Should childhood convictions be disclosed?
The government will have to go back to the drawing board over its 'disproportionate' criminal records disclosure regime after it was dealt a final blow by the Supreme Court today.
The government was hoping to overturn the Court of Appeal's 2017 ruling that the scheme, which requires the disclosure of all spent convictions where an individual has more than one such conviction, was 'not in accordance with the law'.
Today the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. Lord Sumption said the multiple convictions rule was 'in reality an aggravating factor affecting the significance of an offence'. Lady Hale agreed that including reprimands or warnings given to young offenders was 'wrong in principle'. Lord Kerr said there was potential for 'widespread disproportionate outcomes in the disclosure of data if the present system continues'.
Human rights group Liberty represented P, who in 1999 was charged with shoplifting a book costing 99 pence. She was bailed to appear before a magistrates' court 18 days later but failed to attend and convicted of a second offence under the Bail Act 1976. P, who received a conditional discharge for both offences later that year, was suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness.
Children's legal charity Just for Kids Law represented G, who was challenging the policy of disclosing two reprimands he received when he was 13 for alleged offences committed when he was 11 and 12.
For full article please see below
