GRA and DBS

[Couragetocourage]

What is the reality of people with GRCs getting dbs checks? If they don't go through the sensitive line, does this mean that previous crimes witll just come back with their old name, or does it mean that they won't come back at all?

My understanding is that searches will only be in the new name.

So the very person that was the driving force for change is also the very person who could, yet again, slip through the net.

I was ‘assured’ on another thread about this issue, that there would be a connection between the old identity and the new one - I’m not convinced, quite honestly.

Peoples’ CVs would be interesting though - how would they get references or confirmation of job history from previous employers of their old self?

According to this (admittedly third party) organisation:

If the individual has not contacted the DBS’s Sensitive Applications Team they will not be able to monitor that application and certificate. This could result in previous names, gender and criminal information being made available. If the applicant is happy for this information to be released then the normal application route would apply.

If an individual has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate the Police can transfer the information to a new name. The Police will amend the record, by changing the gender and file name to reflect the new name. Former names will be retained on police record but will not appear on a DBS Certificate.

there would be a connection between the old identity and the new one

All past names/identities have to be disclosed for DBS, it's a criminal offence to not do so.

All past names/identities have to be disclosed for DBS, it's a criminal offence to not do so.

And nobody who previously committed a criminal offence would have any reason or motive to commit another one, would they?

Hands up who can see a bit of a flaw in this arrangement...

Hands up who can see a bit of a flaw in this arrangement...

How does this differ from a criminal legally changing their name (or simply giving an alias) and not disclosing their past name?

“This could result in previous names, gender and criminal information being made available”
It’s the ‘Could’ rather than ‘WILL’
that is concerning .

It’s the ‘Could’ rather than ‘WILL’ that is concerning .

Someone who has something to hide may well go through the standard procedure and hope that their previous identity is not uncovered by the check.

All past names/identities have to be disclosed for DBS, it's a criminal offence to not do so.

But the form says that they don't need to disclose names relating to previous genders, but instead ring a confidential hotline. What happens if they don't?

It’s the ‘Could’ rather than ‘WILL’

That's fairly standard in legal terms. Making a full assertion (i.e. will) carries liability risks. For example, 'Failure to comply with the above could result in the claim being refused and/or your policy being cancelled.'

What happens if they don't?

I cannot personally speak to the exact procedure as I don't work for DBS but I have seen applications for my employer fail to be processed over something as simple as them not disclosing a property an individual rented for a couple of months between purchased homes.

Again, what unique additional risk does GRA carry in this regard that giving incorrect or partial information for DBS in another fashion (e.g. a name change) does not?

Again, what unique additional risk does GRA carry in this regard that giving incorrect or partial information for DBS in another fashion (e.g. a name change) does not?

In a previous post you said
If an individual has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate the Police can transfer the information to a new name. The Police will amend the record, by changing the gender and file name to reflect the new name.

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?

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?

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?

Bloody hell this is ridiculous.

Changing your gender doesn't completely change who you are as a person.
There should absolutely be a link on DBS applications.

tbh, I'm not reassured by reassurances to date that someone, somewhere will know and be able to access appropriate records to issue DBS or eDBS in full confidence.

There seem to be all sorts of unintended consequences thrown up by intersecting legislation that I think would make some people very wary of being official holders or distributors of some information.

This is mentioned in the context of HR - but these are interesting intersections where a S22 breach of GRA 2004 interacts with GDPR to transform something like an (inadvertent) data breach that carried no criminal offence liability into something that does.

Qureshi said: 'Section 22 criminalises a disclosure even where it is made inadvertently. It also creates a hierarchy of rights between trans people and other protected characteristics like race, gender or sexual orientation. This is unlikely to be conducive to achieving equality across the board. These types of disclosure are best dealt with under the Equality Act which prohibits unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation.'
...
The association also points out that disclosing sensitive medical data may breach 2018 data protection legislation but would not be a criminal offence, but it would be under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/gender-recognition-act-reforms-could-criminalise-innocent-staff/5068055.article

As with everything ill designed, it’s a mess that will aid those with things to hide.

I am another who doesn't understand this. As far as I know, you have to provide identity documents when you do a DBS. So I had to provide my passport, driving licence atc, and disclose previous names.

Presumably this is to stop someone using a completely fictitious name.

If I didn't disclose a previous name, that would be an offence. I am not completely sure how it would be picked up if I had enough identity documents in my new name.

I can see that a transgender person has a lot more to consider than (say) a woman who changed their name on marriage, when putting a previous name on a form.

But the fundamental question is - are name changes picked up through any other means? If so, the check should clearly say:

We check previous changes of name. If you do not wish these former names to be given to your employer, please phone this helpline. This appears to be the reason given for trans people to phone it - so that all 'hits' are shown as Ms X, rather than some for Ms X and some for Mr Y.

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.....

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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