every case. But that is no excuse in taking a person's rights away. What should happen is that cases of a certain magnitude should be reviewed by the court, in the presence of the prosecution, defense and jury, after the verdict is delivered.

 

[Kenai]

The person who decided to include it had no legal training and was, probably, just making their own decision on whether it should be.

My understanding was that they have very strict guidelines to follow and given the volume of requests they'd be dealing with I'd be surprised if it wasn't something being processed by dedicated specialist teams. I don't think we can paint this as if random beat bobbies are just making it up as they go.

 

[Caracus2k]

The court made a decision that the random person who completed the CRB check had reasonable justification in including it. That's not the same as a court deciding, in advance of it being included, whether it is correct to do so. The affected person had no opportunity for his legal defense to prevent it happening. They are very different things.

Not some random person but a senior police officer well accustomed to making and recording decisions that acutely affect others liberties and who are subject to judicial oversight and challenge.

For what you suggest to be implemented the following would need to occur.....

Anyone even investigated but not convicted for a wide range age of sexual and violent offences (which may also be relevant) would have their cases heard by a panel of judges on the off chance that at some point in the future they might make a DBS application?


Does that sound at all feasible to you?

 

[Hades]

Not some random person but a senior police officer well accustomed to making and recording decisions that acutely affect others liberties and who are subject to judicial oversight and challenge.

For what you suggest to be implemented the following would need to occur.....

Anyone even investigated but not convicted for a wide range age of sexual and violent offences (which may also be relevant) would have their cases heard by a panel of judges on the off chance that at some point in the future they might make a DBS application?


Does that sound at all feasible to you?

The police officer does not have a law degree and should not be making such decisions. If they were qualified to make such decisions then they would be a judge. That is why I consider them a random person.

What I have clearly stated should happen, in my opinion, is that where a case could be considered as being mentioned on a CRB or extended CRB then the decision should be made in the court with legal representation. It should be done as part of the original case. This would not be for every prosecution. Where the prosecution or the judge felt the case, or previous background of the defendant, warrants it, a judgement on it should be considered after the main judgement is delivered. This would ensure protection for the defensant.

It could certainly be done. It is entirely feasible. But it would increase effort and cost. So by letting a random person make a decision outside of a court, we are allowing society to put cost ahead of a person's rights.

 

[Caracus2k]

The police officer does not have a law degree and should not be making such decisions. If they were qualified to make such decisions then they would be a judge. That is why I consider them a random person.

What I have clearly stated should happen, in my opinion, is that where a case could be considered as being mentioned on a CRB or extended CRB then the decision should be made in the court with legal representation. It should be done as part of the original case. This would not be for every prosecution. Where the prosecution or the judge felt the case, or previous background of the defendant, warrants it, a judgement on it should be considered after the main judgement is delivered. This would ensure protection for the defensant.

It could certainly be done. It is entirely feasible. But it would increase effort and cost. So by letting a random person make a decision outside of a court, we are allowing society to put cost ahead of a person's rights.

A senior police officer is a 'random person' not qualified to make decisions based on the law?

What the **** do you think police officers from Constable upwards do most working days if not make decisions based on their knowledge of the law? Should a judge be present to hold anyones hand making a decision based on the law? Does a law degree confer magical powers?

You do realise that judges decisions aren't immune to challenge and oversight?

And you completely missed the point that this would not just apply to cases reaching court but would have to apply to all relevant cases even investigated by the police as in the case of Ian Huntley as he was repeatedly investigated but not charged with sexual offences and would 'fail' a DBS check all day long if he was applying for that caretaker job under the cureent rules based on thoose investigations.

 

[Hades]

A senior police officer is a 'random person' not qualified to make decisions based on the law?

What the **** do you think police officers from Constable upwards do most working days if not make decisions based on their knowledge of the law? Should a judge be present to hold anyones hand making a decision based on the law? Does a law degree confer magical powers?

A police officer's role is not to make decisions based on the law. It is to present evidence to the CPS where they feel a law has been breached and then for the CPS to put that evidence to the judge. The judge or jury makes a decision based on law. I will repeat that a police officer is not a judge. The separation between police, CPS, legal defense and judge is there for a reason. It is to protect the rights of everyone involved.

You do realise that judges decisions aren't immune to challenge and oversight?

That is quite obvious. I'm not sure why you're asking the question.

And you completely missed the point that this would not just apply to cases reaching court but would have to apply to all relevant cases even investigated by the police as in the case of Ian Huntley as he was repeatedly investigated but not charged with sexual offences and would 'fail' a DBS check all day long if he was applying for that caretaker job under the cureent rules based on thoose investigations.

No. My point is that a court should decide. Decisions on points of principle should not be made on the basis of individual, particularly emotive, cases.

 

[chrcoluk]

the answer is no

as the ruling says you havent committed the crime, but if the trial was thrown out with a neutral result. Then maybe possibly, but that would go against the principle of innocent until proven guilty.