Jump to site navigation [j]

Home Office circular 5 / 2005

Criminal Records Bureau: local checks by police forces

  • Broad subject: Police service
  • Issue date: Tue Feb 01 00:00:00 GMT 2005
  • From:
    Crime Reduction & Community Safety Group, Criminal Records Team
  • Linked circulars:
    No linked circulars
  • Copies sent to:
    Chairman of Police Authorities, Lord Chief Justice of England, The Clerk to the Justices, The Court Administrator, The Magistrates' Association, Criminal Records Bureau, Criminal Records Bureau Independent Monitor
  • Sub category: Criminal records
  • Implementation date: Sat Jan 01 00:00:00 GMT 2005
  • For more info contact:
    Stephen Sowerby - 020 7411 5533
  • Addressed to:
    Chief Officers of Police (England and Wales), Chief Officer the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, Chief Officer the Royal Marines Police, Chief Officer the Royal Military Police, Chief Officer the Royal Air Force Police, Chief Officer the Ministry of Defence Police, Chief Officer the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Chief Officer the National Crime Squad, Chief Officer the British Crime Squad, Chief Officer the British Transport Police, Chief Officer the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, Chief Officer the States of Jersey Police Force, Chief Officer the Salaried police force of the Island of Guernsey, Chief Officer the Isle of Man Constabulary

Criminal Records Bureau: local checks by police forces for the purpose of enhanced disclosures

The purpose of this circular is two-fold:

(a) to supplement guidance already issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers on how forces should approach the task of determining what information is relevant and should therefore be provided to the Criminal Records Bureau.

(b) strongly to reinforce the message that has been put out by the Association of Chief Police Officers that only in the very exceptional circumstances described in the legislation may information be provided separately to the Registered Body instead of being shown on the face of the CRB Disclosure itself.

This circular is not intended to replace guidance that addresses other issues about the role of the police within the CRB's processes. It should be read alongside such other guidance.

2. This circular draws on experience gained since the CRB began operating, and analysis of some individual cases. These have suggested a need for further guidance on these matters. We are very grateful for the full and very supportive participation of representatives of the police service that has enabled this circular to be produced. The guidance reflects consultation with ACPO.

The general framework

3. The CRB operates within a legal framework which includes not only Part V of the Police Act 1997 (which contains specific provisions governing the Bureau's operation) but also wider requirements under data protection and human rights legislation. The latter crucially includes the principle of a person's right, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to respect for his or her private life. That right must not be interfered with unless such interference is:

  • reasonable
  • proportionate
  • in accordance with the law

In the present context, where:

  • information is disclosed that is not relevant to the purpose for which the disclosure was sought
  • it was not necessary to reveal that information in the circumstances of the application
  • a court is likely to hold that the decision to disclose the information was unreasonable and disproportionate, and therefore unlawful

4. Failure to observe relevant legal provisions and principles lays forces open to legal challenge, and possibly to action for damages. It is imperative, therefore, that those members of each force who are responsible for making such decisions clearly understand the principles under which they must operate, and that they observe those principles to the full (It should also be kept in mind that the provisions of the Police Act 1997 do not alter the basis upon which forces retain soft intelligence. This should be driven by the operational requirements of the police themselves. Information should not be recorded by the police, or retained for longer than is necessary for police operational purposes, solely against the possibility that the information - for example, about suspicion of an offence of theft - might be needed in order to respond to a request by the CRB at some time in the future, should the individual apply for a job that involved handling money. Separate guidance is in preparation about the retention and management of information, in light of the report of the Bichard Inquiry into the Soham case). If the correct principles have been observed (and logged as having been observed), a court is likely to interfere only if it is satisfied that the decision to disclose is unreasonable - ie, beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker.

The specific provisions in Part V of the Police Act 1997

5. Section 115 of the Police Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”) deals with Enhanced Disclosures (referred to in the legislation itself as “enhanced criminal record certificates”). This is the highest level of Disclosure. It relates principally to people seeking positions “regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of” either:

  • children (defined in the 1997 Act as persons aged under 18), or
  • vulnerable adults (ie, persons aged 18 or over who are subject to severe disadvantage, as defined in Regulations made under the 1997 Act)

But an Enhanced Disclosure may be issued in a range of other circumstances defined in section 115, including applications for various certificates, licences, etc under the Gaming Act 1968, and other legislation in this field; and proprietors and managers of care homes (Section 116 contains parallel provisions for Enhanced Disclosures in relation to judicial appointments, and appointments by or under the Crown to a position that involves regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children or vulnerable adults. This Circular applies equally to applications under section 116. The provisions in section 115 which are discussed here apply also to applications under section 116 with one exception: this is that, in the case of section 116 applications, there is no Registered Body and therefore, as regards applications under section 116, references in this Circular to Registered Bodies should be read as meaning the person who countersigned the application).

6. Section 115(7) requires the Criminal Records Bureau to request the chief officer of every relevant police force to provide any information which in the chief officer’s opinion:

  • might be relevant to the application
  • ought to be included in the Disclosure. A decision on whether information should be disclosed will turn to a large extent on considerations of relevancy. But other facts need to be weighed too - in particular, whether the nature of the information and its degree of relevance to the case in hand are such that its disclosure would be reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the applicant's right to respect for his or her private life

Such information will appear on the face of the Disclosure document itself. (this type of case is referred to in this Circular as ''approved information'').

7. Section 115(8) requires the Criminal Records Bureau to request the chief officer of every relevant police force to provide any information which, in the chief officer’s opinion

(a) might be relevant to the application, but

(b) ought not to be included in the Disclosure, in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime, but

(c) can, without harming those interests, be disclosed to the registered body.

Such information is given in a separate document which goes to the Registered Body (In this Circular, this type of case is referred to as ''additional information''). It is the intention that the separate document should not be seen by the applicant. Indeed, the applicant should not be made aware of its existence.

Determining what is relevant and should be disclosed

What is relevant?

8. The requirement of relevancy is crucial to both section 115(7) and (8). The word “relevant” is a word of common usage, the meaning of which may be expressed as pertinent to, connected with or bearing upon the subject in question. The concept of relevancy will be very familiar to police personnel. Nevertheless, it is so fundamental to this entire issue that it must be clear from the outset. The legislation is clear too – the chief officer is required to provide any information which in his or her opinion might be relevant to the purpose for which the Disclosure is being sought.

9. It is important to stress at the outset that, in the final analysis, it is for the employer to decide whether or not information is relevant to the issue of the applicant's suitability for the position in the individual case. But, so far as the police are concerned, information should only be disclosed if there is clear reason to believe that it might be materially relevant - ie, not fancifully, remotely or speculatively relevant but materially relevant. For example, information should not be disclosed on the basis that, although there is no apparent reason to believe that it is relevant, it could conceivably turn out to be. Information should only be disclosed if there is clear reason to believe that it is or might be relevant.

10. The mere fact that a person has behaved badly, or is believed to have done so, is not relevant. The key purpose of disclosure is not a general "character assessment" of the individual, but to consider the risk or likelihood of an offence being committed against the vulnerable. Therefore, information should not be provided unless it has a direct bearing on the matter in hand – ie, the job or position in connection with which the Disclosure is required. It is important also to keep in mind that, although child protection is a major matter of public and political concern and forces will be well aware of that sensitivity, information is not to be provided simply in order “to protect the force’s back”, just in case something should go wrong in the future.

11. Translating the general principles set out above into a specific requirement, for the particular purpose of Disclosures connected with working with children (or vulnerable adults), the test of relevancy should be, is there a firm basis for considering:

(a) that the information might be directly relevant to assessment of the person's suitability
to work with children (or vulnerable adults), and

(b) that a reasonable potential employer of the applicant for a particular job or position
might find the information to be material to his or her decision as to whether or not to
employ that individual in that job or position having regard to the question of whether
that individual would pose a risk to children (or vulnerable adults)

For other Disclosures not directly connected with children or vulnerable adults, the test of relevance needs to be set and applied according to the nature of the specific post or position applied for.

12. Elsewhere in the Disclosure, every conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning recorded on PNC is to be shown, regardless of whether they are relevant or not. This is because that part of the legislation in the 1997 Act that deals with the listing of convictions, etc, on a Disclosure includes no test of relevancy. The approach is therefore entirely different from section 115(7) and (8), where there is a relevancy test.

13. The test of relevancy must be applied before local information is disclosed relating to conduct similar to an offence for which the applicant has been convicted or cautioned. The fact that the applicant has a conviction or caution recorded on the PNC for the same type of offence does not of itself make that information relevant.

Key principles

14. The following sets out key principles as to

  • who should be responsible for the decision to release information, and
  • whether information should be provided, and offers guidance on how relevance can be assessed

(i). The decision to disclose must be made at an appropriate level

15. The chief officer must consider whether the decision to disclose is to be delegated and, if so, to whom. The practicalities can be onerous. Although the statute itself does not provide specifically for delegation, a degree of delegation may be regarded as reasonable. The implications of decisions as to disclosure - balancing human rights and data protection considerations against considerations such as the prevention or detection of crime and the safety of the vulnerable - demand careful and mature judgement. The chief officer must be satisfied that the officer to whom the delegation is made is entirely suitable for the task, and may well feel that the responsibility calls for an officer of ACPO rank. The decision must be taken only after careful personal consideration. The task must not be perceived as simply rubber-stamping the work of someone else. The decision to delegate must be recorded and the office to which, or the postholder to whom, it has been delegated must be clearly specified. It is strongly recommended that the document recording the decision is signed by the chief officer.

16. It must be recognised that the decision whether or not to provide information may affect the career and life of the applicant, as well as the safety of vulnerable people, and could put the force in danger of legal action. It is good practice for a chief officer to give guidance to staff on what, in his or her opinion, might be relevant, but the final decision on relevance for the purpose of disclosure under the 1997 Act must rest with the chief officer or the person to whom responsibility has been delegated. Therefore, in any marginal cases in which there is information that could be considered relevant but a person making an initial search is inclined to think that disclosure would not be appropriate, the matter should be referred to the chief officer, or to another officer to whom the chief officer has delegated the responsibility, for decision.

(ii) The decision-making process should be able to withstand scrutiny

17. All cases in which there is local information that is potentially relevant should be fully recorded, and reasons noted as to the decision to disclose, or not, and the records should be kept in an auditable form.

18. The decision must be taken strictly on the basis of relevancy, because that is the only requirement laid down by the 1997 Act - and it would be advisable to note in the record that the test of relevancy was the test applied.

(iii). The information must be credible, clear and capable of being substantiated if challenged

19. Information must be from a credible source.

20. It should be noted that there is no provision under the 1997 Act to enable the CRB to obtain non-conviction information except from the police and from lists kept by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health of people considered unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults. This does not preclude the police from disclosing information which the force has received from other organisations, provided it meets the test of relevancy. But, where appropriate, reasonable efforts must be made to ensure that the information is still valid and relevant.

21. Information must be presented in a balanced and neutral fashion, but in such a way that its significance is readily apparent (see, further, paragraphs 32-34 below).

(iv). Information must be considered on the individual merits

22. Information must not be included (or excluded) simply because it is of a certain type, such as

  • an acquittal
  • an impending prosecution recorded on the PNC
  • the fact that the applicant is on police bail, or
  • a conviction that is not recorded on the PNC

23. In practice, the inclusion of any acquittal needs to be considered with the greatest care, and, if information about any acquittal is to be included, the force must show why it is considered relevant (see, further, paragraph 33 below).

24. The fact that the applicant is subject to an impending prosecution, or is on police bail, should be mentioned only if the matter for which the prosecution is impending, or for which the person is on police bail, might be relevant to the purpose for which the Disclosure has been sought.

25. Great care must be taken before including information about a conviction (or a caution, reprimand or final warning) that is not recorded on PNC, since such information must not be shown unless it might be relevant to the purpose for which the Disclosure has been sought. This is entirely different from convictions, cautions, reprimands or final warnings recorded on PNC where no test of relevancy applies and information is therefore automatically recorded on the Disclosure.

26. The fact that the applicant holds a legally obtained licence or certificate is most unlikely to be relevant. But the fact that the individual has had, say, a shotgun licence, or some other form of licence or certificate, refused or revoked could be very relevant, depending upon the circumstances of the case and the reasons for the action taken.

27. For the purpose of local searches, forces may not consider it appropriate in every case to enquire into the background details of convictions recorded against the applicant on PNC (the range and depth of enquiries undertaken within a force are matters for the force itself, and the responsible officer will need to be satisfied as to these matters). But there may be instances in which other information supplementary to that on PNC that does come to light may be highly relevant and this should be included if it adds value. An example would be the age of the victim, which may not be apparent from the record of the conviction appearing on the Disclosure but which may be very relevant.

(v). Information must be reasonably current

28. The age of the information, coupled with the age of the applicant at that time, is another factor that needs to be taken into account. Old information should not be included solely on the basis 'once an offender always an offender'. The older the information, the less likely it may be that it is relevant. If it is considered that old information should be disclosed as being relevant, the force should log on its own records the basis on which it is being proposed for inclusion and why it is still considered to be relevant, and, similarly, the basis for the decision.

(vi). Information must be relevant to the purpose for which the disclosure is being sought

29. Forces must address the purpose in considering the issue of relevancy. What may be relevant to an application connected with caring for children or vulnerable adults may not be relevant where the applicant is, say, seeking a licence under the Gaming Act, and vice versa. Even within a particular field, such as caring for children, there may be differences – albeit more subtle – between roles (eg, between a teacher, or a childcare worker, or an adoptive parent).

30. But thinking should not become too compartmentalised. For example, information about an incident in which the applicant struck a child could also be relevant to consideration of suitability for a post working with gravely disabled and defenceless adults. On the other hand, an incident involving violence may not be relevant at all: the circumstances need to be examined to determine whether the facts make the information relevant. For example, if allegations of common assault had been made against the applicant in relation to a neighbour dispute, but, following investigation, it had been decided that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, the relevance of this matter to a person’s suitability to work with children or vulnerable adults would be unclear; and the lack of sufficient evidence would reduce its probative value still further.

31. It is important that the purpose of the application is not confused - in order that thinking on the issue of relevancy is not misled. For example, if the essence of the case is to consider a person's suitability to work with children, the issue of relevancy should be considered solely in terms of whether information suggests that the applicant poses a risk of physical or mental abuse to children.

(vii). Information must be presented in a meaningful way and its relevance must be made clear

32. The Registered Body or employer must not be left to speculate – to “read between the lines” - which could lead to entirely the wrong result. Similarly, it is unsatisfactory to provide information on the assumption that the employer will be able to talk the matter through with the applicant and thus make up his or her own mind as to relevancy. In such circumstances, the employer, armed with partial knowledge of the facts, is not in a strong position to judge the truth of whatever response the applicant may make; and the employer may be left only to guess at the truth.

33. In practice, the need to demonstrate that the information is truly relevant and cogent is a helpful mental discipline. If a force has difficulty in demonstrating the relevancy of a piece of information to a Registered Body, this may strongly suggest that the information is not relevant and cogent at all. The following examples may help to illustrate the point.

Let us suppose that the applicant, seeking a post working with children, had been subject to an allegation of a serious sexual assault by a woman, but the matter had not been brought before a court. On first impressions, such an allegation may be relevant. On closer examination, however, suppose that it had become clear that aspects of the complainant’s allegation were false; and that the woman was known to have falsely made similar complaints against other men; and that, in consequence, the allegation had not been taken to court because the conclusion had been reached that the allegation was false and malicious. In such a scenario, it would seem difficult to justify the information as relevant in view of the circumstances since, on the facts as presented, the applicant would appear to have been innocent. But, had it been that the allegation had not been proceeded with because the complainant had been too ill, aged, or infirm to attend court to give evidence, and there had been other corroborative evidence, it may be that the information could be considered cogent and relevant. But the information would have to be presented in such a way that the Registered Body understands why the information might be relevant.

In another scenario, suppose that there was information about an allegation of indecent assault on a 3-year-old child while the applicant was working with children, but, once again, the matter had not been brought to court. If it had been the case that any prosecution would have depended upon the evidence of the child, who would not have been accepted as a competent witness, the information might be given as relevant, provided the circumstances were explained to the Registered Body or employer so that it was clear why the case had not been proceeded with but why the information was nevertheless considered relevant.

In a third possible scenario, suppose that the applicant had, a few months previously, voluntarily attended at a police station where he was interviewed and admitted a number of serious sexual offences against children; but that it had been decided to take no further action due to problems of pursuing a successful prosecution on the evidence of an admission alone. Again, in such a scenario, if it were thought appropriate for the information to be disclosed as relevant, the facts of the matter (eg, as described above) would need to be explained sufficiently for the Registered Body or employer to be able to understand the position and why the information was being given as relevant.

To be meaningful, sufficient information must be provided as to the facts of the matter.

34. Registered Bodies and employers will also find it helpful if obscure terminology is either avoided or (if it cannot be avoided) is explained. For example, it might be considered appropriate to disclose information that the applicant had attended the Crown Court charged with an offence, but that the court had ordered that the matter was to lie on file. Such an expression may not be familiar to Registered Bodies or employers. Therefore, while it is not the primary function of the police to explain legal terminology, in such a case it would be sensible for the force to explain the meaning of the term used - eg, in the illustration used, that this had been one of a number of charges; and that the court had heard others but ordered that this one was not be proceeded with except with the future permission of the court - to help the Registered Body or employer to understand the relevance of the information being given.

(viii). The information must be self-contained

35. For example, in a case in which the local authority was the Registered Body or employer, it would not be appropriate to refer to an investigation that the Social Services Department had carried out in the past and to direct the local authority to its own files. In such a circumstance, the force should supply whatever relevant information it holds. Depending upon the particular circumstances, it may be appropriate for the force to make enquiries of (for example, as in the illustration quoted) the Social Services Department to see whether there is relevant information that might be provided to the police so that it could be disclosed.

36. Similarly, it would not be appropriate for a force obliquely to refer to unspecified matters of relevance which had come to notice on some previous occasion. In such a circumstance, if the force has information which appears to be relevant, it should give details.

37. The fact that information has been supplied on a previous occasion - either through an earlier CRB Disclosure or by another route - must be disregarded and the information must be included on each Disclosure to which it is relevant.

(ix). Relevant information about a third party should normally be shown as “approved information” on the face of the Disclosure

38. In responding to requests from the CRB, a force's normal practice may be only to search in the name of the individual applicant and not to conduct other types of search, for example, a search against the name of any person known to reside, or associate, with the applicant (again the range and depth of enquiries undertaken within a force are matters for the force itself, and the responsible officer will need to be satisfied as to these matters). Nevertheless, a search may reveal information about a third party which the force considers relevant to the issue of the applicant’s suitability for the position in relation to which the Disclosure has been sought.

39. The disclosure of information about a third party gives rise to added sensitivities. The third party will not normally get to see the Disclosure and therefore will have no opportunity to challenge the information given. In some circumstances, revealing information that was previously unknown to the applicant could cause irreparable harm to a relationship, and might even lead to violence. Before reaching a decision to disclose information, careful consideration must be given to:

the right of the third party to respect for his or her private life, and

he potential implications of disclosure - insofar as these can be judged (probably principally on the basis of the nature of the information in question)

But, in the final analysis, the main consideration must be the protection of the vulnerable. Therefore, if the information is cogent and relevant, and indicates a risk, it is appropriate and proportionate that it should be revealed. This should normally be shown as approved information on the face of the Disclosure itself.

40. There is no separate, explicit, provision under the 1997 Act for such information to be treated as “additional information” and disclosed separately. Therefore, this approach should be used only if, very exceptionally, the circumstances satisfy the criteria set out in the legislation (see paragraph 7 above; and paragraphs 45-48 below). Forces would lay themselves open to censure if the CRB Disclosure processes were by-passed and if information were supplied through some other channel (there could be an exceptional circumstance where the normal processes are not by-passed but where information may be disclosed in advance of those processes being completed. The 1997 Act does not preclude a chief officer from exercising the common law power to disclose information where there is an immediate pressing need to do so in order to protect the public. Such a case will be very rare but could arise where the applicant is already employed in a position which, eg, offers one-to-one access to children or vulnerable adults and the local information is such that the chief officer considers that there is immediate danger and that it is essential that disclosure is made more quickly than would be possible while the normal processes are being completed. If such action has been taken, the normal processes leading to the issue of the Disclosure document must be completed as quickly as possible thereafter).

41. Since the information may be meaningless without it (and there could even be a risk that the applicant believes that it relates to a different party), the assumption must be that the third party will be named in the Disclosure.

(b) Providing information direct to the Registered Body (“additional information”)

42. A fundamental aspect of the arrangements provided by the Criminal Records Bureau under the 1997 Act is openness and transparency. Applications for Disclosures must be initiated by the individual concerned (albeit at the request of the employer) and cannot be instigated by the employer (or any other party) without the involvement and consent of the individual. Similarly, the completed Disclosure is supplied to the individual (albeit that a copy is sent to the Registered Body), so that the individual has an immediate opportunity to dispute or challenge any of the information that it contains.

43. The only exception to this fundamental principle is provided under section 115(8), whose terms are described in paragraph 7 above.

44. Any such case must first satisfy requirements as to relevancy and cogency on which guidance has been set out above. In virtually every case in which information meets such requirements, the information must be shown on the face of the Disclosure itself so that, like all other information provided by or through the Criminal Records Bureau, the applicant is aware what information is being provided about him or her.

45. Section 115(8) then provides for rare “additional information” cases in which there is relevant information which can be made available to the Registered Body but which cannot be shown on the face of the Disclosure (where it will be seen by the applicant) without doing harm to the interests of the prevention or detection of crime. The threat of harm must be based on a specific immediate risk and not a general assumption of future actions. Such a case would be where:

  • the nature of the information is that the applicant is currently under investigation for relevant offence(s) (such as offences against children) which in the normal course of events would be considered for disclosure; and revealing this information or information discovered during the course of the investigation to the applicant by showing it on the face of the Disclosure would prejudice the enquiries, or
  • disclosing information may reveal policing methods that would prejudice the ability of the police to prevent or detect crime

The interest of the prevention of crime might arise where, for example, there is sound reason to believe that information revealed to the applicant could provoke violence against another party.

46. Under the terms of section 115(8), only in such a circumstance may a force provide information in a separate document which goes to the Registered Body.

47. The “additional information” option should never be used to convey information which is already known by the applicant. For example, the applicant will, of course, already be aware that he is being investigated in connection with serious offences if he has been arrested or interviewed in that regard.

48. Again, this option must never be used for the purpose of providing information “under the counter”.

49. The type of situation that section 115(8) is intended to deal with is very rare, and the number of cases will be very small. It is probable that, in any year, most forces will not have a single case of this nature.

50. When a force makes a decision to disclose under section 115(8), it is especially important that the reasoning behind the decision is fully documented. This should include details of offences likely to be committed if disclosed to the applicant, and/or details of the detrimental effect on any investigation. The decision must be shown to be proportionate in that it balances the right of the applicant to be aware of what is being disclosed, against the likely effect of such a disclosure.

51. Repeated advice issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers stressing the extreme rarity of such cases has unfortunately not been reflected in the practice of some forces. Data collected by the Criminal Records Bureau shows that the number of such cases has been far higher than had been expected.

52. The Home Secretary has appointed Sir Rhys Davies QC independently to monitor “additional information” cases under section 115(8). Samples of “approved information” cases will also be reviewed. Points emerging from the exercise will be fed back to chief officers, and to the Home Secretary; and they will inform future general guidance. The first exercise has been carried out and the monitor is aware of and has considered the contents of this Circular.

Action required

53. It is imperative that every force should immediately put in hand a review in order to ensure:

(a) that any local guidance and arrangements fully reflect the guidance given above as regards the relevancy and cogency of information

(b) that practice as regards the provision of information in a separate document ("additional information") is brought fully into compliance with the law, as set out in section 115(8) of the 1997 Act, and

(c) that a clear audit trail is established as part of local guidance, indicating not only the steps taken but also the tests applied

Separately, further guidance is being given to forces on processes and procedures.

Legal advice

54. Forces are likely to find it helpful to take legal advice on the establishment of appropriate local practice and procedures, and on individual cases in which information is provided in future, especially under the terms of section 115(8).

Case Law: X v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

55. Forces and their solicitors will be aware of the Court of Appeal judgement in the case of X v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police.

Contact points

56. Stephen Sowerby (stephen.sowerby3@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk) in this Team will be pleased to deal with any enquiries arising from this Circular. Alternatively, forces may wish to speak to Phil Challinor, ACPO/CRB liaison (Tel. 07748 320 984, 0151 676 1428).

back to top

Home Office websites