The Court of Appeal has ruled that a requirement to disclose all criminal records is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The individual in this case had received two warnings at the age of 11 from the police in connection with stolen bicycles. At the age of 17, those warnings were revealed by an enhanced criminal record certificate (ECRC) when he applied for a job and again two years later when he applied for a university course.

In his application for judicial review, the claimant argued that the statutory scheme provided for by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and the Police Act 1997 were incompatible with his Article 8 ECHR right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.

It was held that neither the disclosure provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and the Police Act 1997 were compatible with Article 8 ECHR, as they imposed a blanket statutory regime requiring disclosure of cautions held on the police national computer which was disproportionate and went beyond the legitimate aims of protecting employers and vulnerable individuals. "We accept that the interference with T’s article 8 rights pursues both

(i) the general aim of protecting employers and, in particular, children and vulnerable adults who are in their care and

(ii) the particular aim of enabling employers to make an assessment as to whether an individual is suitable for a particular kind of work.

But in our judgment, the statutory regime requiring the disclosure of all convictions and cautions relating to recordable offences is disproportionate to that legitimate aim." http://bit.ly/XhaqrR The Government has indicated it is seeking leave to appeal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21245308