Old Convictions Never Die, They Just Fade Away: The Permanency of Convictions and Cautions for Criminal Offences in the UK
| Published date | 01 April 2014 |
| Date | 01 April 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2014.78.2.904 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
121
COMMENT
Old Convictions Never Die, They Just Fade
Away: The Permanency of Convictions and
Cautions for Criminal Offences in the UK
Jamie Grace*
Keywords Criminality information sharing; Crime; Enhanced criminal
record certificates; Public protection
Criminality information sharing in the UK can take place in many contexts
and with many motivations (although the latter are mostly concerned
with public protection, or the prosecution process following the commission
of an (alleged) offence by an individual who is then the subject of the
criminality information itself). Criminality information can be broadly
defined to include categories such as allegations,1 records of arrest and/or
charge and/or prosecution, statements by witnesses and (alleged) offenders
themselves, cautions, convictions, records of penalty notices for disorder,
sentencing reports, tax and/or benefit investigations, the placement of
individuals on barring lists, and covert or overt police surveillance
intelligence—as well as more peripheral ‘intelligence’ such as anti-social
behaviour orders and reports of anti-social behaviour itself (despite the
seemingly non-criminal nature of this behaviour by its very definition).
This Comment focuses on recent stances of the UK courts, as well as
legislative reforms, with regard to the sharing of criminality information as
part of creating an enhanced criminal record certificate (ECRC), which
individuals will need to present to employers if they (wish to) work in a
role that puts them in contact with, for example, children or vulnerable
adults.2
The decision of the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of T) v Chief
Constable of Greater Manchester3 was such that the blanket framework in the
UK for the potential disclosure of all convictions or cautions (no matter
how trivial or ancient) in the process of compiling an ECRC was deemed
incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
and the right to respect for private life contained therein.4
* Senior Lecturer in Law, Sheffield Hallam University; e-mail: j.grace@shu.ac.uk.
1 See R (on the application of C) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2011] EWCA Civ 175,
[2011] 2 FLR 383.
2 For an example of the difficulties in seeking employment this can create, even in the
event of only unproven allegations appearing on an ECRC, see R (on the application of W)
v Chief Constable of Warwickshire [2012] EWHC 406 (Admin).
3 R (on the application of T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2013] EWCA Civ 25,
[2013] 1 WLR 2515.
4 Article 8 ECHR states:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
The Journal of Criminal Law (2014) 78 JCL 121–135
doi:10.1350/jcla.2014.78.2.904
To continue reading
Request your trial