HUMAN rights campaigners say a Supreme Court ruling that people no longer need to disclose minor childhood offences is an "injection of proportionality" into the criminal records system.

Five Supreme Court justices yesterday concluded that a man's right to a private life had been breached when he was forced to reveal a childhood police caution for cycle theft to a prospective employer.

Campaign group Liberty said the ruling was a move towards a balanced system.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said the Supreme Court had "sensibly recognised" that people should not be "haunted forever" by childhood offences.

Home Secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling had asked Supreme Court justices to consider whether disclosure requirements were compatible with human rights legislation after three appeal judges in London had said legislation requiring job applicants to disclose all convictions was a breach of human rights law. Yesterday's Supreme Court hearing upheld that decision.

Mrs May and Mr Grayling introduced amendments to legislation in the wake of the Court of Appeal ruling but maintained the appeal court decision was wrong.

"Finally an injection of proportionality into our criminal records system," said Liberty's legal director, James Welch. "Rules which allowed for blanket disclosure left no room for common sense and let irrelevant and unreliable information ruin lives.

"Of course appropriate checks must be made but today's judgment moves us towards a system that strikes a balance between protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that people with minor convictions can put their pasts behind them."