GRA and DBS

Basically any system must be robust enough to withstand anyone trying to deceive it simply because criminals aren't known for their honesty or desire to follow rules.

There is a possibility that this is one of those systems which is a pain in the neck for law-abiding people, who might fall foul of it for forgetting to mention an address where they lived for a couple of months (as was mentioned by someone earlier), while failing to pick up the genuine criminals who have found a way round the system.

How safe is the DBS system altogether?

Why do you have to declare all addresses for the last 5 years? What does that check for? And if you miss one out - is that important? Is it flagged up?

My understanding is that the police forces in the areas in which you have lived are contacted - why is this? What if you have committed an offence in another area? What is the reason for contacting your home force?

What if you don't admit to a previous name change - can that be picked up?

Basically any system must be robust enough to withstand anyone trying to deceive it simply because criminals aren't known for their honesty or desire to follow rules. If the system can't cope with someone with a GRC then I don't believe that it can withstand someone trying to deceive it by hiding their identity for other reasons.

The risks would only arise if there was a difference in the way the name change was handled by official bodies.

Is there something comparable to S22 of the GRA 2004 for a name change by deed poll? Something that makes alluding to/acknowledging existence of a previous name a criminal liability offence?

Last sentence should have started A difference in risk.

I just don't think that GRC carries a unique risk to pubic safety with regards to DBS checks.

If, as you say, the way the police and government bodies handle the name change is no different from someone who has changed their name by deed poll, then I agree, there is no difference in risk. The risks would only arise if there was a difference in the way the name change was handled by official bodies.

The question then, is how robust is the DBS system with respect to people who have changed their names for any reason?

I'm absolutely not in a position to comment on that. I just don't think that GRC carries a unique risk to pubic safety with regards to DBS checks.

So if I understand you correctly, Gronky, there is no more risk that a person with a GRC who has a criminal history will slip through the net than a person with a similar criminal history who has simply changed their name by deed poll.

The question then, is how robust is the DBS system with respect to people who have changed their names for any reason?

Thank you for explaining, OldCrone, the only difference I can see in how the information is handled is that someone with a GRC and past convictions would be able to have those convictions passed to the DBS requester with the personal details changed to reflect their new identity.

Which scenario do you see as carrying additional risks and why?

I don't know if there are additional risks. That was why I was asking if there was any difference between the two scenarios, in the way the change of name was treated by the police and any other authorities.

Scenario A. Person changes their name by deed poll.

Scenario B. Person changes their name and obtains a GRC.

If there is no difference between the way the name change is handled and the information made available to those who need it (DBS check), then there is no difference in risk. If they are handled differently, then there may be a difference in risk. I hope you now understand what I'm asking.

If the procedure for someone changing their legal sex is fundamentally different, then there may be additional risks. So is the procedure different or the same? Assuming you know.

My understanding of the process (based on working with CRB checks but having never seen one with a criminal history) is that those with active criminal proceedings and on probation/registers must notify the police of their name change. Regarding the exact details of how the police handle this with their records, I'm not aware of their internal procedures because I don't work for them.

Which scenario do you see as carrying additional risks and why? I'm trying to understand but, at the moment, it doesn't strike me as being significantly different in aiding the unscrupulous as simply giving a different name. For currently honest individuals with a criminal past, does knowing that they identified as a different gender when they committed a crime enhance public safety and, if so, how?

I agree Ugggg.

There are loopholes in the system.

I would protect transsexuals as best I can, however, their new gender doesn't mean they are resolved of all enhanced checks.

The example of Christine Goodwin is concerning for an employer. Surely an employer has the right to know if someone's worked for them before - they may have dismissed them for some valid reason eg harassment, safety breaches etc and not want to reemploy. It's extraordinary how trans rights seem to cut across every other right.

If we are supposed to accept transgender people, and not discriminate against them, why is there all this secrecy?

Agree. Very difficult to promote tolerance and still claim that being trans is a dreadful secret. As with marriage and pensions, some of the reasons for the original act are becoming irrelevant.

Wouldn't people who'd worked with her previously not have - possibly - recognised her, though?

Quite likely. The NI number was just the proof. This may be why we have the confidentiality clause in the GRA of non-disclosure if you find out someone has a GRC.

Even if you can change your NI number it would still have to be linked to your old NI number otherwise you would miss out on pension rights etc.

It would. Just as all the names have to link together. But the layers of secrecy make all this difficult.

If we are supposed to accept transgender people, and not discriminate against them, why is there all this secrecy? It's the opposite to what happened with gay people - they went from having to hide their sexuality, to being allowed to be 'out and proud'. With transpeople, it's all about pretending they're not trans, and hiding their previous identities and names and preventing anyone from knowing their 'deadnames'.

I think that this issue is actually highlighting the limitations of the DBS system. In my view, too many people see it as a cast iron guarantee that a person poses no risk. In my view it doesn't do that at all. It simply shows that based on the information given no convictions have been found. It's value is very limited. The only value that I can see is that absolves an employer of responsibility if it's later found that an employee goes on to commit a crime - the employer can show due diligence and that they had no knowledge of the employee posing a risk.

Even if you can change your NI number it would still have to be linked to your old NI number otherwise you would miss out on pension rights etc.

One of the reasons for the original GRA was that Christine Goodwin was 'outed' to her employers, because she had the same NI number as when she worked for them as a man.

Wouldn't people who'd worked with her previously not have - possibly - recognised her, though?

You have to give place of birth and date of birth. This means they look up the birth certificate, which always says sex (not gender).

When filling out the form you have to give previous names. So if married then you must state when the name change took place. Men do not have this hassle btw when it comes to marriage, or divorce, or remarriage.

On DBS forms it is always Gender (not sex).

One of the reasons for the original GRA was that Christine Goodwin was 'outed' to her employers, because she had the same NI number as when she worked for them as a man. So I don't know if getting a GRC now means that you also get a new NI number along with your new birth certificate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin_v_United_Kingdom

She also alleged that the fact that she keeps the same NI number has meant that her employer has been able to discover that she previously worked for them under another name and gender, with resulting embarrassment and humiliation.

Again, I'm not sure how this is supposed to work for anyone who wants to search for previous companies or bad faith directors.

As far as I can see, there is no way to easily cross reference people who have changed there name for any reason now. I have an appointment listed there under an old name at a very old address. It would only be possible to link that to me if you knew my old address.

I think you need to give your national insurance number when you get a DBS check, which as far as I know never changes.

Gronky
In either case (whether the conviction still retains their old name or is updated to show their new one), what particular threat to public safety do you see resulting from an individual with a new gender identity being able to transfer the conviction to their new identity?

I don't know. In order to know whether there is a greater risk, I need an answer to the question that you answered with the question above.

If someone had simply changed their name, would the information on the police record be different from someone who changed their name and obtained a GRC?

I'm not sure if you didn't understand what I was asking, or you just don't wish to answer. If there is no difference between the changes made on the police record if someone simply changes their name, compared to someone who changes their name and their legal sex, then there is no difference to the risk. If the procedure for someone changing their legal sex is fundamentally different, then there may be additional risks. So is the procedure different or the same? Assuming you know.

I would hope that when a GRC is granted, a PNC check is made and if the person has a record then that is updated so the new name is also on there. But I don’t know if that happens.

Criminal convictions are normally recorded on the Police National Computer against an individual that can be matched by finger prints. But if it’s just “information” that could have been recorded under any name and would be much easier to slide that by if you change your name - especially if you can change your birth certificate so you can provide a paper trail that shows no gap in your identity history (even though there is actually a horrendously big one).

But it doesn't say that, so it really begs the question whether there is another method to check? It beggars belief that they rely on individuals to provide all previous names with no other method of checking, but I am yet to be convinced otherwise.....

There's a move to compel Companies House to report in a manner such that dead-naming is not permissible. Again, I'm not sure how this is supposed to work for anyone who wants to search for previous companies or bad faith directors.