Opinion A view from the trade by B. M. ROLAND
npha@btconnect.com
National Private Hire Association 8 Silver Street Bury BL9 0EX 0161 280 2800
www.npha.org.uk
TUT, TUT, TUT... MR T TRANSFORMATION
my mind would hit on what to write in this month’s Opinion. But as usual, and as I could have predicted, I had not been in the office for more than a moment when the answer landed on my desk. That was an application form for the renewal of a driver’s licence. Now what wound me up about it, I will come to in a moment. But first I need to explain about Mr T. I included the case law in an earlier arti- cle, and at that stage there was some suggestion that the Government might appeal the outcome – but that now appears not to have hap- pened, and is unlikely to happen after all this length of time. To remind you about this case, here are the basics: Mr T was 21 years old. He wanted to get a job training kids sports. When he was 11 he had received two cautions for nicking bicycles. Ms JB had, as she fought with her handbag and other bits of shopping that she was carrying, tucked a packet of cosmetic fingernails under her armpit but forgot to take them out and pay for them. She got grabbed at the door and received a caution. Some time later JB want-
H
ello! Yes, it’s me, and I’m back, and raring to go again...well, at somewhat reduced speed but with renewed determination. Having been off work for six weeks, I was wondering whether
ed a job in the care sector. When AW was 16 she carried out a carjacking with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend stabbed somebody many times in the face and chest. AW was charged and pleaded guilty to manslaughter and robbery. She got five years for manslaughter and four for robbery. Subsequently AW wanted to serve in the Army. Obviously this was the most serious of the three criminal acts having been considered in this case. So in each of these cases the CRB check blocked the application for the job that they wanted to do. Each one of them appealed this on the basis of the Human Rights Act; at the end of the day, the enhanced dis- closure gives away material which in common sense should be dead and buried and forgotten about as people grow older – in line, if you like, with the concept of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Now do remember that if you are a taxi driver or are applying for jobs such as the three appellants were doing, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply, so everything has to be revealed. In examining the case in some depth, the Appeal Court found that these disclosures breached the Human Rights Act and should not have been disclosed. They suggest that the police, or the Home Office, or somebody, should be allowed to filter out little matters so they do not turn up in a DBS check. The actual legalese from the case is the Final Conclusion of the Jus- tices:- “For the reasons that we have given, we allow the appeals of T and JB and refuse AW permission to appeal. We grant T and JB a declaration that the 1997 Act is incompatible with article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights... We also grant T a declaration that the ROA Order is incompatible with article 8 and, therefore, ultra vires the ROA.”
PAGE 8
PHTM AUGUST 2013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82
