Rules on childhood criminal records should be relaxed, MPs say

MPs on the Justice Select Committee say the current system could be falling short of international obligations

(Getty)

Rules governing the disclosure of childhood criminal records should be relaxed, a new Commons report says, claiming Britain’s current system could be falling short of its international obligations.

According to the report from Westminster’s Justice Select Committee, violent offences committed under the age of 18 should not always be automatically flagged up in checks as it prevents children from moving on from their past and “creates barriers to rehabilitation”.

Calling for a major overhaul of the scheme, the MPs warn the current system undermines the principles of youth justice, adding that rules could mean the Government is falling short of the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The committee said the problems caused by the disclosure regime could affect significant numbers of people. In 2014/15, 26 per cent of standard Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and 23 per cent of enhanced checks related to subjects who were under 18 at the time of a conviction.

Most sex offences cannot be filtered and the report raises concerns over the implications for children penalised for “sexting”. It says: “We do not think that the difficult problem of sexual offending by children is assisted by giving them a record of a non-filterable sexual offence.”

The assessment suggests a number of features that could be included in a new filtering scheme for offences committed in childhood. They include:

:: Removing a rule which means convictions are never filtered if there was more than one to avoid the disclosure of multiple minor offences;
:: Producing customised lists of offences which cannot be filtered for particular areas of employment to replace the current single database of more than 900 crimes;
:: Introducing a “threshold test” based on the outcome or sentence of some non-filterable offences, such as actual bodily harm, so the crime would not be disclosed in cases where the conduct involved was considered minor by police or courts;
:: Reducing the period which must elapse before a childhood conviction can be filtered from five-and-a-half years to a shorter period, such as three years. 

“The Government confirmed to us that its primary objective in youth justice is to stop people being drawn into crime, with consequent blighting of the life chances, as well as harm being caused to victims and communities,” said Bob Neill, the chair of the Justice Select Committee.

“But these laudable aims are systematically undermined by the current disclosure regime; mistakes made as a teenager can follow someone around for decades and create a barrier to rehabilitation, as well as profound problems with access to employment and education.”

Witnesses who gave evidence to the MPs also highlighted the adverse effect of childhood criminal records on individuals’ access to employment, education, housing, insurance and visas for travel. They added that it also had a “discriminatory impact” on particular groups, including those within the care system and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (Bame) groups.

“Overall, the inquiry evidence strongly supported the case for changing the criminal records disclosure system,” the report added. “For young adults, the majority of those who expressed a view thought that reform was also needed.”

Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, individuals are not required to divulge past convictions and cautions once they have become “spent” – meaning a certain period of time has passed.

But there are some circumstances when disclosure can be requested, and employers are required to carry out checks when hiring people for certain roles, such as work with children or vulnerable adults.

MPs called for the filtering process – the framework that regulates when someone has to disclose convictions and cautions even though they are spent – to be “radically revised”.

The scheme was introduced so that someone who would otherwise be required to disclose all of his or her criminal history would not be required to do so if the convictions or cautions were for old and minor offences.

A Government spokesperson said: “We have noted the Committee’s report and will publish our response in due course.”