Record deletion

[Shocked777]

I'm currently going through the process to apply to have my PNC record deleted. I wasn't actually arrested, but came for an interview voluntarily. I was never charged or arrested but still given an NFA. The OIC made it clear to me that the NFA would appear on a record.

This is the criteria one must satisfy in order to apply for the deletion of a record with regards to a false allegation on the official form:


Malicious/False Allegation. Where you have been arrested and charged, but the case has been withdrawn at any stage, and there is corroborative evidence that the case was based on a malicious or false allegation.

If I haven't been arrested or charged, why will this NFA still be available on an enhanced check? And if so, can I still have it removed under these rules?

Thanks

[Rights Fighter]

Malicious/False Allegation. Where you have been arrested and charged, but the case has been withdrawn at any stage, and there is corroborative evidence that the case was based on a malicious or false allegation.

Being NFAd does not denote innocence - just that there is not enough "evidence" or possibly the complainant has not wished to go through with a prosecution, for whatever reason

[sqounk]

Surely if you were never charged it would be unjust to keep a record on the PNC? That's like saying - there is no case against you but we will affect your future job prospects regardless (applying for roles with children or vunerable adults requiring an advanced DBC check) ? That is surely completely unjustifiable? It's the same as warning future employers of 'oh someone said this about them' and not fact. Surely there must be something in European law that prevents this.

[Rights Fighter]

Not everybody who is NFAd is innocent.

Imagine how you would feel if your daughter, sister / mother was sexually assaulted and there was not enough evidence to prove it so the matter was NFAd.

Later on down the line the same assailant is picked up for doing the same to others and there is no record to show he's done this before....... as he's got away with it and it's not on the PNC.

I know this sounds like I completely agree with this - I don't. But it's a balancing exercise to protect the public.

Hence the exception ".........and there is corroborative evidence that the case was based on a malicious or false allegation"

If there is absolute proof the accuser is lying (about the allegations not peripheral matters) then it should be wiped from the PNC.

[sqounk]

Not everybody who is NFAd is innocent.

Imagine how you would feel if your daughter, sister / mother was sexually assaulted and there was not enough evidence to prove it so the matter was NFAd.

Later on down the line the same assailant is picked up for doing the same to others and there is no record to show he's done this before....... as he's got away with it and it's not on the PNC.

I know this sounds like I completely agree with this - I don't. But it's a balancing exercise to protect the public.

Hence the exception ".........and there is corroborative evidence that the case was based on a malicious or false allegation"

If there is absolute proof the accuser is lying (about the allegations not peripheral matters) then it should be wiped from the PNC.

True, but where is threshold of 'innocent until proven guilty?' Also, 'there has been an allegation' is a lot different to 'we seriously suspect this person'. If the former can alter the course of someone's life and career, given that even the police themselves might consider it false although have not investigated to prove this, then something is very wrong in this country.

[Rights Fighter]

Ian Huntley was known to the police but for some reasons he slipped under the radar. I think this was due to the fact that there was no record of him on the PNC at the time.

[sqounk]

Ian Huntley was known to the police but for some reasons he slipped under the radar. I think this was due to the fact that there was no record of him on the PNC at the time.

Fair point. I don't really have a problem with records on the PNC but when completely innocent people have their livelihood and career which they may have worked toward for years taken away for no other reason than a malicious allegation. Let's face it the police don't investigate many of these. How can they when they are over burdened withe amount of FA to start with? How can it be right to affect someone for the rest of their lives when no case has been made against them. I take the point about Huntley but.....again, what is the threshold? Do evidently unbelievable allegations have the same sway as grave concerns in how allegations are recorded? If so. ...this is extremely worrying if this information is used on crb's using the same criteria.

[Rights Fighter]

I'm not saying the system is right. Just trying to explain why people's details are kept on the PNC unless there is absolute proof that the allegations are malicious.

To give an example: One of my ladies, her ex partner was wrongly convicted. We won his appeal in 2008.

https://pacso.co.uk/the-mr-kaz-appeal/

After his appeal succeeded (we proved the mother of the girls was lying and it cast doubt on absolutely everything) his then partner (Kaz) found the allegations, the conviction and the quashed conviction on HER ECRB check.

She didn't know him at the time of the alleged abuse. She is now separated from him (three years ago) and doesn't see him now, yet it still remains on there. She has applied to get it removed but her local chief constable refuses to allow her check to be cleared.

I know this is not the same as being recorded on the PNC but it's still the same unfairness.

[Silver]

That's just shocking to think that an allegation could show up on an innocent partners dbs,, I live at same address as OH who has had the allegations made against him. However nothing has shown up on my recent enhanced dbs .However thanks for the warning!

[Franticwithworry]

I think that it's grossly unfair and unjust because there is no discretion involved. Cases are closed because of a preponderance of evidence that the allegation did not happen. Cases are thrown out of court on the basis that the allegation is not a crime. The system wants absolute proof that lies were told by the complainant and even then, the complainant is rarely called to account. On the other hand, the falsely accused are smeared by the accusation in perpetuity on 'the balance of probability' or less.

It's unfair, unjust and completely weighted against the innocent. I understand all the arguments about not letting the guilty slip through the net, but all common sense has gone out of the window. When it's abundantly clear that an allegation is false/malicious or even that the allegation isn't even a crime I don't see why the record should remain. It's inviting false allegations just to mess with people the accuser doesn't like and teaching people that lies and bad, even criminal, behaviour have no consequences.

[Shocked777]

I understand that an NFA does not denote innocence.

I've given some real thought to how 'unfair' it is that this should remain on a record (still unsure exactly where it will appear as I wasn't arrested or charged) and I have come to a conclusion: A few thousand people feeling aggrieved, hard done by, or even being stopped from working with vulnerable people is a small price to pay to protect them from harm. So what's happened to me is unjust but in grand scheme of things - it could be a lot worse. I'm willing to take it on the chin quietly for the greater good.

This does not mean I'm going to cease attempting to have my name cleared.

Rights Fighter my FA was questioned under caution AFTER my NFA for suspicion of wasting police time. It was based on her admission that the accusation was false AFTER the NFA. This confession was recorded.

I'm yet to hear any sort of update on what happened. I'm assuming as I've heard nothing she wasn't prosecuted or given a caution. But this could possibly be enough to meet the 'corroborative evidence' requirement in record deletion.

[Shocked777]

To clarify one of those sentences:

-Those of us FAd having some form of record is a small price to pay to protect women/vulnerable people/children.

[Franticwithworry]

To clarify one of those sentences:

-Those of us FAd having some form of record is a small price to pay to protect women/vulnerable people/children.

It's a very big price if it robs you of your career and livelihood. That's the cost for some, sadly.

[Shocked777]

Yeh, to be honest I was quite shortsighted when I wrote that. If you already work in say, teaching, and you are FAd - then your career and reputation are ruined even after getting an NFA.

What's the solution then?

[sqounk]

It's a very big price if it robs you of your career and livelihood. That's the cost for some, sadly.

I can't say I agree with the collateral damage argument at all, to say the very least. If a doctor, surgeon, or consultant who has trained for God knows how many years and spent 20-25 years delivering expert medical service suddenly has their career ripped from them and are innocent of any crime, it is utterly unacceptable. The same for teachers, dentists etc. - all would have to have CRB's. It is not acceptable by any standard of modern civilisation. If you are innocent, you are innocent until proven guilty. Effectively punishing those who are unlucky enough to have spurious claims made against them and who are innocent is immoral, pure and simple. For example, the teaching union ATL claim the 1/5th of teachers have some allegation made against them at some point in their career. And we all know that the amount of FA as a whole in the UK is definitely not 0.1% (as debunked in the report into the recent Operation Midland) and somewhere between 12%-80% (the latter being an estimate by the police inspector who wrote a blog in recent years who was later instructed to cease by his superiors - reference is made to him on this site...somewhere!). Therefore, given that we know that the vast majority or at least a very large proportion of claims are false, it cannot be acceptable that as a society we accept that these people are effectively punished. However, there does have to be a balance in protecting the public from people who the police genuinely think represent a danger, I accept this. Howit is done I think would need to be done on a case by case basis and should be the responsibility of the court panels not the police, in the final instance. Perhaps, the police present a file on the suspect and ask for a note to be put on a CRB. There should be absolutely no targets involved. One day we as a society will learn that targets aren't necessarily a good thing. There is no easy solution I am sure, but to simply to have blanket condemnation for those that have been accused falsely or/and those that have been NFA'd cannot be an acceptable practice.

Rant over.