This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27895472

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Human rights win on minor crimes Drop minor convictions from criminal record checks, court rules
(35 minutes later)
Certain past minor cautions and convictions should remain part of a protected private life and not have to be disclosed in criminal record checks, the Supreme Court has ruled.Certain past minor cautions and convictions should remain part of a protected private life and not have to be disclosed in criminal record checks, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Judges said any requirement to do so would be incompatible with human rights legislation. Judges said any requirement to do so would be incompatible with human rights legislation in England and Wales.
The Supreme Court decision upholds a ruling by the Court of Appeal.The Supreme Court decision upholds a ruling by the Court of Appeal.
The case involved a man who was refused a job because of two police cautions he received aged 11. The case involved a man forced to reveal two police cautions he received aged 11 when applying for a job.
Around four million people apply for a criminal records check every year. The man, known as "T", said he had been forced to reveal warnings he received from Greater Manchester Police in connection with two stolen bikes.
Last year, three Court of Appeal judges said the blanket checks could breach the right to a private or family life. His records were checked when he applied for a part-time job at a football club aged 17 and later for a university course in sports studies.
After making the ruling, the judges said it would be a matter for Parliament to decide what amendments to make to the current system.
The Home Office has introduced a system to filter out single minor convictions or cautions.
But the government pursued an appeal against the court's ruling, saying the "protection of children and vulnerable groups must not be compromised".
Stolen bikes
The case was heard before the Supreme Court - the highest court in the UK and the final court of appeal in cases of public importance - on 9 December.
It involved an unnamed man, known as "T", who said he had been forced to reveal that he had received warnings from Greater Manchester Police in connection with two stolen bikes when he was 11.
The man had been CRB checked when he applied for a part-time job at a local football club aged 17 and later for a university course in sports studies.
His case was supported by the human rights group Liberty.His case was supported by the human rights group Liberty.
A woman, identified as "JB", also challenged the checks after she was refused a job in a care home eight years after she received a caution for shoplifting.A woman, identified as "JB", also challenged the checks after she was refused a job in a care home eight years after she received a caution for shoplifting.
Making their ruling, the Supreme Court judges said the disclosures T and JB had been required to make "were not necessary in a democratic society" and "were not based on any rational assessment of risk".
Filtering system
Around four million people apply for a criminal records check every year.
Last year, three Court of Appeal judges said the blanket checks could breach the right to a private or family life.
After that ruling, the judges said it would be a matter for Parliament to decide what amendments to make to records check rules.
The Home Office has since introduced a system to filter out single minor convictions or cautions.
But the government pursued an appeal against the Court of Appeal ruling, saying the "protection of children and vulnerable groups must not be compromised".
The Supreme Court - the highest court in the UK and the final court of appeal in cases of public importance - heard the case on 9 December but has only just announced its decision to rule against the govenment.
The BBC's legal affairs correspondent, Clive Coleman, said the net effect of Wednesday's ruling was that the law would remain as it was.