Allegations to remain on police record

That’s shocking Nonnie snd means anyone being wrongly, falsely or even vindictively accused of a sex offence will have their lives and careers ruined for ever. This can’t be right surely ?

I would have thought that he could have made an application to have the record deleted, including anything held on the PNC, the Fingerprint Database and the DNA Database if he was not formally charged.

Nonnie I just heard that on PM on radio 4, I thought it was quite shocking actually.Yes, it coukd be left on record ( only for the police in case of further allegations) but for it to be ‘out there’ and blighting job prospects is patently unfair.

He was aquitted Jalima ( so had been charged.)

That is dreadful Nonnie leaves an innocent person at risk from anyone who chooses to make a vindictive complaint.

I was wondering if I was the only person totally shocked by this. The report on PM didn't say anything about it being unfair, just stated what the situation was.

I have said on other threads that I think it is time that those making allegations should now be named. When it was decided that they should remain anonymous it was the right decision because, at that time, their was a stigma to making such allegations. Now we have been through the 'Me Too' campaign I don't think anyone would feel that they have any reason to be frightened of speaking out if they have been abused. All the arguments about protection the alleged victim seem to me to be the same for the accused. I do feel so sorry for this poor man.

Yes, it’s my opinion that it’s unfair, not PM’s.

The inference is that even though he was acquitted, he 'got away with it' and this comes from the 'I know he is guilty even though I can't prove it' school of policing.

This seems very wrong to me, as the accused-but-found- innocent person will be stigmatised for the rest of his life.

The piece also said that although this came to light when a potential employer made a DBS check on the chap, if they had just googled his name they would have found out anyway as the information is in the Public Domain.
Most Court Cases are reported in the newspapers which are then put online, especially serious cases.
Even if you are acquitted the info is still on there.
I always say that people should have Anonymity until they are found guilty.

He was acquitted Jalima ( so had been charged.)
Ah, that wasn't apparent from the OP.

In that case I do believe that his details should be left on the DNA Database etc for future reference.
If there was a court case and he was acquitted then, unfortunately, his name will be public knowledge as will the case.

That is a whole other question - should people who are charged with rape or other such crimes remain anonymous until they are found guilty?

Innocent untill proven guilty, this is suppose to be British justice , this man will be a victim for the rest of his life. so unfair and certaintly not justice

Really, the employer is at fault because, although his name came up when they did the DBS check, it would have said that he was acquitted and they should have used their judgement and discretion because he was found innocent of the crime.

the would-be employer, sorry

Nonnie this case is not about
Once again we come back to the situation where someone can make an allegation, remain anonymous and blight someone else's life with no evidence at all.
It’s about the issue of what chief constables should be able to put on Enhanced Criminal Checks Certificates. It’s already been accepted that allegations, arrests etc that do not lead to charges can be put on these certificates if the CC thinks it’s reasonable and proportionate, This case deals with a case where the man was found not guilty but the CC decided the fact there was a trial should be included - it would be interesting to know exactly why he decided that. They may appeal to the ECHR

I think the fact that his name was already in the public domain isn't entirely relevant. Leaving the allegation on the police records seems to me to almost give credence to the notion that despite his acquittal he was guilty. That seems wrong to me.

It also doesn't feel quite right for his DNA to remain on police files but, on that one, I tend to feel it should do so, given the seriousness of the unproven allegation. I realise that that is a contradictory stance to adopt but it's my understanding that only the police and justice authorities have access to DNA records.

What’s interesting is that the CC decided to include it - I wonder why? He didn’t have to - it was up to him to make that decision. I wonder what guidelines exist? It’s worth reading the full SC judgement

It seems very unfair, the man and his family must be going through a very stressful time.