Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

[Antman]

I understand why records would be kept by Police but why should they show up on checks made by anyone else?

Exactly.

 

[AlterEgo]

I understand why records would be kept by Police but why should they show up on checks made by anyone else?

So if a person has been arrested several times (or even once) on suspicion of sexual offences against a child, but every time the victim has not wished to pursue the allegation for whatever reason, you think the police should delete the record? This would enable the person to work further with children.

What if a person had been arrested for burglary before but the case collapsed - is it appropriate they can get a job in a nursing home or a school?

 

[Tooktook]

He needs to be arrested on suspicion of murder to be asked questions re the possible offence. It’s certainly nothing to do with pc gone mad.

 

[AlterEgo]

He needs to be arrested on suspicion of murder to be asked questions re the possible offence. It’s certainly nothing to do with pc gone mad.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant on here though.

 

[GB]

He needs to be arrested on suspicion of murder to be asked questions re the possible offence. .

Sorry but that is not correct. An arrest is not an absolute requirement to be interviewed under caution.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Can you think of any good reasons why the police might want to keep a record of who they’ve arrested?

*Cough cough* Yorkshire Ripper *Cough cough*

 

[Antman]

Sorry but that is not correct. An arrest is not an absolute requirement to be interviewed under caution.

That's right, you can attend the police station voluntarily and be interviewed under caution as indeed I have been myself.

I should point out that I hadn't done anything wrong and no further action was taken.

 

[Antman]

So if a person has been arrested several times (or even once) on suspicion of sexual offences against a child, but every time the victim has not wished to pursue the allegation for whatever reason, you think the police should delete the record? This would enable the person to work further with children.

What if a person had been arrested for burglary before but the case collapsed - is it appropriate they can get a job in a nursing home or a school?

I think the point he is making is not about the police keeping a record but why should it show up on any checks.

Of course a person could be arrested several times for any offence if they were unlucky and be completely innocent.

 

[Senex]

Sorry but that is not correct. An arrest is not an absolute requirement to be interviewed under caution.

Exactly! Going straight to an arrest implies a judgement has already been made.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the point he is making is not about the police keeping a record but why should it show up on any checks.

Of course a person could be arrested several times for any offence if they were unlucky and be completely innocent.

It depends what checks you’re talking about. An Enhanced DBS will always be on a discretionary basis if the intelligence is relevant. Developed Vetting for serving in MI5, it’ll always show up. You’ll need to declare it on a visa application to certain countries.

 

[Tooktook]

Sorry but that is not correct. An arrest is not an absolute requirement to be interviewed under caution.

I don’t think I phrased what I was saying correctly. I should have quoted the post that I was responding to. It was the post stating that the officer was going over the top and assuming guilt.

I’m aware of other interview options under caution. However in the circumstances I believe arrest was the most appropriate. That is just my opinion. It was about securing best evidence and managing the scene.

My point was being arrested on suspicion of murder doesn’t equal an overtly pc reaction. It’s a process. Reasonable suspicion is the threshold for arrest. This is actually very low and assumes no guilt. Many people are arrested based solely on description and released without action for example.

And in the case where someone needs to be asked questions re a possible murder, if arrested then they would be arrested for the relevant offence to ask questions re that.

 

[AlterEgo]

Exactly! Going straight to an arrest implies a judgement has already been made.

It does not.

If a car crashes in the countryside with nobody around, and me and my friend are seen walking to the nearest town, drunk, 500 yards from the wreck, then we could both be expected to be arrested for driving offences. We can’t both be guilty. The police cannot possibly think we are both guilty.

The purpose of an arrest is to identify evidence, interview a suspect, protect any crime scene or forensics, and investigate promptly.

 

[Tooktook]

It does not.

If a car crashes in the countryside with nobody around, and me and my friend are seen walking to the nearest town, drunk, 500 yards from the wreck, then we could both be expected to be arrested for driving offences. We can’t both be guilty. The police cannot possibly think we are both guilty.

The purpose of an arrest is to identify evidence, interview a suspect, protect any crime scene or forensics, and investigate promptly.

Exactly.

 

[Antman]

Absolutely. His cousin and brother are clearly idiots, and are probably horrible people themselves. I’d hazard a guess which bit of Orpington they come from as well.

St Mary Cray apparently.

 

[Bromley boy]

St Mary Cray apparently.

My first guess would have been the Ramsden estate but St Mary Cray doesn’t surprise me.

An unflushed toilet of a place.

 

[Bromley boy]

So if a person has been arrested several times (or even once) on suspicion of sexual offences against a child, but every time the victim has not wished to pursue the allegation for whatever reason, you think the police should delete the record? This would enable the person to work further with children.

But is it right that anyone should be denied access to any particular job or position of responsibility based purely on arrest rather than conviction records? Innocent until proven guilty etc.

I’m not convinced criminal record checks should contain anything more than convictions (and cautions, since these require the perpetrator to admit to committing the offence in question).

 

[AlterEgo]

But is it right that anyone should be denied access to any particular job or position of responsibility based purely on arrest rather than conviction records? Innocent until proven guilty etc.

I’m not convinced criminal record checks should contain anything more than convictions (and cautions, since these require the perpetrator to admit to committing the offence in question).

This would allow, if he were alive, Jimmy Savile to continue working with children.

 

[swj99]

Sorry but that is not correct. An arrest is not an absolute requirement to be interviewed under caution.

Absolutely right. In fact, there have been various claims against the police when the question of necessity of arrest has been raised.

The trend for police to arrest suspects, even in circumstances where voluntary interviews have been arranged, is clearly unnecessary and has resulted in several successful civil actions against the police.

https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Arrest-First-Ask-Questions-Later

Individuals who the police want to interview under caution can act in a way which demonstrates that no arrest is necessary: agreeing to voluntarily attend the police station, and to remain for the full interview; agreeing not to speak to other individuals involved in the case; agreeing to voluntarily give the police access to electronic devices; and voluntarily consenting to a search of premises. In these circumstances, it is more difficult for police to demonstrate that it would be necessary to arrest.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1d598bf9-17fe-4392-8ed1-710369dd6db5

 

[Antman]

My first guess would have been the Ramsden estate but St Mary Cray doesn’t surprise me.

An unflushed toilet of a place.

I can quite understand you thinking Ramsden, some relatives of mine used to live there and what a dump, just like St Mary Cray!

Anyway I hope this gentleman can get his life back to normal, this must have all been very stressful for somebody of his age although clearly he has plenty of public support.

 

[AlterEgo]

Just read today’s hard copy Times.

Turns out the burglar was from an extended family of professional criminals. Travellers, would you believe.

 

[greyman42]

This would allow, if he were alive, Jimmy Savile to continue working with children.

You make some fair points and I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't get the Jimmy Savile bit?

 

[AlterEgo]

You make some fair points and I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't get the Jimmy Savile bit?

People are suggesting that if you’re arrested and nothing happens, or even if you go to court and the case is thrown out, or found not guilty, no record should be kept (or it should be expunged so it wouldn’t appear anywhere).

As Jimmy Savile was never charged with, let alone convicted of anything, he would therefore pass an Enhanced DBS check with nothing found, allowing him to work with children perfectly legally.

Let’s assume the dead burglar in the case outlined in this thread is alive and only 20 years old at the moment. Like most career criminals he has brushes with the law all the time. Lots of distraction thefts. Police have arrested him, several times. On a couple of occasions they can’t pin him to the crime in a way the CPS accept will lead to a charge, so he’s released and continues burgling. He then is arrested and charged with robbing an old woman in her house, and goes to court. Owing to either a lack of evidence or the witness withdrawing their statement, or maybe even a police error, the case is thrown out at an early stage and the trial doesn’t happen.

Would you be happy with a system which, despite having a wealth of intelligence on these people, was forced to declare ignorance of the facts if those people applied for a job working with vulnerable people? They could be looking after your family.

 

[greyman42]

People are suggesting that if you’re arrested and nothing happens, or even if you go to court and the case is thrown out, or found not guilty, no record should be kept (or it should be expunged so it wouldn’t appear anywhere).

As Jimmy Savile was never charged with, let alone convicted of anything, he would therefore pass an Enhanced DBS check with nothing found, allowing him to work with children perfectly legally.

Let’s assume the dead burglar in the case outlined in this thread is alive and only 20 years old at the moment. Like most career criminals he has brushes with the law all the time. Lots of distraction thefts. Police have arrested him, several times. On a couple of occasions they can’t pin him to the crime in a way the CPS accept will lead to a charge, so he’s released and continues burgling. He then is arrested and charged with robbing an old woman in her house, and goes to court. Owing to either a lack of evidence or the witness withdrawing their statement, or maybe even a police error, the case is thrown out at an early stage and the trial doesn’t happen.

Would you be happy with a system which, despite having a wealth of intelligence on these people, was forced to declare ignorance of the facts if those people applied for a job working with vulnerable people? They could be looking after your family.

As I say, you make very good points. But how does it equate to Savile when he was never even arrested?

 

[AlterEgo]

As I say, you make very good points. But how does it equate to Savile when he was never even arrested?

I thought he was, once. He was certainly interviewed. If he wasn’t, substitute any massive paedophile for him and you’ve got the same analogy.

 

[Antman]

People are suggesting that if you’re arrested and nothing happens, or even if you go to court and the case is thrown out, or found not guilty, no record should be kept (or it should be expunged so it wouldn’t appear anywhere).

As Jimmy Savile was never charged with, let alone convicted of anything, he would therefore pass an Enhanced DBS check with nothing found, allowing him to work with children perfectly legally.

Let’s assume the dead burglar in the case outlined in this thread is alive and only 20 years old at the moment. Like most career criminals he has brushes with the law all the time. Lots of distraction thefts. Police have arrested him, several times. On a couple of occasions they can’t pin him to the crime in a way the CPS accept will lead to a charge, so he’s released and continues burgling. He then is arrested and charged with robbing an old woman in her house, and goes to court. Owing to either a lack of evidence or the witness withdrawing their statement, or maybe even a police error, the case is thrown out at an early stage and the trial doesn’t happen.

Would you be happy with a system which, despite having a wealth of intelligence on these people, was forced to declare ignorance of the facts if those people applied for a job working with vulnerable people? They could be looking after your family.

I'd have no objection in principle to the police keeping records of people who are arrested but never convicted but it should be confidential because it really is none of anybody else's business.

As for Savile surely if he was still alive he would have been charged convicted and banged up for the rest of his days?

 

[Master29]

Just read today’s hard copy Times.

Turns out the burglar was from an extended family of professional criminals. Travellers, would you believe.

No great surprises there then. That`s why we keep hearing the victim card.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd have no objection in principle to the police keeping records of people who are arrested but never convicted but it should be confidential because it really is none of anybody else's business.

As for Savile surely if he was still alive he would have been charged convicted and banged up for the rest of his days?

So if someone’s been arrested a dozen times, and been to court five times, but no conviction, they should be able to get a job looking after your kids?

 

[Bromley boy]

This would allow, if he were alive, Jimmy Savile to continue working with children.

I’m pretty sure Jimmy Saville was never actually arrested, so I’m not sure it would have made any difference.

My worry is that including arrest records in criminal record checks takes the focus off what should be happening - i.e. the authorities should be out there gathering evidence, prosecuting and convicting criminals.

I don’t think a mere accusation being made against someone should be enough to prevent them from getting or keeping a job.

 

[Bromley boy]

So if someone’s been arrested a dozen times, and been to court five times, but no conviction, they should be able to get a job looking after your kids?

But as you’ve (rightly) said above:

The purpose of an arrest is to identify evidence, interview a suspect, protect any crime scene or forensics, and investigate promptly.

So we are agreed that the purpose of an arrest is not to cast aspersions on the arrestee’s innocence or guilt.

Unfortunately innocent until proven guilty needs to do exactly what it says on the tin,
otherwise it becomes meaningless.

EDIT: I do agree it is difficult when sensitive accusations are made, but the police/CPS need to focus on bringing people to justice and convicting them. Allowing arrest records into the public domain is unjust and lets them off the hook, in my view.

 

[lyndhurst25]

I thought he was, once. He was certainly interviewed. If he wasn’t, substitute any massive paedophile for him and you’ve got the same analogy.

Harvey Procter and Lord Bramall were both interviewed under caution by the police during Operation Midland, an investigation into what turned out to be totally false accusations of child sexual abuse. The fact that they were dealing with a former MP and a retired army general, both with access to good legal representation, may have deterred the police from formally arresting them and certainly resulted in the police issuing a well publicised apology once all the lies came out. Had they been dealing with an ordinary school teacher and a care-home assistant then I suspect the outcome for the falsely accused could well have been very different: reputations in tatters, DBS records marked as suspicious and careers over.

I understand that it is up to individual Cheif Constables what information is divulged on enhanced DBS checks and up to potential employers on whether to act on that information. Fearing reputational damage, both will be likely to act according to the Precautionary Principle, divulging all accusations and denying employment with vulnerable people for individuals who have potentially been the victim of a false or malicious allegation. I'm not aware of any robust safeguards in place to prevent this happening.