Justice Secretary David Lammy warns that 22,000 children from black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds have been added to the police database for “relatively minor matters”, leaving records that could hinder their chances of finding work.
Childhood criminal records for thousands of people could be wiped under plans being explored by Justice Secretary David Lammy, a move that has already sparked a fierce political row as Conservative critics warn, “There are many crimes so serious that they should always be disclosed.”
Mr Lammy has ordered a review of the current disclosure system after growing evidence that adults well into their 50s, 60s and even 70s are still being forced to reveal childhood offences when applying for work, including minor incidents such as taking a bicycle or fighting in the street.
He is considering steps to “simplify” the rules to ensure checks remain “proportionate” for offences committed decades ago.
He said, “We will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.”
The Ministry of Justice added, “We want to help children who have committed crime to stop reoffending and turn their lives around. That is why the Government is actively exploring opportunities to simplify the criminal records system, while always putting public safety first.”
Questions are already being asked about what would count as a serious offence under any new system. Concerns focus on whether crimes such as drug dealing, arson or racially aggravated harassment, when committed by children, could one day be removed from records despite their gravity.
At present, certain offences, including affray, violent disorder, assault resisting arrest, arson and racial harassment, must be declared for life. This rule applies even to youthful incidents, such as a pub fight where no one was injured or a 13 year old shouting racial abuse at a bus driver. Any offence that led to a prison sentence also remains permanently disclosable.
Mr Lammy has a long history of calling for a more forgiving approach. His 2017 review for David Cameron recommended a US inspired model where people could apply to a judge or board to have their records sealed if they could show they had changed. He also highlighted that 22,000 children from black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds had had their names added to the police database for relatively minor matters, records that could later appear in checks for jobs.
He previously argued, “I believe that once childhood cautions and convictions have become spent, they should very quickly become non disclosable, even on standard and enhanced DBS checks. In my view, the system should provide for all childhood offending, with the exception of the most serious offences, to become non disclosable after a period of time.”
Official figures released under freedom of information laws show that around 160,000 people have had their childhood offences revealed to prospective employers, including older adults whose records still show historic misdemeanours.
Among those backing reform is Labour MP Fred Thomas, who said, “We are behind other countries on this, where the law recognises the time between a historical offence and the life someone has worked to rebuild. I am campaigning for a similar model here. The law must acknowledge that people can change, and that past mistakes should not define your future.”
But Conservative MPs warn that the public should not be kept in the dark about serious wrongdoing. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said, “Employers and others are entitled to know about previous serious offending by under 18s if it might be relevant. The length of time that has passed and the seriousness of the offence should be taken into account. There are many crimes so serious that they should always be disclosed.”
Mr Lammy’s review is expected to reignite an intense debate over how society should judge childhood crime, and whether the right to move on can be balanced with the need to protect the public.
What do you think about the proposed overhaul of childhood criminal records? Is the Government taking a softer approach that could send the wrong message to teenagers who may believe they can commit offences without long term consequences, or is this a sensible and overdue reform that will help people rebuild their lives and find work once they have changed? Let us know your views.
