In R (on the application of T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and ors, at the age of 11, T received two warnings from the police concerning stolen bicycles. These warnings were revealed via criminal records checks, 6 years later when he applied for a job at a local football club and then again when he enrolled on a university course which involved teaching and contact with children. T claimed that the criminal record checking scheme was incompatible with his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the EU Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory criminal record checking scheme (now the Disclosure and Barring Service) is incompatible with Article 8. While the scheme pursues legitimate aims of protecting employers and children and vulnerable adults who are in their care, enabling an assessment as to whether an individual is suitable for a particular kind of work, requiring the disclosure of all recorded convictions and cautions, is disproportionate. The scheme does not control the disclosure of information by reference to its relevance to employers when assessing the suitability of an individual for a particular kind of work. T's case involved the disclosure of sensitive information that he wished to keep private. His warning had been administered in private when he was a child of 11.

Comment: Two key issues arise from this case: (i) the proposition that one relatively minor offence committed by a child when aged 11 should not have any influence on his suitability for a job many years later; and (ii) the Court’s view that a filtering system should be introduced, which takes into account the relevance of information about a person's criminal record to the job for which they are applying. We understand that the Government is seeking leave to appeal this ruling in the Supreme Court. If the ruling stands, then it would appear that the Government will have to reform the criminal record checks system.