Senior staff at the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA), the Scottish Children’s Commission and other bodies, have warned youngsters are being stigmatised by appearing before Children’s Hearings without legal advice and agreeing they have carried out offences.
These midemeanours are then uncovered if, later in life, they have to undergo enhanced disclosure checks.
In one example a medical student could not get on to his course because an enhanced disclosure check highlighted the fact that when he was eight years old he was referred for possibly committing sexually inappropriate behaviour even though it was marked no further action.
Another young man had a job application rejected because a disclosure check revealed that at age 14 he agreed to the panel that he had committed sexually inappropriate behaviour. He had 12 months of counselling and has never reoffended. What the disclosure does not explain is that the offences were minor and related to him smacking women’s bottoms.
Under the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, offences agreed to at a welfare-based hearing will stay on a child’s record for 20 years or until they are 40 depending on which is longest.
Experts say this is an unintended consequence and that only those who pose a major risk should have their offences recorded.
Maggie Mellon, of the Scottish Law Centre, which organised the meeting of the organisations, said: “It made me realise the impact of this on a young person’s life.
“We are punishing young people for a decision based on their needs as a child. It is entirely wrong.”
Malcolm Schaffer, head of practice and policy at the SCRA, said children are sent leaflets explaining what happens at the panel and the ramifications of agreeing to offence grounds but he fears few are read or understood.
“These children need hope and we are killing part of that hope with these regulations,” he said. “The mere offence may not give sufficient information to judge whether the child is still a risk. An up-to-date risk assessment about the offence and everything that has happened to a child since might be better. We should look not just at whether they were a risk age 10 but whether they are a risk now.”
He warned that decriminalising all grounds before a panel would be problematic because of cases like that of Colyn Evans.
Evans, then 17, murdered Karen Dewar, 16, in 2005 after previously committing 14 violent and sexual offences.
Ken Macdonald, Assistant Commissioner for Scotland and Northern Ireland in the Office of the Information Commissioner, said he had been contacted about a number of related cases and that there had been examples of such sensitive data getting into the wrong hands.
He added: “This example is by no means a unique complaint for us. I am sure everyone has probably done something in their youth or childhood that they would not want disclosed as an adult. Does a child of eight really understand that their behaviour will have implications in their adulthood?”
Nico Juetten, the parliamentary officer for Scotland’s children’s commissioner, said: “Children must be treated as children. They are being criminalised regardless of the offence.
“It is wrong and it was never intended. We have to find a better way to address the twin objectives – to protect the public and protect children.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We believe serious offences should continue to appear on disclosure certificates. However, we are keen to end the situation whereby, in some circumstances, offences are disclosed after a long period and in a manner that is disproportionate to the offence.
“We need to strike the correct balance between public safety and the rights of the individual.”
I am sure everyone has probably done something in their youth or childhood that they would not want disclosed as an adult
