Disclosure of cautions breaches privacy rights, Supreme Court rules
PUBLISHED June 19, 2014
Disclosure of childhood and other minor convictions violates human rights law, the Supreme Court ruled today.
Five judges rejected a joint appeal by home secretary Theresa May and justice secretary Chris Grayling against a Court of Appeal ruling that prospective employers need not be told of convictions and cautions that were spent under the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act when they asked future employees about their criminal record.
The court said cautions represent an aspect of private life that should be protected and any requirement to disclose them to potential employers was a breach of the right to a private life and would 'significantly jeopardise' entry into their chosen field.
The first case involved a man, T, who was forced to reveal two police cautions he had received at the age of 11 in respect of the theft of two bicycles.
The second case involved a woman, JB, who was refused a job in the care sector because of a caution issued eight years previously for theft of a packet of false fingernails.
The Prudential Regulation Authority, Financial Conduct Authority, Liberty and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in the case.
T's solicitor Mike Pemberton, partner and head of civil liberties at Stephensons, said: 'It defied common sense that a minor caution at the age of 11 should have to be disclosed on every application for a job of certain types…and [to] have to explain the matter again and again.'
He said the Supreme Court had to balance the rights of individuals with the proportionate needs of society in what is an important area involving public protection.
'It has applied common sense to the situation. The judgment makes clear that there has to be relevance of the disclosure of personal information to the purpose of the criminal record check.'
Commenting on the case Dominic Crossley, privacy lawyer and partner at Payne Hicks Beach Solicitors, said: 'Any interference into a person's privacy, which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention, must be justifiable and proportionate'. ?
?He said the routine examination of old minor convictions should not be allowed to prejudice an individual's right to seek future employment. ?
?Crossley said the decision is also consistent with a pattern of decisions in Europe and the UK in which the courts are extending the scope of privacy protection.