I’m interested in this quite worrying judicial review case decided on Tuesday – worrying in that it shows how the criminal records system can easily be abused to undermine the presumption of innocence, though I suppose reassuring in that it also shows that the courts will be prepared to find such slack behaviour on behalf of police and CRB irrational.
S had to apply for an enhanced criminal records check – as many people do now, when taking up a range of paid and voluntary jobs. When it came, included on its were details of charges against him in 2004 of “outraging public decency”, subsequently changed to charges under section 5of the Public Order Act 1986, by jogging on the Lickey Hills “minus his shorts”, which is presumably a way of saying he had his tackle out. The thing is, S had been acquitted of those charges, a witness having testified that he was elsewhere at the time of one of the alleged offences. The police had lost the file and had no idea why he might have been acquitted; and so their default position was to conclude that the allegation might have been true. An approach that might have stopped him doing any rugby coaching ever again.
Fortunately he’s won his judicial review, although of course that doesn’t change the fact that this disclosure did happen, and affects his relationship with his rugby club.
As readers will know, I’m not a fully-paid up civil liberties activist – my views vary depending on the issue – but this kind of case does bring out the David Davis in me. Troubling.
Head of Legal – some time ago you argued in favour of what you called “strong protective” systems. When we see what such a system can do to the truly innocent then you complain. How can we have it both ways? Another fact is that very very few people could afford to bring a judicial review so many innocent people will be stuffed by these protective regimes simply because the police interviewed them about something etc.
You have me bang to rights on that one, Peter. I stand by my view about strong systems – I don’t think cases like this show we shouldn’t have them, any more than miscarriages of justice from DNA evidence would make me say DNA evidence should be done away with. But this is a cautionary tale for people who take my view: these strong systems must be made to operate fairly.
Head of Legal – many thanks. I agree that the strong protective systems are the right way to go but how can we make them fairer? Judicial review costs more money than most of us have.