UK: Disclosure of cautions and minor convictions breaches right to private life

The Supreme Court has rejected a joint appeal by the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary to overturn the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) judgment, in January 2013, that disclosure of cautions and minor spent convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to prospective employers is not required.

The Supreme Court judgment arose from two separate cases. The first involved 'T', a male, who was forced to reveal two police cautions he had received as a minor in connection to theft when he applied for a job at a football club and enrolling in a course in sports studies.

The second case involved 'JB', a female, who was cautioned in 2001 on suspicion of theft of a packet of fake fingernails. However, in 2009, after training as a care worker 'JB' was prohibited from working in the care sector due to the police caution.

The Supreme Court held in both cases, the requirement to disclose to prospective employees minor convictions and police cautions breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to a private life - hindering entry into their chosen areas of work.

Despite the Court of Appeal placing a stay on the declaration from taking effect until permission to appeal was decided, the Secretaries of State made an order on May 22nd, 2013, which commenced May 29, 2013, with the aim of "eliminating" the incompatibilities. When the Supreme Court granted permission, the stay was extended until the judgment.

The Supreme Court judgment will mean criminal convictions will no longer have to be disclosed during a criminal record check where it did not lead to a prison sentence; does not relate to any of the fourteen listed categories of offence; and, where five-and-a-half years has elapsed for those under eighteen at the time of the conviction or eleven years for those over eighteen. For cautions, two years must have passed for those over eighteen and six years for those under eighteen.

EW: Technical defects not to be considered an extraordinary circumstance under Regulation No. 261/2004

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) has dismissed an appeal by Jet2.com, an airline, who argued a flight delay because of technical defect amounted to an "extraordinary circumstance".

Rather, the Court upheld the judgment of Judge Platts at Manchester County Court that Ronald Huzar, a passenger, was entitled to compensation under European Union Regulation No. 261/2004 after suffering a 27 hour delay on a flight from Malaga, Spain, to Manchester, in October 2011.

The Court of Appeal judgment means that technical defects are not to be considered an "extraordinary circumstance" under the EU Regulation. Moreover, the judgment emphasises the requirement for airlines to pay compensation for delays of more than three hours.

The Court of Appeal judgment now brings the United Kingdom into line with other European countries, establishing much needed case precedent.

In a case where an airline claims "extraordinary circumstance", the onus of proof rests on the carrier. However the Court found the defence did not apply in the case of Mr. Huzar.

The judgment has retrospective application meaning anyone who has suffered a long delay on a qualifying flight since the summer of 2008 is entitled to claim.