Regrettably some of our most popular newspapers saw things differently. Apparently preoccupied with their blind hatred of the Human Rights Act, they decided that the judgment was an outrage. And their news stories and leading articles were so full of myths and spin that readers could easily jump to the wrong conclusions.
So let’s set the record straight, shall we?
Britain’s biggest-selling tabloid said the Court had “paved the way for offenders to dodge criminal checks before working in schools”; accusing judges of “reopening the school gates to paedophiles”. Worse still, it used quotes from dedicated campaigners such as Sara Payne, whose young daughter Sarah was murdered, to further fuel their fire.
If you actually read the judgment, it has absolutely no bearing on those with convictions or cautions for offences against children. The Court made clear it was only concerned with offences which are irrelevant to a person’s suitability for a certain job. Of course any convictions or cautions connected to offences against children will remain hugely relevant when it comes to jobs in schools.
Both cases before the Court yesterday concerned very minor, one-off instances of theft. The proceedings focused on “T”, a 21-year-old man who was given two warnings by police in connection with two stolen bicycles when he was just 11. That information was twice disclosed – when he applied for a part-time job and when he sought a University place. The judges understandably felt that breached his privacy rights.
Quite how the newspaper in question managed to leap from that sensible conclusion to imagery of paedophiles strolling unobstructed into jobs in schools is anybody’s guess.
The same tabloid’s leading article went further. “Every child in Britain is a little less safe today,” it cried. “Soham monster Ian Huntley hid his past to get a job as a school caretaker,” it went on. “We risk more Huntleys manipulating their way into schools if vetting rules are relaxed.”
Why Huntley, who murdered youngsters Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells in 2002, is remotely relevant here is also a mystery. Yesterday’s judgment in no way affects the ability of police to disclose non-conviction information where it’s potentially relevant, as officers failed to do in Huntley’s case.
Once again we see the media resorting to blatant inaccuracies and overblown spin to attack our judges and the Human Rights Act – the one piece of legislation allowing ordinary people to hold the powerful to account. Such behaviour is depressingly predictable, but using child protection campaigners to further spread their myths leaves a nasty taste.
Disappointingly, the
Government’s response also implied that the judgment compromised the protection
of children and vulnerable groups. It requires no such compromise. It’s not
about violent criminals or sex offenders. Politicians and the press should know
better than scaring members of the public into thinking
otherwise.
