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?

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Last sentence should have started A difference in risk.

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?

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.

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.