The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of three people who claimed their lives were blighted by past

minor criminal convictions.

The judges found the way the criminal records are disclosed to employers infringed human rights.

The government will have to consider reform of the system, said BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive
Coleman.

The charity Unlock said the ruling stands to affect thousands of people with old and minor criminal
records.

Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said that criminal checks leave many people "unnecessarily
anchored to their past".

He claims that in the past five years alone, more than a million youth criminal records were disclosed on
standard or enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks that related to offences from more than
30 years ago.
 Criminal record disclosure checks ruled unlawful

Supreme Court justices found that the criminal records disclosure scheme was "disproportionate" in two
respects.

These were that all previous convictions should be disclosed, however minor, where the person has more
than one conviction, and also in the case of warnings and reprimands issued to young offenders.

They announced their decision on Wednesday following the government challenge against a Court of
Appeal judgment in 2017 over the legality of the scheme.

The appeal ruling backed the High Court's 2016 finding that the scheme was "not in accordance with the
law" within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to private life.

The children's charity Just for Kids Law, which brought one of the cases to court, had argued that DBS
checks fail to treat children differently to adults.

Its CEO Enver Soloman said the "landmark judgement" would benefit thousands of children issued with
cautions each year, a disproportionate number of whom are from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.

"There is now an overwhelming view shared by the higher courts and MPs that the government should act
immediately to ensure no child who is given a caution ends up with a criminal record that stigmatises them
for life."

Shoplifting and 'dares'

One of the cases involved a woman, referred to in court as P, who was charged with shoplifting a 99p book
in 1999 while suffering from untreated schizophrenia.

She was bailed to appear before magistrates 18 days later, but failed to attend court, which meant she
ended up with two convictions - for which she received a conditional discharge.

P wants to work as a teaching assistant, having previous experience of teaching, and has sought voluntary
positions in schools. However, with each application she is required to disclose her historic convictions,
which has the effect of leading to the disclosure of her medical history to explain them.
In another case, G was arrested at the age of 13 for sexually assaulting two younger boys, with offences
involving sexual touching and attempted intercourse.

Police records indicated the sexual activity was consensual and carried out as "dares", in the form of sexual
curiosity and experimentation on the part of all three boys.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute. G received a police
reprimand in Sept 2006 and has not offended since.

In 2011, when working as a library assistant in a local college, he was required to apply for an enhanced
criminal records check because his work involved contact with children.

The police proposed to disclose the reprimand with an account of the mitigation. As a result, G withdrew
his application and lost the job. He has since felt unable to apply for any job requiring an enhanced
criminal records check.

Their cases were heard alongside that of W, a man who - more than 35 years ago - was convicted aged 16
of actual bodily harm, and given a two-year conditional discharge.