heathcote wrote:
Its typical of the Courts in this country to have two cases in quick succession and come out with contradictory decisions which have serious ramifications for a lot of self employed persons ,namely us TAXI drivers.
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Supreme Court Decision http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28450 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | heathcote [ Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Supreme Court Decision |
Where does this decision leave the present licensed trade with regards the DBS checks under the Equality Act? . The Court decided last week to uphold the request that a double murderer who was held in a secure unit should have the right to a new identity,totally clean slate,no one to have access to his previous history. In the light of this declaration is the DBS check now redundant because this person on applying for a license will have a clean bill of health similar to the crooks who are immigrants from abroad. Should the MP who raised the revocation loophole in Parliament and I include all MPs raise this very serious threat of another loophole created by the highest Court in the land most urgently in Parliament. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supreme Court Decision |
heathcote wrote: Where does this decision leave the present licensed trade with regards the DBS checks under the Equality Act? . The Court decided last week to uphold the request that a double murderer who was held in a secure unit should have the right to a new identity,totally clean slate,no one to have access to his previous history. In the light of this declaration is the DBS check now redundant because this person on applying for a license will have a clean bill of health similar to the crooks who are immigrants from abroad. Should the MP who raised the revocation loophole in Parliament and I include all MPs raise this very serious threat of another loophole created by the highest Court in the land most urgently in Parliament. I don't think you're right about the double murderer, I understood it was for minor offences which happened decades earlier, I'll dig out the article |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supreme Court Decision |
Criminals with more than one conviction get green light to dodge records check High Court supports legal challenge over multiple convictions in case which could have far-reaching ramifications Thousands of convicted criminals with more than one offence on their record could be free to work with children and vulnerable adults following a controversial court ruling. Lawyers for a 47-year-old woman, known only as Miss P, and a 51-year-old-man, Mr A, told the High Court they were being unfairly haunted throughout their lives by convictions for minor criminal offences committed earlier in life. Judges ruled the current system for disclosing criminal records was in breach of the “right to private and family life” as set out in Labour’s Human Rights Act. The Government has already amended the law in 2013 to allow minor offenders a “second chance”. MPs agreed in 2013 to allow the Disclosure and Barring Service, formerly the Criminal Records Bureau, to filter out offenders with a single conviction when applications were made to work in sensitive jobs such as teaching and nursing. "This ruling will bring reassurance for the very many people who have had their ambitions dashed because of very small mistakes they made years, or even decades, in the past." James Welch, Liberty The new legal victory indicates the 2013 decision was only the thin end of the wedge – as the latest ruling says offenders with more than one minor conviction should also be filtered out. Serious offences will not be affected but the ruling could mean offenders with convictions for theft or common assault are no longer flagged by criminal records checks. Lord Justice McCombe and Mrs Justice Carr heard Miss P shoplifted a sandwich and a 99p book in 1999 during a period of her life when she was suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness, leading to two convictions. Miss P wanted to work as a teaching assistant but was unable to do so because of the convictions. Mr A was 17 when he was convicted in 1981 of the theft of a coat from a market stall and fined £30, and the following year was fined for theft of a motorcycle. Mr A has since qualified as an accountant and become a company finance director. The court heard he wanted to ensure he would never have to disclose his past offences, of which his family are unaware. According to the judges' ruling, Kate Gallafent, for the Home Office, said Parliament had “drawn an acceptable, non-arbitrary line requiring disclosure, on a permanent basis, of more than one conviction". “It is, she argues, entirely rational to adopt the position that a first time offender should be given a ‘second chance’ but no more,” it added. James Welch, legal director for Liberty, which backed Miss P’s case, said: "This ruling will bring reassurance for the very many people who have had their ambitions dashed because of very small mistakes they made years, or even decades, in the past. "The Government must urgently fix this broken system.” In 2014-15 nearly 98,000 people who applied to for an enhanced criminal records disclosure were filtered out because they had only one conviction. The number which could be filtered out because they have two convictions is also thought to run into tens of thousands. The court will hear further argument before making a final declaration on the case. source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... check.html |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supreme Court Decision |
I think we are talking about two separate cases here aren't we this one last week Twisted justice: Freed double killer gets lifelong anonymity as victim's family are warned to go under-cover for their own safety Killer caused 'incalculable distress' to victims' families, court hears He was last year released from a psychiatric unit on licence His lawyers applied for details of his case, including his name, to be secret Supreme Court judges have now ruled he should be kept anonymous Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3yr3HqExK Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook the other a couple of years ago The thing with this one is he has been given a new identity BUT so have others including the James Bulger killers. I am not sure if that means they have a clean record from the DBS I would assume some sort of safeguard would be in place |
|
| Author: | heathcote [ Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supreme Court Decision |
Its typical of the Courts in this country to have two cases in quick succession and come out with contradictory decisions which have serious ramifications for a lot of self employed persons ,namely us TAXI drivers. |
|
| Author: | heathcote [ Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supreme Court Decision |
Its typical of the Courts in this country to have two cases in quick succession and come out with contradictory decisions which have serious ramifications for a lot of self employed persons ,namely us TAXI drivers. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supreme Court Decision |
heathcote wrote: Its typical of the Courts in this country to have two cases in quick succession and come out with contradictory decisions which have serious ramifications for a lot of self employed persons ,namely us TAXI drivers.
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Feb 01, 2016 2:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supreme Court Decision |
I think one or two minor non violent offences from the distant past shouldn't, on its own, bar folks from driving taxi/ph. Times change and folks change. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Supreme Court Decision |
heathcote wrote: Its typical of the Courts in this country to have two cases in quick succession and come out with contradictory decisions which have serious ramifications for a lot of self employed persons ,namely us TAXI drivers. I didn't read in this that he was given a clean DBS just a new identity I am not sure that he could get a badge as there would have to be some safeguards in place |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|