Innocent Presumed Guilty?

I wrote and sent the below submission to my local MP, Martin Linton, regarding the scandal of innocent people who have had their lives wrecked by changes to the Criminal Record Bureau checking system.

Basically, since around 2005, people who have been acquitted or who are otherwise not guilty of any crime can nonetheless have their lives and careers blighted by false and slanderous allegations that can be repeated by police on Enhanced Disclosure CRB checks.

This is a consequence of change to the law that was brought in as a knee jerk reaction to a high profile murder case. It was badly thought out and has been even more badly executed by the police. The Government is not currently being effectively pressed to change the law as too few people are aware of it or are willing to speak out (other than its victims, of course!):

‘Enhanced Disclosure’ CRB checks and affects on innocent people

Issue:

Enhanced Disclosure Criminal Record Bureau checks were introduced following the Soham murders to address the perceived failure of Government agencies to coordinate intelligence.

Enhanced Disclosure means that unproven ‘intelligence’ against an individual can be disclosed by police to a prospective employer, regardless of whether there is any evidence to substantiate the claim in law.

This has resulted in single, unproven,allegations being disclosed to potential employers and people who are innocent of any crime are being deprived of their livelihoods and their dignity.

Government dismisses criticism by saying that ‘child protection is paramount’. While no-one could argue with child protection being paramount, this need not be at the expense of destroying innocent people.

Child protection should be complementary to, not be mutually exclusive with, a free society governed by the rule of law.

The Enhanced CRB system is unjust in its current form and requires urgent Parliamentary scrutiny and reform.

1. Background:
   

1. Ian Huntley had previously been investigated in relation to one allegation of indecent assault, four allegations of underage sex, three allegations of rape and one charge of burglary. Only the latter reached Court and subsequently appeared on the Police National Computer at the specific order of the trial Judge.


2. In the wake of the Huntley trial the Government decided to amend the Criminal Records Bureau checks system so as to allow ‘non-conviction data’, i.e. information relating to not-guilty verdicts and unfounded allegations, to be shared with potential employers.
3. The change was intended to allow Chief Constables to share information where a ‘pattern’ of intelligence had emerged that, while each allegation might fall short
   of the requirements of criminal proof, the overall pattern could be reasonably taken into consideration before allowing a person to work with children or vulnerable adults.
4. However, the law was broadly drafted and left a great deal of discretion to civil servants drafting guidance and to the police force. This has resulted in sloppy guidance
   and arbitrary implementation with the disclosure of single, unproven,
   serious allegations against individuals.
5. The current system effectively allows the police and employers to act as judge, jury and executioner on criminal charges relating to child protection. The Courts, and the rule of law, have been done away with.
6. This produces an abhorrent situation where people who have been acquitted in a Court of Law, or had allegations against them dropped because of the absence of evidence, are being de facto summarily convicted on the basis of a single serious allegation.
7. The most obvious example of this is where a false allegation is made against a teacher and that teacher’s career is ruined because any future employer will be
   informed of the allegation on the CRB check; there isn’t even a formal appeals procedure against the disclosure of hear-say (see Annex 2).
8. However, there are other examples;
   hundreds of people who were wrongly accused of child pornography
   offences in the ‘Operation Ore’, while being innocent of any
   crime, are effectively barred from working with children or vulnerable
   adults because these false allegations will be disclosed to a prospective
   employer on an Enhanced Disclosure check (see Annex 4).
9. Due to the UK system of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Courts are not in a position to amend or otherwise ‘fix’ the underlying problems in the CRB system as it stands (see Annex 3).
10. When challenged, the Government would seem to argue that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ should take second place to ‘child protection’. This emotive argument does not stand-up to scrutiny since the two concepts are not incompatible; prosecute and convict the guilty but do not accept gossip as evidence and respect the acquittal of the innocent.
    

2. Action requested of Martin Linton MP:

1. As a private citizen I have no voice at all; if I were to write direct to a Minister I would be summarily dismissed with a standard letter from junior officials who wouldn’t even bother to take the time to read what I had said.


2. Questioning any policy that hides behind ‘will somebody think of the children!’ is not popular, but it is sometimes the right thing to do.


3. I am therefore asking you to look into this matter personally and to raise my concerns with the relevant Ministers. I am happy for you to pass this letter on to Ministerial
   colleagues.
   

3. Key points to make:
   

1. We are dealing with fundamental principles of a Just society governed by rule of law. We must not allow the UK to travel any further down the road of a Police State.
2. Child protection and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive. In the specific instance of the Huntley case, the failing was that of the police and Crown Prosecution Service,
   who failed to bring Huntley to justice earlier despite ample opportunity.
3. The original intent of the Enhanced Disclosure system was to allow patterns of intelligence to be taken into account. In practice the change has resulted in single
   unproven allegations being used to damage innocent people.
4. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ should be a non-negotiable fundamental of our society.
   It should not be trimmed for the sake of expedience.
5. The burden of proof should lie with the accuser, not the accused. It is not for the accused to prove their innocence to a potential employer but for the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused in a Court of Law.
6. Hear-say and unfounded allegation are no substitutes for proven evidence.
7. The police service is an enforcement and investigation agency, not part of the judiciary. It is not for the police to decide guilt or innocence; this is for the courts.
8. Innocent people are having their careers and lives wrecked by unfounded allegations. This could happen to anyone and it is not acceptable in a free society governed by laws.
9. The Government should remember that children can be falsely accused of crimes, and that children grow into adult citizens with families of their own who, under the current
   arrangements, can have their lives at that of their families wrecked by unproven allegations.
10. This intolerable situation is being tolerated because criticism is being shouted down by a shrill cry of ‘will somebody think of the children!’ Speaking out against
    such injustice has almost become a taboo in itself.