Donate SIGN UP

Guilty Although Judged Not Guilty

Avatar Image
Canary42 | 13:31 Mon 30th Jul 2018 | Law
27 Answers
Guilty although judged Not Guilty - still a criminal although the Court cleared him.

Does this mean Sir Cliff still has guilty on his CRB check. He should SUE.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 27rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Funny old world right enough. Perverse, some might say.
His CRB check doesn't state that he is guilty, it clearly says that he was acquitted.
Any potential employer could 'google' his name and find news reports of the case.
thanks for this -- canary
I saw a bit on the info-bar
I dont find it a surprise - the PNC as you should well know contains details of non-criminals, and god knows what.
20% of the DNA samples are from non-crimz

Dear naomi expressed approval when she was told that there would be a "characteristic" in the computer file, about a gun licence on her car. She said how pleased she was that Big Sista had all sorts of gen on her that she didnt know about and how it was all in her best interests.

[official explanation is that if they gonna stop the car they needa know if da driver is gonna go blamma blamma blamma.]

oh A10 complaints - - were recorded. I dont suppose they have stopped that

so failed convictions - no surprise there

I only pray they get some of it right ....

(esp gunny bit - I mean "police blamma blamma blamma! Oh oops it was a woman pushing a push-chair - I thought it was an RPG...." I mean that would never happen, would it?)
cliff was never charged with anything - let alone found guilty
the judgement is here

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0144-judgment.pdf

not read it yet
it is gonna be on public policy
got up to the bits that none of the sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged - golly that should make YMF and 3T happy - " 'ooman rights crip and all that - foo!" was their mantra
// cliff was never charged with anything - let alone found guilty//

well he's gonna be on it - certain ! huh ?

Sir Cliff should SUE
why ? or how? or even foo?
he doesnt have any rights so he cant ....
Question Author
/// Cliff was never charged with anything - let alone found guilty///

I never said he was - but can we be sure, since the police raided his home, that nothing would appear on a CRB check - I don't believe we can.
// I never said he was - //

and I never said he wasnt ! - hey clock the rather obvious reference to dear Mr Trump there !

//but can we be sure, since the police raided his home, that nothing would appear on a CRB check?// -

er hullooooo - we can be sure that it does !
There are three types of DBS checks:

1. Standard. This shows details of cautions and convictions (including "spent").

2. Enhanced. This is as the Standard but also includes "...any information held locally by Police forces that it is reasonably considered might be relevant to the post applied for"

3. Enhanced with DBS Barred checklist. his is a more in-depth disclosure which is only available for those employing people in positions involving children or vulnerable adults, adoption agencies.

This is not about guilt or innocence. It is about ensuring that employers and organisations engaging individuals in certain posts have the information they need to assess whether or not to employ somebody. The retention of this additional information is at the discretion of Chief Police Officers. They have to show that it is justified, reasonable and proportional. That's what the Supreme Court was asked to consider.
Question Author
"reasonable"

Lovely weasel word, generates lots of income for the judiciary.
I can encourage people to read the judgement
Clear enough to be depressing

18% employers HAD employed people wivvan adverse ECRB - and the judges accepted that a recorded acquittal would always be a bar to employment

[and they dont mention that GMC NMC, Teachers central control still hear cases which have been acquitted AND limit registration]

and then say it is clearly lawful to add statements to the CRB about an acquittal such as :

"me and the boys darn the nick and Mrs Mopp too, fink he always darn it."

Blimey, or right-o as 3T may say or foo! as someone else may say....

so much for the judges protectiing us from the insistent designs of Big Bruvva


Only if the reasonableness is disputed. And then only for lawyers, not the judiciary. They get paid whether there are cases for them to hear or not.
// They have to show that it is justified, reasonable and proportional. //

no I dont think they do, with respect your honour

they only HAVE to show all three if it is challenged
otherwise it just swans through - unchallenged
"i never said he was (guilty)"
you said:
Does this mean Sir Cliff still has guilty on his CRB check.
I can cope with the word 'reasonable', but not with 'proportionate'. Who decides that?
As I've said before when the "innocent until proven guilty" phrase is discussed, that is a legal convention, not a fact. You may have done something but not be found guilty. That does not mean you didn't do it.

In this gentleman's case the police clearly felt it necessary to keep the details of their dealings with him on file and believed it was also necessary for those dealings to be disclosed when a check was called for. Individuals do have the right to ask a court to decide if this was reasonable and that's what Mr. X did - right up to the Supreme Court. There is really little point in having DBS checks if they are only to provide details of convictions and so long as those protections are in place to prevent abuse I see nothing wrong with disclosure of the information that the police hold.
Accused but found not guilty, surely.

(Cliff wasn't charged.)

One can understand an innocent person shouldn't be looking as if they have a stain on their character though, but who can say they weren't guilty but insufficient evidence ensured a not guilty verdict ?

Unsure how much relevance it has to a job search though. Not a simple situation.
"...they only HAVE to show all three if it is challenged"

Of course. However, any police force facing regular successful challenges is likely to have its policies scrutinised. The fact is, Peter, that you and I will not agree on matters such as this. I believe it is important for a robust system of checks to be in place (either that or no system at all so that we all know where we stand). It must be properly scrutinised by the courts if challenged (as in this case). You clearly do not believe that.

There is no doubt that many, many people who have committed crimes remain unconvicted either because they are never prosecuted or the prosecution fails. "Better that a hundred guilty men are freed rather than one innocent man convicted" etc. That's fine as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. The bar to a successful prosecution is necessarily set very high. But this is about protecting children and vulnerable adults and the bar is quite rightly very much lower.
"Unsure how much relevance it has to a job search though."

It depends what the job or position is, OG. The DBS system is very clear and specific on which jobs need DBS checks and what level is required. A prospective employer cannot ask for one "just to be on the safe side".
If there's any question mark about our Cliff I don't think it'll involve the storming of his lair, that's had a bit of an airing already, apparently.

1 to 20 of 27rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Guilty Although Judged Not Guilty

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.