Protecting vulnerable groups after Soham and Bichard: Is IT the solution, or part of the problem?

Abstract

Increasing reliance is being placed on IT systems in criminal justice, to deliver ‘joined-up’ justice and to monitor offenders. With the modern emphasis on managing risk of offending, we have seen the creation of various offender registers. Yet there are real concerns. A number of recent government IT projects in criminal justice have been over-ambitious. Initial enthusiasm for setting up systems is not always matched by the finance, staffing and administration necessary to maintain them. Of most concern in the development of these databases, however, is the slide away from basic principles of allegation and proof. Registers and record checks effectively ignore what was once a clear distinction between caution and conviction. Enhanced checks now include access to soft ‘intelligence’ information about a person, which has not been tested in court or otherwise. Access to this material is being made available, not just to criminal justice professionals, but to the wider public.

Notes

1. For earlier developments, see C Cobley Sex Offenders: Law, Policy and Practice Jordans, Bristol, 2000.

2. See www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgementsfiles/j3351/huntley_0905.htm (last accessed 15 May 2006).

3. Bichard Inquiry Report HC653, June 2004. Available at www.bichardinquiry.org.uk.htm (last accessed 15 May 2006).

4. Several newspaper accounts state, inaccurately, that Huntley had been ‘acquitted’, part of a lamentable failure to appreciate the difference between a ‘charge’ and a ‘conviction’.

5. J Bristow, ‘After Soham: taking liberties’ 24 June 2004. Available at www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA5A8.htm (last accessed 15 May 2006).

6. See T Thomas ‘The national collection of criminal records: a question of data quality’ Criminal Law Review p 886, 2001.

7. Formerly the prison and probation services.

8. Originally the Home Office Coordination of Computerisation in the Criminal Justice System project, this became the Integrated Business and Information System (IBIS) in 1999.

9. Home Office Safety and Justice The Stationery Office, London, 2003.

10. P Micklewright ‘Technology in the criminal justice system—fresh options for social justice’ in B Shimshon (ed), Social Justice: Criminal Justice The Smith Institute, London, 2006.

11. Cabinet Office Transformational Government: Enabled by Technology The Stationery Office, London, 2005.

12. Police Home Office Extended Name Index.

13. See Thomas, op cit, Ref 6.

14. Home Affairs Committee, Third Report, Criminal Records, Session 1989–90, paras 7–8.

15. ‘Records chaos may put police chiefs in court’ The Times 14 April 2001; ‘Too many errors on police database’ The Independent 9 May 2001. See Information Commissioner, Annual Report, 2001. Available at www.ico.gov.uk/documentUploads/annrep2001.pdf (last accessed 15 May 2006).

16. R v Egan (Paul), The Times 9 March 2004.

17. Bichard, op cit, Ref 3, Intro and summary, para 39.

18. Ibid, para 40.

19. See S Uglow ‘Criminal records under the Police Act 1997’ Criminal Law Review 235–245, 1998.

20. Sexual Offences Act 2003, s. 104. These orders have replaced restraining orders under the Sexual Offences Act 1997, s. 5A.

21. Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, ss. 28–29, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s. 229 and sch 30.

22. HOC 30/2005: The Cautioning of Adult Offenders.

23. A court may strike down a caution if no proper admission of guilt has been obtained: Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte P [1995] TL: R 305. See further A Gillespie ‘List 99: a cautionary tale’ Archbold News Issue 2, p 4, 2006.

24. R(R) v Durham Constabulary [2005] 2 WLR 709.

25. Crime and Disorder Act 1998, ss. 65 and 66.

26. Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss. 22–27.

27. See the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, which has been amended many times to include additional occupations.

28. B Harris, The Rehabilitation of Offenders: A Guide to the Law Fourmat, London, 1988, p v.

29. For a comprehensive review and proposals for radical change to this Act, see Home Office Breaking the Circle: A Report on the Review of Offenders Act July 2002.

30. M Colvin ‘The criminal record and information system in England and Wales’ International Yearbook of Law, Computers and Technology Vol 6, p 139, 2002.

31. Lord Cullen Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996, 1996, Cm 3386.

32. See D McDougall ‘Who does the 100 year ban protect?’ The Scotsman 13 February 2003.

33. Colvin, op cit, Ref 30, p 149.

34. ‘Police chief fights for his job over Soham vetting blunders’ The Times 19 December 2003; ‘Data guidelines set for review after blunders’ The Times 24 December 2003.

35. Section 29(1)(a) and (b).

36. To be achieved under provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002.

37. Bichard, op cit, Ref 3, Intro and summary, para 51.

38. Ibid, para 67.

39. ‘Vital police computer is delayed’ The Times 29 December 2005.

40. There is an exception for offenders on life sentence licence.

41. Home Office The Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders Cm 3304, 1996.

42. Or in the case of a juvenile, having received a reprimand or warning.

43. Home Office Protecting the Public Cm 5668, 2002, p 12.

44. Attorney General's Reference (no 50 of 1997) [1998] 2 Cr App R (S) 155.

45. Home Office A Five Year Strategy for Protecting the Public and Reducing Re-offending Cm 6717, February 2006, para 2.14.

46. B Hebenton and T Thomas ‘Sexual offenders in the community: reflections on problems of law, community and risk management in the USA, England and Wales’ International Journal of the Sociology of Law Vol 26, p 427, 1996.

47. Section 142. Relevant regulations include the Education (Prohibition from Teaching or Working with Children) Regs 2003 SI 2003/1184.

48. Ibid, reg 8.

49. As distinct from ‘conditional cautioning’: see above.

50. The Education (Prohibition from Teaching or Working with Children) Regs 2003 SI 1184 and The Education (Prohibition from Teaching or Working with Children)(Amendment) Regs 2004 SI 1493, made under The Education Act 2002.

51. ‘Classroom blacklist job was given to doctors who lack training’ The Times 18 January 2006.

52. ‘Why it can take years to ban paedophile teachers’ The Times 14 January 2006.

53. Care Standards Tribunal. Available online at: www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/legislation.htm (last accessed 15 May 2006).

54. ‘Child sex offenders cleared to work in schools’ The Times 14 January 2006.

55. ‘Kelly's future depends on child safety speech’ The Times 19 January 2006; ‘Educating Ruth’ The Times 20 January 2006 (leader).

56. Bichard, op cit, Ref 3, Intro and summary, para 61.

57. Details can be found at www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/bichard (last accessed 15 May 2006).

58. DfES/Department of Health Making Safeguarding Everybody's Business, 2005 Ref: 1485-2005DOC-EN.

59. Ibid, para 3.3.4.

60. Ibid, para 3.2.3.

61. Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL Bill 79], published with explanatory notes: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/079/en/06079.htm (last accessed 15 May 2006).

62. Examples include Childline counsellors or NHS Direct staff.

63. Examples include children's chatroom moderators.

64. Set out at www.homeoffice.gov.uk.docs/cjcsguide.html (last accessed 15 May 2006).