RECORDS of all criminal convictions and cautions will remain on police files for 100 years after chief constables overturned the principle that offences can be “spent”, The Times has learnt.

The change, which comes into force in April, will make it harder for people who committed youthful indiscretions to get employment. One in three men and one in ten women has a criminal conviction by the time they are 30.

Some six million criminal convictions, including cautions and minor offences already on record, will now be kept for life.

Police believe that the change will help them to track criminals throughout their lives. However, there are fears that people who commit minor offences will be penalised for decades afterwards.

The revelation follows a turbulent week for the Government, which was forced to admit that 88 convicted sex offenders had been given permission to work in schools.

The Information Tribunal has ruled that chief constables can retain the information for 100 years, in a list that will be for “police eyes only”.

Police will have the discretion to decide who can be told about convictions on the basis of a “relevance” test, which is being drawn up. Only a tiny handful of criminal convictions will now be erased permanently, such as the 30-year-old buggery conviction that is no longer a criminal offence.

Paul Cavadino, chief executive of the offenders rehabilitation charity Nacro, said: “Everything depends on the way in which the police use the discretion. If very old minor offences were disclosed to employers much more readily than they are now, that would increase the risk of unfair discrimination.”

James Welch, the legal director for Liberty, said: “For minor offences, is it really necessary to retain these records for life?”

The change comes after three chief constables won a little-publicised landmark appeal against the Information Commissioner before Christmas. Ian Redhead, a deputy chief constable who led the police challenge before the tribunal, said: “The outcome of the case will have a huge impact on crime prevention and detection.

“We already now have powers to retain DNA and fingerprints that can be taken from everyone arrested for a recordable offence and then detained at a police station, for life. This has brought huge benefits. The old ‘weeding-out’ regime conflicted with these powers.”

The system will come into force at the end of March as part of the new statutory code of practice and guidelines recommended by Sir Michael Bichard’s inquiry after the Soham murders.

However, spent convictions will continue to be removed from the files of the Criminal Records Bureau, which is consulted by certain professionals, including lawyers, doctors, pharmacists and nurses.

Detective Superintendent Gary Linton, DNA and fingerprint retention project mana-ger, said that at present a caution would be expunged from the record after about five years.

“Now it will be retained for life — but ‘stepped down’ into the list available only to police eyes after perhaps ten years.

“More information will be available but its use will be responsibly controlled — we are not letting everyone have sight of this material. There has to be a legitimate reason for access, for us to disclose it.”

Already crime statistics showed the benefits of keeping DNA samples, he said. Since the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which allowed police in England and Wales to retain DNA samples and fingerprints after an acquittal or the discontinuance of a case, some 8,200 DNA samples have been matched with crime scene samples covering 13,709 offences.

Those offences include 109 murders, 55 attempted murders, 116 rapes, 67 sexual offences, 105 aggravated burglaries and 126 of the supply of controlled drugs.

The additional powers to take samples from people arrested and detained that came in under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have led to links with four murders, three rapes, seven robberies, four sexual offences, five of the supply of controlled drugs and ninety-eight burglary offences.

The appeal before the Information Tribunal came after the chief constables of West Yorkshire, North Wales and South Yorkshire challenged enforcement notices issued by the Information Commissioner. The notices required them to delete certain data on convictions.

The tribunal, however, ruled that they could keep the data and control disclosure of it to non-police organisations. The current “weeding-out” rules were too blunt an instrument for trying to apply data protection principles, it said.

The Information Commissioner had argued that retention of the information was a breach of the data protection principles that personal details should be adequate, relevant and not excessive; and that they should not be kept for longer than necessary.

Police say that the new system will help them to identify any patterns of an emerging offender.

SPENT RECORDS?

A “criminal record” is a less precise term, but it is usually understood to mean convictions. So people who are asked if they have a “criminal record” may also answer “no” if they have no convictions

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth