Hi
Again I repeat my initial comments, this depends on proportionately and the relationship between the individual applying and the job on offer.
Employees to some degree need to make an informed / risk assessed decision based on as much information they can get their hands on and not soley based on you have a conviction.
Hypothetical example: Ian Huntley is released and subsequently applies for a job which involves a level of interaction with young children - If the decision maker is in possession of all the information available, then I would agree that that organisation should not award employment to this individual in this area of work given the context of his conviction. However, if an applicant "the man who had a conviction for the theft of a piece of meat 50 years" and nothing since - should be considered as his "crime" has no bearing on the job he is apply. What I am saying just because of a "conviction" does not mean he should be discounted entirely on this.
Common sense and reasoning still plays a large role in all day to day workings of life no matter when legislation /events take place. Its just the common sense that is adjusted to learn from events to prevent things like the hypothetical example from happening again.
Just my personal opinion and not those of my organisation.
Trish Bailey
Information Governance (MSc)
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 22 October 2009 20:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: My take on "police need not delete conviction data after all"
I have read this discussion with interest as well as following some
other coverage.
A pertinent point needs to be raised that some confusion arose during
the discussion between convictions information, and police
intelligence. The first should be a factual record of conviction by a
court, the second could fairly be described as containing much gossip
and innuendo. The vetting of the convictions record takes place via the
independent authority where for some levels of checks police
intelligence also has to be checked. The police upon checking will
decided either to disclose or not disclose information they may hold
based upon certain criteria compiled from within their perspective. If
anybody is more up to date on that than me feel free to correct it.
The removal of the main vetting process from the police to another
agency severed the direct link between the police and persons being
vetted, hence creating distance between the record keepers and those
persons who do feel victimised by that data. The increasing demands and
changes in this area should cause little surprise and are in my opinion
likely to continue.
I am somewhat puzzled why a matter in which the courts themselves have
such a vested interest (the origin of the police convictions records
was to record the information for and on behalf of the courts, who it
has to say remain a main user), was refused any possibility of appeal.
Some people have commented on the difficulties causes by
rehabilitation mechanisms being effectively removed from the wider
legal system within the UK.
Others have commented that the final say on the relevence of
convictions to an employer should be for the employer themselves to
determine.
Yet others have commented that the law should work and principles
should be applied.
Personally I can only comment on my own experiences in processing
enforced subject access.
I used to give verbal advice to the data subject "that they should
declare any convictions to the potential employer as that would show
they were now honest, and illustrate the level of their integrity."
Meanwhile at the time, the enforcing organisation was reported to the
registrar then after the changes the commissioner, who took little if
any action. The subject access request forms contained an explanation
of the data subjects rights and I included a compliments slip
explaining the detail that enforcement of subject access was unlawful.
I stopped giving the verbal advice as data subjects started to comment
on it during repeat applications for other short-listed job offers.
Their comments varied from having been told that they should not have
bothered applying in the first place as their (spent) convictions ruled
them out of the job, to what a load of rubbish.
I also tested the veracity of an organisation which stated the view
that rehabilitation should be an important objective by offering a job
to an applicant who scored much higher than all the others interviewed
(The structured interview questions included quite a rigorous set of
ethical test questions.), even though he had a conviction from some
years previous about which he was open and honest. The job offer made
was subsequently rejected by the organisation.
The point of this is an attempt to illustrate that irrespective of
what principles or un-enforced legislation exist, the pressures created
within organisations and exerted upon interviewers will continue to
make it very difficult for criminals to rehabilitate, as the decision
to exclude them soley on the basis of convictions data is easier and
safer for the interviewer, and at the moment seemingly questions are
never raised by the organisation or of the organisation.
Ian W
Recycle mobile phones and earn - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/recycle
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the originator of the message.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
states them to be the views of Telford & Wrekin Council.
The content of this email has been automatically checked in
conjunction with the relevant policies of Telford & Wrekin Council.
|
