I notice that NACRO's campaign 'Change the Record' has steadily gained momentum with a range of organisations pledging support. This is indeed an old chestnut with numerous previous calls to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and update it. All probation officers will be acutely aware of the thorny issue of how clients deal with previous convictions on application forms for jobs or accommodation. Really this should have been addressed at the same time as legislation was enacted setting up the Criminal Records Bureau.
I first became aware of previous conviction disclosure becoming an issue when clients started being routinely refused Local Authority accommodation. I discovered that my ever-sympathetic council had started paying for the secondment of police officers to their Housing Department. At the time I thought it was outrageous that data from the Police National Computer could be routinely used for this purpose, and as far as I know without Parliamentary Approval. But of course this was the era of 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' and the ASBO, so public sympathy was in somewhat short supply for a group broadly regarded as undeserving.
Of course it was not a huge issue prior to the CRB coming along, because despite any advice officers might give their clients, many simply neglected to answer the question, or just lied. Increasingly it seems that potential employers and educational institutions are insisting that details of all convictions, cautions, final warnings or reprimands are disclosed, whether spent or not and irrespective of the requirements of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. At least the new government have announced that a full review will be undertaken into how criminality information is to be handled in the future.
It may not be generally known, but the Probation Service has never had direct access to a persons antecedent history, or 'pre-cons' as they are universally referred to. We have to rely on the police or CPS supplying us with printouts as we have no direct access to the computer database. I guess we are simply not trusted enough. The other group who have no access are clients and they routinely ask probation staff for copies because their memories are never that good. Strictly speaking we shouldn't oblige, but it's always struck me as very strange that the person that the record relates to is denied a paper copy. There is a regular ritual in open court when the prosecutor shows the defendant a list of pre-cons to confirm their accuracy and you just know that its length and scope comes as something of a surprise to them. Memory can be very selective sometimes.
Over the years the other things that have surprised me about pre-cons are firstly how often they are incorrect and secondly just how many people have exactly the same name and birthdate. Several times when following proceedings as a CDO in court I've been horrified at what was recorded on the pre-cons, only to be told by the prosecutor when they sat down that 'oh that's the wrong Joe Bloggs'. Amazing, but it does make you wonder.
Just out of interest, why are you not supposed to give a copy of the previous to the punter?
ReplyDeleteYou are right about failing memories. I'm always amazed that clients simply cannot remember whether they've ever been to court or not - I always think that something like that would stick in my mind, but I guess that's not the same for some people.
Would they not be entitled to receive their records under the Freedom of Information act?
ReplyDeleteI was held on a section by the police once and wanted to know wether it would appear on an enhanced CRB check or not and was told I'd be entitled to request any information the police had on me by a FOI.
Data Protection Act not FOI, surely?
ReplyDeleteSince it is always good to have opposing views aired, I repeat my comment from here:
ReplyDeletehttp://obiterj.blogspot.com/2010/09/rehabilitation-of-offenders-1-overview.html
------------------
The provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are unnecessary, wrong in principle, and either ineffectual or actually harmful in practice.
The long version is below, but, succinctly, the legal and medical professions are excluded, for obvious reasons – propensities to dishonesty, violence, or intoxication matter. What is not obvious is why they are not thought to matter in the professions of cashier, ticket inspector, or heavy machinery operator.
-
The provisions are unnecessary in that they suppose a falsehood – that people with convictions for relatively minor offences will be unable to find any work, thus hurting their rehabilitation. Only that could justify the Act, yet it is patently untrue.
What is true, is that people with convictions, may find certain careers closed to them. One with convictions for dishonesty might find it hard to get a job with a particular requirement for honesty, such as being a keyholder or handling cash. One with convictions for violence might not be put in a position where they have to deal with the general public, such as traffic warden or ticket inspector. There is no injustice in that – there are thousands of different jobs, if not hundreds of thousands – let them do something else.
It is wrong in principle because it legitimises pretence and falsehood, even undermining the principles of justice by allowing lying under oath. It is wrong because it requires things which are impossible: If you come to hear that one of your employees has a conviction for fraud, you will not put him in a higher-paid position where he has the opportunity to commit fraud, no matter that the law says you may take no adverse action against him. It is foolish to suppose otherwise.
And, should the act succeed in its intent, it is harmful because it will put people in a position to do wrong, who have already, by their actions, shown a propensity to do so. This is immoral: one does not offer an alchoholic a drink, nor should one put temptation in the way of a person one knows to be susceptible - it does not help their rehabilitation.
What is more, everyone acknowledges secretly that it is wrong – subverting the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is one of the main purposes of CRB checks, after all.
Finally, it is wrong in principle because it subverts the relationship between the state and the people. The state may know these things, may keep these records forever. Yet, we the ordinary plebeian masses must do our best to forget, even if we know of them first-hand.
-
The truth of rehabilitation is the same as in the joke:
Q: How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, It will change when it is ready.
The best way to rehabilitate offenders is to encourage this change of heart. Then a bad reputation can be lived down, which is the only true way to lose it.
Fear of punishment would go a long way, and would be the most helpful measure we can offer to those who truly want to change.
Surely the conscientious PO would have labouriously typed and maintained a full, accurate and up-to-date list of pre-cons into the Part 9 Yellow Section of the A sheet. Or was it Orange?
ReplyDeleteDefence Brief - the precons are supplied strictly on the basis that they are used only for probation purposes. Over the years we've gradually got into the habit of sharing them with other agencies - this is only common sense -but I'm sure the police haven't realised and there is some evidence of a tightening up about sharing. It's a complete no no to let clients have a copy, always has been, not least for the protection of their privacy as it is not unheard of for papers to be left lying around.
ReplyDeleteI think you really have no right to access that file but if you think that it has some mistakes just like people have the same name you can do background check on your own so that you will be satisfied with the result.
ReplyDelete