CRB fear leads to wrongful arrest case
1 April 2011
This week the High Court found in favour of a teacher who alleged
he was wrongfully arrested following an allegation of assault by a
pupil. Regardless of his willingness to attend a police station for
questioning, the police chose to arrest him. No further action was
taken following the arrest.
The fear of the arrest appearing on his CRB disclosure drove the
teacher to pursue a wrongful arrest claim.
Whilst the courts agreed that the arrest was wrongful, this does
not automatically mean that the CRB disclosure will be clear.
It is often the case that police include arrest information on CRB
disclosures regardless of outcome, putting the onus on employers to
make the decision on suitability. This puts employers in the
impossible position of trying to ascertain the details of the
arrest to make a decision on suitability. With no powers to access
the evidence surrounding the arrest, it is no surprise that most
employers simply choose not to employ someone with arrest
information on their disclosure.
The Protection Freedoms Bill offers a token improvement by
giving individuals the right to request a review of the CRB
disclosure before the employer sees it. However, if the courts
wanted to force the police to take CRB disclosures more seriously,
they should have imposed a duty to act reasonably when deciding the
Desmond case in December, in which a teacher wrongly
accused of a sexual assault asked the court to impose a duty of
care on the police when they provide information for enhanced CRB
disclosures.
Managing CRB disclosures and allegations against staff are
difficult for both the employers and employees. The impact that
these issues have on sports organisations will be considered at our
'safeguarding in sport' seminars taking place at our offices in
Birmingham on 12 April 2011 and Nottingham on 13 April 2011.
If you have not already registered to attend these free
seminars, go to our training pages to find out more and
book a place.
The content of this bulletin is provided for the purposes of
general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries
of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive
statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not provide a substitute for it.