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

[tony_mac]

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.

An arrest won't show up on a standard DBS check. If it's an enhanced check, which will often be to work with children or vulnerable adults, then the police can disclose it, if they think it's relevant, but they don't have to. This information can include arrests, but could also include fixed penalty notices, cautions, and even allegations.
Figures from 2014 show something is disclosed, on this basis, for about 0.25% of applications.

 

[AlterEgo]

So, just so I have it clear, people disagreeing with me are against any kind of Enhanced DBS check and find it a perversion of justice?

We’re balancing the right of a person who was once arrested to visit the United States without obtaining a visa, with the right of an vulnerable person to be cared for by people who don’t have a police record as long as your arm?

Remember than an Enhanced DBS check will only highlight police intelligence which is relevant. There is a strict decision process which is followed.

I’m struggling to see what real detriment there is that people are railing against here.

 

[tony_mac]

I'm not aware of any robust safeguards in place to prevent this happening.

There is an 'Independent monitor review' process. I have no idea how robust it is in practice.
https://www.gov.uk/report-problem-criminal-record-certificate/appeal-against-a-mistake

 

[Antman]

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?

Yes, if they've not been convicted of anything they are innocent.

 

[Bromley boy]

I thought he was, once.

He was certainly interviewed under caution. I don’t think he was ever arrested.

An arrest won't show up on a standard DBS check. If it's an enhanced check, which will often be to work with children or vulnerable adults, then the police can disclose it, if they think it's relevant, but they don't have to. This information can include arrests, but could also include fixed penalty notices, cautions, and even allegations.
Figures from 2014 show something is disclosed, on this basis, for about 0.25% of applications.

Thanks for the clarification. I have no issue whatsoever with convictions/cautions being shown - even if spent - if they are relevant to roles working with children/vulnerable people.

So, just so I have it clear, people disagreeing with me are against any kind of Enhanced DBS check and find it a perversion of justice?

No issue with an enhanced DBS check as clarified above which does not include arrest details (and I believe is correct from a google search). Although I’m not sure the police should have the ability to disclose anything additional without review by an independent body.

I would have an issue with a mere arrest being shown by default as this is no indicator of guilt (unlike a conviction or caution).

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, if they've not been convicted of anything they are innocent.

They’re legally innocent, I agree.

But you’d ask some questions of a nursery if your child was raped by a nursery worker who had been in court twice for it before, but the cases had collapsed.

 

[lyndhurst25]

So, just so I have it clear, people disagreeing with me are against any kind of Enhanced DBS check and find it a perversion of justice?

We’re balancing the right of a person who was once arrested to visit the United States without obtaining a visa, with the right of an vulnerable person to be cared for by people who don’t have a police record as long as your arm?

Remember than an Enhanced DBS check will only highlight police intelligence which is relevant. There is a strict decision process which is followed.

I’m struggling to see what real detriment there is that people are railing against here.

I'm particularly thinking of the rights of a person who wants to work with vulnerable people being prevented from doing so by a process that records unproven accusations. An enhanced DBS check may well be supposed to only reveal relevant police intelligence, but who exactly is deciding what is relevant? The police are. Post-Saville many police forces adopted the principle of always believing the accuser: although this was well intentioned there have been several cases where obviously false accusations have gone so far as to end up in the courts. Can the police be trusted to get it right every time and, for example, not disclose a single unproven accusation of a serious crime against someone applying to be a school teacher? I do not think that they can. That person is innocent in the eyes of the law and could very well be just innocent, rather than having got off through lack of evidence.

 

[AlterEgo]

No issue with an enhanced DBS check as clarified above which does not include arrest details (and I believe is correct from a google search). Although I’m not sure the police should have the ability to disclose anything additional without review by an independent body.

Think you’ve misunderstood as the poster was explaining a Standard DBS.

A Standard DBS check is, well, the standard one. I have one for my job which doesn’t require looking after vulnerable people and is just an office job with a base level of responsibility. A Standard DBS will show only unspent convictions. Even spent ones are not disclosed.

An Enhanced DBS is usually required for jobs or voluntary roles which involve being responsible for vulnerable people or children. Unspent convictions will always be disclosed. Relevant police intelligence, including a record of arrests, may be fully or partially disclosed if they are considered relevant to the role being sought.

I would have an issue with a mere arrest being shown by default as this is no indicator of guilt (unlike a conviction or caution).

Arrests aren’t shown on Enhanced DBS checks by default. The starting position is not to disclose and the case must be made for disclosure.

Let’s say (hypothetically!) I’m 40 and applying to work in a care home as a cleaner. When I was 18, let’s inagine I was arrested with a few others because I got into a fight in a nightclub. It was all very daft, he said she said, police let me off the next day having cooled down and sobered up in the cells. No further action is taken as nobody wants the hassle. This arrest would almost certainly not be disclosed.

Let’s now say that rather than my record being as it is above, it’s (hypothetically!) this: arrested for sexual assault of a 16 year old boy at a cottaging spot, but the lad is too ashamed to go to court as a witness, so no further action. Next year I’m arrested for a desperate credit card fraud involving my parents’ card, but no further action is taken as my parents couldn’t bear for me to be in court. The police also have local intelligence that I may be part of a paedophile ring, and after some years they have enough evidence to arrest me. They do, and I go to court, and the jury is directed to find me not guilty by the judge because the CPS have cocked he whole case up. I think we can agree someone like that should have their record disclosed to someone seeking to employ them in the business of looking after vulnerable people.

 

[Bromley boy]

They’re legally innocent, I agree.

But in a civilised society how do you meaningfully distinguish between legally innocent and factually innocent, if not by reference to convictions obtained in a court of law?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm particularly thinking of the rights of a person who wants to work with vulnerable people being prevented from doing so by a process that records unproven accusations.

So we realise that the two rights are in conflict. They are.

There’s the right of an innocent person, arrested for something they didn’t do, to access certain strands of employment.

Then there’s the right of children and vulnerable adults to have someone in authority do their very best to safeguard them from people who may cause them harm.

I think the Enhanced DBS balances those rights reasonably well. There are far, far more people protected from being raped, robbed, murdered or exploited than there are people disadvantaged because of a police encounter for something they didn’t do.

 

[AlterEgo]

But in a civilised society how do you meaningfully distinguish between legally innocent and factually innocent, if not by reference to convictions obtained in a court of law.

Well, in the grand scheme of things, often nobody can ever be proven “factually” innocent unless they have a watertight alibi or something. The burden rests on the prosecuting authority to find evidence that someone did something.

Cases are often not prosecuted simply because of a lack of evidence to convict rather than evidence the person is innocent.

 

[lyndhurst25]

They’re legally innocent, I agree.

But you’d ask some questions of a nursery if your child was raped by a nursery worker who had been in court twice for it before, but the cases had collapsed.

"Legally innocent" is innocent. The law is the process that we use to decide if someone is innocent or guilty of an alleged crime. It is the process that we use to deprive those found guilty of their liberty. Not so long ago it was what we used to send people to the gallows. Are you saying that there is a higher truth than that provided by the legal system? Or that you are prepared to accept a lower burden of proof to protect vulnerable members of society from abuse at the expense of a few innocent people having their careers and lives ruined?

Where would you draw the line as to wheter or not to allow someone to work with vulnerable people? Exactly how many rumours/allegations/court acquittals are too many? Who should decide?

 

[Bromley boy]

Think you’ve misunderstood as the poster was explaining a Standard DBS.

I haven’t misunderstood, thanks all the same . He went on to clarify an enhanced DBS check in the next sentence. I conducted my own google search which backed up his comments.

I believe you and I may both have been labouring under the misapprehension that arrests are automatically disclosed in an enhanced DBS check - evidently that is not the case.

An Enhanced DBS is usually required for jobs or voluntary roles which involve being responsible for vulnerable people or children. Unspent convictions will always be disclosed. Relevant police intelligence, including a record of arrests, may be fully or partially disclosed if they are considered relevant to the role being sought.

My concern with that is who in the police is qualified to make this decision? The police are not the judiciary.

No further action is taken as nobody wants the hassle. This arrest would almost certainly not be disclosed.

If no one wants the hassle, that’s clearly not a case that can be prosecuted. So, no it should not be disclosed.

Let’s now say that rather than my record being as it is above, it’s (hypothetically!) this: arrested for sexual assault of a 16 year old boy at a cottaging spot, but the lad is too ashamed to go to court as a witness, so no further action. Next year I’m arrested for a desperate credit card fraud involving my parents’ card, but no further action is taken as my parents couldn’t bear for me to be in court. The police also have local intelligence that I may be part of a paedophile ring, and after some years they have enough evidence to arrest me. They do, and I go to court, and the jury is directed to find me not guilty by the judge because the CPS have cocked he whole case up.

I think we can agree someone like that should have their record disclosed to someone seeking to employ them in the business of looking after vulnerable people.

And evidently this is not a case that should be prosecuted either. This hypothetical person’s record of accusations and failed trials is categorically not the same as a criminal record.

So, no. As unpalletable as it might seem, in that situation, I’m afraid I would have to conclude that person B above should not have anything disclosed either, in the absence of a conviction.

 

[Bromley boy]

Well, in the grand scheme of things, often nobody can ever be proven “factually” innocent unless they have a watertight alibi or something. The burden rests on the prosecuting authority to find evidence that someone did something.

Cases are often not prosecuted simply because of a lack of evidence to convict rather than evidence the person is innocent.

As you rightly say the onus is on the prosecution to establish guilt, not on the defendant to establish their innocence.

On that basis, surely you must agree, those accused of crimes for which the police lack sufficient evidence for a conviction must be regarded as innocent?!

 

[AlterEgo]

"Legally innocent" is innocent.

No it isn’t. Legally innocent means that someone is just that - legally innocent.

It is not the same as being actually innocent.

The law is the process that we use to decide if someone is innocent or guilty of an alleged crime. It is the process that we use to deprive those found guilty of their liberty. Not so long ago it was what we used to send people to the gallows.

Are you saying that there is a higher truth than that provided by the legal system?

Yes, there obviously is a higher truth than the legal system, which is the actual truth. If I go on live telly and shoot a newsreader in the head with a gun and hold up a sign with my name and address on it, I’m guilty from the moment I did it. But I’m only legally guilty once I’ve been convicted in court, which could take months.

Legally, Jimmy Savile is not a paedophile, or a rapist, or an exploiter of children. Doesn’t make it *actually* true.

Or that you are prepared to accept a lower burden of proof to protect vulnerable members of society from abuse at the expense of a few innocent people having their careers and lives ruined?

Yes, I am. As I’ve said, those two very important rights are in conflict. Can you suggest a better way of balancing them?

Do you think, for example, things were better in our society before the Enhanced DBS/CRB became a thing?

Where would you draw the line as to wheter or not to allow someone to work with vulnerable people? Exactly how many rumours/allegations/court acquittals are too many? Who should decide?

The Disclosure and Barring Service as I’ve said, do a pretty good job of it at the moment and I don’t think I could suggest a better way of balancing those two rights.

 

[Bromley boy]

"Legally innocent" is innocent. The law is the process that we use to decide if someone is innocent or guilty of an alleged crime. It is the process that we use to deprive those found guilty of their liberty. Not so long ago it was what we used to send people to the gallows. Are you saying that there is a higher truth than that provided by the legal system? Or that you are prepared to accept a lower burden of proof to protect vulnerable members of society from abuse at the expense of a few innocent people having their careers and lives ruined?

Where would you draw the line as to wheter or not to allow someone to work with vulnerable people? Exactly how many rumours/allegations/court acquittals are too many? Who should decide?

Absolutely right.

You’ve made my point rather better than I did!

 

[AlterEgo]

As you rightly say the onus is on the prosecution to establish guilt, not on the defendant to establish their innocence.

On that basis, surely you must agree, those accused of crimes for which the police lack sufficient evidence for a conviction must be regarded as innocent?!

Yes, they’re regarded as innocent of course. Nobody is suggesting that someone with an arrest record is *actually legally guilty* of any of those offences.

However, as a preventative measure, do you not agree that if he were alive, with no arrest or conviction to his name, Jimmy Savile should fail an Enhanced DBS check if he applied to work in a hospital? The Enhanced DBS also looks at police intelligence as well as just arrests of course.

 

[Bromley boy]

No it isn’t. Legally innocent means that someone is just that - legally innocent.

It is not the same as being actually innocent.

No it isn’t. But in a civilised society it must be regarded as such. If your ex girlfriend has a grudge against you and accuses you of raping her, should her unproven word be sufficient to bar you from future jobs?

Yes, there obviously is a higher truth than the legal system, which is the actual truth.

But the actual truth is usually unknowable. Hence why we have the legal system to get as close to it as we possibly can, based on the evidence available.

Legally, Jimmy Savile is not a paedophile, or a rapist, or an exploiter of children. Doesn’t make it *actually* true.

I note he was never convicted of a crime during his lifetime. Based on the evidence I don’t doubt he may have been *actually* a paedophile, but in the absence of a criminal trial, should we really conclude either way?

The fact he wasn’t ever convicted despite evidence of his prolific activities says more about the failure of the relevant agencies.

Yes, I am. As I’ve said, those two very important rights are in conflict. Can you suggest a better way of balancing them?

Do you think, for example, things were better in our society before the Enhanced DBS/CRB became a thing?

I don’t think things were radically different. I suspect enhanced checks have led to a load of additional expensive beureaucracy, I fear they’ve created injustices, I doubt they’ve prevented many crimes or changed many peoples’ lives for the better.

 

[AlterEgo]

No it isn’t. But in a civilised society it must be regarded as such. If your ex girlfriend has a grudge against you and accuses you of raping her, should her unproven word be sufficient to bar you from future jobs?

It would not necessarily bar me from “future jobs”. It may present a problem of applying to work in very specific strands of employment involving vulnerable people. An arrest for rape with no further action, or even a full court case with a not guilty verdict, would present absolutely no problem whatsoever in accessing 99% of the job market.

I note he was never convicted of a crime during his lifetime. Based on the evidence I don’t doubt he may have been *actually* a paedophile, but in the absence of a criminal trial, should we really conclude either way?

You don’t have to reach a conclusion about guilt. The question is about the risk a person poses rather than whether they’re guilty of the specific allegations they’ve had made against them in the past.

Imagine you are the safeguarding manager at a school and Jimmy Savile applied for a job or a voluntary position with access to children. Would you:

1) Prefer to know of, or be ignorant of, his extensive police intelligence records stretching to hundreds of allegations?
2) If you knew of his history of allegations, and knowing he had never been convicted, would you still employ him to look after people’s children? Because he’s innocent after all, isn’t he?

As I’ve said there are clearly rights in conflict here, and they always will be. That’s life and there is no perfect solution.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes, they’re regarded as innocent of course. Nobody is suggesting that someone with an arrest record is *actually legally guilty* of any of those offences.

The trouble is once you start disclosing details of offences someone is merely accused of, with no conviction, they are likely to be treated as *actually legally guilty*.

If we agree the accused is innocent until proven guilty, any accusations should surely play no part in the decision of whether or not to employ them?!

However, as a preventative measure, do you not agree that if he were alive, with no arrest or conviction to his name, Jimmy Savile should fail an Enhanced DBS check if he applied to work in a hospital? The Enhanced DBS also looks at police intelligence as well as just arrests of course.

It’s an extreme example. And I hate to say it, but yes, I’d say an innocent man applying for any job should be treated as just such an innocent man.

The onus is on the police and the CPS to rid us of the guilty.

 

[AlterEgo]

The trouble is once you start disclosing details of offences someone is merely accused of, with no conviction, they are likely to be treated as *actually legally guilty*.

If we agree the accused is innocent until proven guilty, any accusations should surely play no part in the decision of whether or not to employ them?!



It’s an extreme example. And I hate to say it, but yes, I’d say an innocent man applying for any job should be treated as just such an innocent man.

The onus is on the police and the CPS to rid us of the guilty.

So, if we rewind to the original purpose of the thread, the bloke who was stabbed in the chest and died while burgling an old bloke’s house is entitled to be considered as having not committed that crime by civil society?

He’s not been found guilty of burgling that bloke’ house, but we all know he did it. What’s different about that?

 

[Bromley boy]

An arrest for rape with no further action, or even a full court case with a not guilty verdict, would present absolutely no problem whatsoever in accessing 99% of the job market.

Ok but surely it shouldn’t make any difference to you in accessing 100% of the job market?! Otherwise the system becomes arbitrary, unjust and deeply unfair.

As a bloke in my 30s (whose never been accused of anything I hasten to add!) should I be denied a job “just in case” I might have sexually assaulted someone?

You don’t have to reach a conclusion about guilt. The question is about the risk a person poses rather than whether they’re guilty of the specific allegations they’ve had made against them in the past.

Imagine you are the safeguarding manager at a school and Jimmy Savile applied for a job or a voluntary position with access to children. Would you:

1) Prefer to know of, or be ignorant of, his extensive police intelligence records stretching to hundreds of allegations?
2) If you knew of his history of allegations, and knowing he had never been convicted, would you still employ him to look after people’s children? Because he’s innocent after all, isn’t he?

As I’ve said there are clearly rights in conflict here, and they always will be. That’s life and there is no perfect solution.

1. I’d prefer to know but that doesn’t mean I should know.

2. No. I’d find any excuse I could not to employ him, of course!

But that’s based on my own bias (and of course knowing what we know now about Jimmy Savile with 20/20 hindsight).

What if said applicant’s name was John Doe? What if his mentally unstable ex girlfriend had stalked him and accused him of everything under the sun, had him arrested, but no convictions?

If I was given that information I wouldn’t employ John Doe either. But should I be put into a position where I know that information in the first place?!

 

[Bromley boy]

So, if we rewind to the original purpose of the thread, the bloke who was stabbed in the chest and died while burgling an old bloke’s house is entitled to be considered as having not committed that crime by civil society?

He’s not been found guilty of burgling that bloke’ house, but we all know he did it. What’s different about that?

Thats a different question. The deceased is as dead as a doornail. He can’t be prosecuted for anything. The (only) relevant issue in this case is whether the 78yo who killed him*, and is still alive, should be charged with his murder.

Evidently the CPS consider that:
1. There’s no public interest in a prosecution and/or;
2. Any such prosecution would be countered by “self defence” plea (which is a complete defence to murder).

Hence he’s not even been charged.

(*Based on his finding two 30-something traveller blokes from St. Mary Cray robbing his house, threatening him and his wife with a screwdriver, the guy deserves a medal for cleaning up the gene pool.

The only pity is that he didn’t get both of them! )

 

[Lucan]

"Legally innocent" is innocent. The law is the process that we use to decide if someone is innocent or guilty of an alleged crime. .... Are you saying that there is a higher truth than that provided by the legal system?

Yes, I would. The legal process is a pragmatic process, the result of which depends strongly on the capabilities of the lawyers and the degree of understanding of twelve random people. I have never sat on a jury, but people I know who have done so have described their disillusionment with how things worked (like abysmal failure among some jurists to understand what was going on, susceptibility to the glib talk of charming rogues etc etc). The highest truth? Of course not.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes, I would. The legal process is a pragmatic process, the result of which depends strongly on the capabilities of the lawyers and the degree of understanding of twelve random people. I have never sat on a jury, but people I know who have done so have described their disillusionment with how things worked (like abysmal failure among some jurists to understand what was going on, susceptibility to the glib talk of charming rogues etc etc). The highest truth? Of course not.

I think you mean jurors rather than jurists.

Do you disagree with the proposition that the “innocent until proven guilty” legally available truth is both the highest truth we have and the working truth we must adopt?!

If you do disagree, can you suggest a different truth we should use instead?

 

[tony_mac]

If you do disagree, can you suggest a different truth we should use instead?

What we have now? It may not be perfect, but I think some sort of balance is needed.

Huntley's case was an extreme example of what can go wrong if you rely only on convictions and ignore all other evidence (in his case, that was done by mistake as the other evidence should have been reported)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3826355.stm

 

[Antman]

They’re legally innocent, I agree.

But you’d ask some questions of a nursery if your child was raped by a nursery worker who had been in court twice for it before, but the cases had collapsed.

I understand your point but where do you draw the line? I think it would be quite unreasonable to preclude somebody from a job on the basis of something they were suspected of doing.

 

[AlterEgo]

I understand your point but where do you draw the line? I think it would be quite unreasonable to preclude somebody from a job on the basis of something they were suspected of doing.

You would probably have to look at things on a case by case basis, which is exactly what the Enhanced DBS Check does. The decision process on whether or not to disclose an arrest is never going to be perfect but the guidance on how decisions are made is available online.

Remember we are only talking about a very small section of the job market here.

 

[Bromley boy]

The decision process on whether or not to disclose an arrest is never going to be perfect but the guidance on how decisions are made is available online.

That’s a fair comment. It’s always going to be a difficult balancing act.

 

[Antman]

A shrine to the dead burglar has been set up outside the house whilst the victim has had to go into hiding under police protection.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shrine-dead-burglar-near-house-12332787

A shrine to a dead burglar was set up yards away from the home where he was stabbed - as its pensioner owner is forced to stay away under police protection.

Dozens of flowers were attached to a fence just 20 yards away from Richard Osborn-Brooks' home in Hither Green paying tribute to Henry Vincent.

A group of seven women arrived at South Park Crescent in London to add to the cards, balloons and flowers already left over the weekend...