A Managed Approach - Department of Justice

a managed approach part 2 | a review of the criminal records regime in northern ireland 

A Managed Approach 

Background to Phase 1 

A Review of the Criminal Records 

Regime in Northern Ireland 

Part 2 

Sunita Mason 

Independent Advisor for Criminality 

Information in England and Wales 

20121

A Managed Approach - Part 2 

Contents 

Page 

Introduction 7 

Issues unique to Northern Ireland 8 

Executive Summary 13 

Chapter 1 - Definition and Recording of Criminal Records 19 

Reason for the report 19 

History of criminal records management 19 

in Northern Ireland 

What is a criminal record 20 

Why is it important to retain criminal records 20 

The range of criminality information 22 

Criteria for a criminal record 25 

Rehabilitation of offenders 23 

A proposed working definition for a criminal record 35 

Chapter 2 - Management of Criminal Records 39 

Introduction 39 

Causeway data sharing mechanism 39 

The Criminal Record Viewer 40 


Part 2 

Users of criminal record information 41 

How long should a criminal record be retained 42 

The link to UK central records - Police National Computer 45 

Co-operation with the Republic of Ireland 46 

Sharing criminal records within the European Union 47


Contents (cont’d) 

Introduction 

Page 

Chapter 3 - Access to Criminal Records 51 

Who should have access and for what purpose 51 

Governance of access to the Causeway data 51 

Assurances by providers/users of criminal record data 52 

What capacity should individuals have to access and 53 

challenge their own criminal records 

Chapter 4 - Guidance on Criminal Records 59 

Information resource 59 

Conclusion 63 

Annexes 

Annex A - Terms of Reference for Part 2 of the Review 67 

Annex B - Summary of recommendations 68 

Annex C - Face-to-face consultation meetings 70 

Annex D - On-line consultation 73 

Annex E - List of written responses 79 


Part 2


Introduction 

In March 2011 I was invited by David Ford, MLA the Minister of 

Justice in the Northern Ireland Executive, to carry out a review of the 

framework for Criminality Information in Northern Ireland 1 . 

My experience in this arena arose from my current appointment, 

which began in September 2009 when I was appointed as the UK 

Government’s Independent Advisor for Criminality Information 

Management for England and Wales. I was initially tasked to carry 

out a review of retention and deletion policy in respect of criminal 

records within that jurisdiction. The review was published in early 

2010 and I was subsequently asked after the general election 

to prepare a second report for the Coalition Government on the 

wider issue of criminal records in England and Wales. Phase One 

of this review was published in February 2011 and a number of its 

recommendations formed part of the Protection of Freedoms Bill 

2011. Phase Two covering the broader issues around criminal record 

management was published on 4th December 2011. My previous 

reports are highlighted here and include: 

A Balanced Approach 2 - published 18 March 2010, which looked 

at safeguarding the public through the fair and proportionate use of 

accurate criminal record information; 

A Common Sense Approach 3 – Phase One published 11 February 

2011, which sought to balance public protection and civil liberties 

within the use of criminal records vetting for employment vetting 

purposes; and 

A Common Sense Approach 4 – Phase Two published on 4th 

December 2011 focuses on the management of criminal records. 

1 

Northern Ireland Criminal Records Regime (NICRR) Review announced by David Ford, 

Minister of Justice, 10 March 2011 

2 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/criminal-records-review-phase1 

3 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/criminal-records-review-phase1/commonsense-approach 

4 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/criminal-records-review-phase 2 

7



Introduction (cont’d) 

Introduction (cont’d) 

I was therefore delighted to be offered the 

retention and potential disclosure of the right 

not always the same as England and Wales. For 

number of organisations and individuals asked 

opportunity to conduct a review specifically 

information, to the right people, at the right time. 

example England and Wales use reprimands 

me to consider how such criminal records should 

for Northern Ireland, looking firstly at the 

disclosure regime of criminal records as they 

relate to Access Northern Ireland (AccessNI) 

employment checks and then in relation to the 

broader aspects of the criminal records regime. 

In planning for the Northern Ireland review I felt 

that two separate reports would be the best way 

to deal with the Terms of Reference 5 that I was 

asked to consider and therefore in August 2011 

In this report I also look in detail at issues 

surrounding the management of criminal 

records, in particular the definition, retention 

and arrangements to share and access the 

information. While there are obvious similarities 

with other parts of the United Kingdom there are 

also issues specific to Northern Ireland that I feel 

need to be addressed. 

as an alternative to seeking a conviction for 

minor offences but due to the circumstances 

in Northern Ireland when reprimands were 

introduced in England and Wales such a power 

was not considered appropriate at that time and 

therefore does not currently exist in Northern 

Ireland. There are also differences due to specific 

legislation introduced in the Northern Ireland 

Assembly, for example the Justice Act (Northern 

be dealt with in the future I made it clear that the 

discussion regarding the change to the status 

of such convictions and whether they should 

be deleted, is a separate matter for politicians 

in Northern Ireland to consider and not part of 

the terms of reference 8 for my review. Clearly 

any proposals for change on this sensitive 

and politically complex issue would need to 

command cross-party support. However, I 

I also completed a report for the Northern Ireland 

Department of Justice: 

Part One: A Managed Approach 6 which 

was published on 12th August 2011, considered 

the use of the criminal record and other related 

information in the context of disclosure relating 

to employment and volunteering in Northern 

Ireland. Some of the recommendations in this 

review were put out for consultation by the 

Department of Justice on the 14 December 2011. 

The Minister of Justice has formally accepted 

other recommendations for implementation such 

as the recommendation for portability and on line 

updating for AccessNI checks. 

I firmly believe that an efficient and effective 

criminal records regime should provide the 

necessary levels of public protection while still 

striking the right balance with civil liberties. 

The regime should be a robust process that 

does not increase the risk of leaving the public 

unprotected. My approach has been to develop 

a set of criteria to assess if information passes 

a sensible threshold and as a consequence 

should form part of the criminal record. The 

existence and use of criminal record information 

is invaluable for public protection through the 

Since the devolution of Justice in April 2010 

responsibility for criminal records in Northern 

Ireland is now a devolved matter. The criminal 

justice organisations in Northern Ireland have for 

some time developed their own processes and 

systems to manage the criminal justice system 

to align with business needs peculiar to Northern 

Ireland and specific legislation passed in the 

Northern Ireland Assembly, such as the Justice 

Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. 

My recommendations are based upon considered 

discussion and consultation with stakeholders 

in Northern Ireland and they build upon the 

experience and knowledge that I have gained in 

my role as the UK Government’s Independent 

Advisor for England and Wales during the past 

two years. 

Issues unique to Northern Ireland 

The recording of criminal records in Northern 

Ireland has always been separate from the Police 

National Computer (PNC) 7 that is the mechanism, 

which records, processes and manages an 

individual’s criminal record in England and Wales. 

The underpinning Northern Ireland legislation is 

Ireland) 2011 which legislated for Fixed Penalty 

Notices for offences connected with minor 

disorder offences as an alternative method to 

deal with these matters. It is planned that Fixed 

Penalty Notices for disorder offences will be 

introduced in 2012. 

Northern Ireland is the only part of the United 

Kingdom that shares a land border with another 

European Union jurisdiction. Cross-border 

policing arrangements between An Garda 

Síochána and PSNI currently exist that allow 

PSNI to obtain previous conviction information 

about individuals who currently or recently lived 

in the Republic of Ireland or who were born 

there. This process is important as it is easy to 

move between the two jurisdictions, perhaps 

conducting criminal activity, which will be of 

interest to both police forces. 

The last issue to consider is that Northern Ireland 

has now emerged from a period of conflict that 

occurred over the past 30 years and a significant 

number of individuals have criminal records 

relating directly to this period of conflict. I believe 

in this instance the issue is not just the recording 

of the information but the sensitivity about the 

circumstances in which it is used. Although a 

do consider that the existing guidance for 

employers relating to these matters should 

be given more prominence. I understand that 

AccessNI has already taken steps in this regard, 

which I very much welcome. 

With thanks 

I have met approximately 45 individuals 9 during 

my series of consultations on Part Two of this 

review in Northern Ireland. I would like to thank 

all who took the time and trouble to engage 

with me 10 . Their help has been invaluable and 

I have been assisted by their openness and 

willingness to share their concerns and issues 

with me in a friendly and constructive manner. I 

am also grateful to the 187 respondents to the 

on-line survey and to those who have separately 

written to me. Finally I wish to personally thank 

the Department of Justice Review Team that ably 

supported me with Part Two of my review. 

Mrs Sunita Mason 

5 

Terms of Reference attached at Annex A of this report 

8 

Terms of Reference attached at Annex A of this report 

6 

http://www.dojni.gov.uk/review-of-the-criminal-records-regime-in-northern-ireland.htm 

9 

List of face-to-face consultees is attached at Annex C of this report 

8 

7 

PNC is the central repository for criminal records in England, Wales and Scotland and is used extensively by law enforcement organisations 

across the UK. It contains some information on Northern Ireland citizens reflecting an agreed subset of the most serious categories of offence 

10 

List of on-line respondents to the consultation is attached at Annex D of this report and written respondees attached at Annex E 

9

Executive 

Summary 


Part 2


Executive Summary 

In devising the second report of my review of the Northern Ireland Criminal 

Records Regime I have focussed in particular on management of, and access to, 

criminal records. 

Recording and management of criminality information is essential in order to 

have an effective criminal justice process to protect the public. However, there 

is an obvious balance to be struck between the effectiveness of the process 

and the impact on everyday life. I have therefore attempted to ensure that 

recommendations I have made are at a common-sense level with recognition of 

civil liberties. 

Relative to the rest of the UK and neighbouring jurisdictions, Northern Ireland 

is now in a strong position with regard to the management and handling of its 

criminal records. Over the past few years the Department of Justice (formerly 

the Northern Ireland Office) has implemented a new data sharing mechanism 

for Criminal Justice known as Causeway. In brief, Causeway provides a 

central electronic means to share data between the majority of criminal justice 

organisations in Northern Ireland. Although further refinement of the system 

continues, Causeway is considered by other independent advisors to be an 

important asset that has delivered improved capability and an efficient system for 

the management of criminal records throughout the criminal justice system. 

My recommendations highlight areas where I believe that the overall criminal 

records regime can be strengthened through a much more formal definition 

of the processes in place and providing more guidance for the public. I also 

wish to ensure however that public protection is not eroded and indeed I have 

considered how it could be improved by the implementation of my proposals. 

I have summarised below my recommendations against each Chapter in the 

report. The full narrative on how I reached my conclusions can be found along 

with the associated analysis in the body of the report. 

13



Executive Summary (cont’d) 

Executive Summary (cont’d) 

Chapter 1 – Definition and recording of criminal records 

Recommendation 1: proposes a review of offences categorised as recordable 

and non-recordable in Northern Ireland to be undertaken as a priority. This review 

will assist to clarify the distinction between recordable and non-recordable 

offences and also is connected with sharing records across the UK and in time 

the rest of the EU. 

Recommendation 2: provides a suggested working definition of a criminal 

record and also proposes that the record should relate to proven breaches 

of criminal law, involve the establishment or admission of guilt and be for a 

recordable offence. 

Chapter 2 – Management of criminal records 

Recommendation 3: highlights the key role that the Causeway system has 

played in the development of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. 

Causeway has been a considerable breakthrough that should continue to be 

maintained and developed for the future. 

Recommendation 4: proposes a period for how long an individual’s criminal 

record should be retained which is in line with the approach elsewhere in the UK. 

Recommendations 5 and 6: relate to the enhancement of sharing criminal 

records with England and Wales (through the Police National Computer) and the 

Republic of Ireland respectively. 

Chapter 3 – Access to criminal records 

Recommendation 7: reinforces the need to control access to Northern 

Ireland criminal record data and to ensure that only those with a valid 

reason are permitted entry. 

Recommendation 8: endorses the current process for organisations using 

the criminal record data to be subjected to comprehensive auditing of their 

access which provides a level of reassurance. 

Recommendation 9: stresses the need to clarify the process for 

individuals to challenge perceived inaccurate information contained within 

their criminal record and ensures that where found erroneous information is 

quickly corrected. 

Chapter 4 – Guidance on criminal records 

Recommendation 10: explains the requirement to ensure that 

comprehensive and easily understood guidance is developed for 

individuals to fully understand the criminal record management process. 

This guidance needs to be available for all stakeholders including the 

general public. 

Summary 

Through the implementation of these recommendations I believe 

that criminal records handling mechanisms and systems in Northern 

Ireland will be made more open and transparent and there will be a 

better understanding of how criminal records are managed. I have also 

considered the impact on public protection, as I firmly believe it should 

not be diluted in any way through the introduction of my recommendations. 

However, I believe that public protection may be enhanced by 

their implementation. 

14 

15

Chapter 1 

Definition of the 

criminal record


Chapter 1 

Definition of the criminal record 

Reason for the report 

1.1 The management of criminal records is a 

key issue for the effective handling of those 

who offend against society but it is not a 

matter that the general public will normally 

have much detailed knowledge about. Clearer 

definitions and guidance together with 

enhanced public awareness can only serve 

to assist those that have the responsibility to 

maintain and process these personal records. 

History of criminal record 

management in Northern Ireland 

1.2 Before I look at how the criminal record 

system in Northern Ireland could be improved I 

want to give the reader an overview of how the 

current system evolved and why I believe the 

processes that exist can be improved upon. 

1.3 Northern Ireland was historically covered 

by the Habitual Criminals Act 1869 and the 

Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 which provided 

the first framework for the national retention 

of criminal records. In March 1923 the Royal 

Ulster Constabulary (RUC) established a 

Fingerprints Branch that was tasked with 

finding an adequate system for collating 

criminal records specifically in Northern 

Ireland; Criminal Intelligence Officers had 

previously collated these records at a 

local level. 

1.4 The records were initially recorded 

manually on a form for verified convictions 

which could be proven to relate to the person 

by fingerprints. The paper files retained at the 

Criminal Records Office (CRO) also included 

unverified convictions on a separate form. 

Over time the RUC also made use of microfilm 

in order to accommodate the increasing 

volume of criminal records that were being 

maintained. 

1.5 The first computerised criminal records 

system in Northern Ireland, known as the 

Criminal Intelligence Retrieval System 

(CIRS), was introduced in 1984. This system 

was initially intended for the recording of 

fingerprints, but over a period of 2 years was 

extended to handle the computerisation of 

criminal records including antecedents. All 

criminal records in Northern Ireland were 

computerised during a conversion of the 

remaining older paper-based records, which 

was carried out during the period 2003-2006. 

1.6 The system for recording results from 

courts was that Process Officers attended 

court to note the outcomes which in turn were 

relayed to CRO. The information was entered 

on CIRS and there was a system of checks in 

place to ensure the veracity of this information. 

CRO also provided criminal histories required 

for court purposes. 

1.7 Criminal records in Northern Ireland 

have historically been recorded in isolation 

from the Police National Computer (PNC) 11 . 

Constabularies in Great Britain would have 

contacted the RUC by telephone in order to 

establish if an individual who was the subject 

11 

The Police National Computer holds information about criminal convictions in Great Britain and some convictions in Northern Ireland 

19



of police enquiries in England and Wales had 

a criminal record in Northern Ireland. A PNC 

terminal was installed in the Criminal Records 

Office in the early 1980s for the purpose of 

searching individuals with an address history 

in Great Britain. At the same time details of 

more serious offences committed in Northern 

Ireland and corresponding fingerprints were 

forwarded by CRO to New Scotland Yard 12 . 

1.8 In 1999 the Integrated Crime Information 

System (ICIS) was introduced, replacing CIRS. 

This system was more comprehensive than 

CIRS and incorporated police information 

(intelligence) as well as the criminal history and 

antecedents. ICIS included an electronic link 

to PNC for the first time although only limited 

information could be imported and exported 

between the systems. 

1.9 The first step in this system was the 

process of adding sexual offences at 

CRO to PNC, which was then extended 

to include the categories of murder, 

manslaughter, kidnapping and robbery as well 

as sexual offences. 

1.10 Consequently when the Vetting & Barring 

Scheme was extended to Northern Ireland 

through the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups 

(NI) Order 2007, the number of offences 

input onto PNC was extended to include all 

convictions for auto bar offences 13 . 

1.11 There have been further improvements 

over the last few years in Northern Ireland in 

relation to how criminal record information 

is shared and managed. A new data sharing 

mechanism known as Causeway was 

introduced in 2004 to facilitate the sharing 

of criminal records information between the 

criminal justice organisations in Northern 

Ireland. This system is described in full in 

What is a criminal record? 

1.12 The general public may be surprised 

to learn that there is no legislative definition 

of what a criminal record actually is; what it 

should contain; and what should be excluded. 

Many of those who I consulted agreed that it 

would be extremely helpful if there was a clear, 

easily understood definition of an individual’s 

criminal record that is generally understood by 

both the public and those within the criminal 

justice system that maintain, process and 

manage the records. It is my view that this 

position should be rectified in the future and I 

therefore wish to establish some groundwork 

to explain why we need a definition in the 

first place; what such a definition might look 

like and what use it may have. I also wish to 

examine the reasons why it may be cautionary 

not to seek to include the definition of a 

criminal record in legislation at this precise 

point in time. 

Why is it important to retain 

criminal records? 

1.13 Before we look at the definition of a 

criminal record we need to examine why they 

are recorded and retained in the first place and 

for what purpose. The justification to maintain 

criminal records can be broken down into 

three main reasons: 

1. Supporting policing and public 

protection arrangements 

1.14 The Police Service of Northern Ireland 

(PSNI) is much better positioned to investigate, 

detect and prevent crime for the purposes 

of public protection when it has access to 

an individual’s offending history, which is 

recorded as criminal record information. 

Example: When PSNI officers stop 

a vehicle because of suspicious 

activity and question its occupants it 

is important that they can access an 

individual’s offending history to help an 

officer to gauge if they might be involved 

with undertaking related crimes such as 

burglary, driving and taking away, drugs 

offences etc. 

2. Informing the work of the broader 

criminal justice system 

1.15 There are many other examples 

across the criminal justice system where 

access to criminal records is essential. For 

example, criminal records are critical to 

the Public Prosecution Service’s decisionmaking 

and to the Northern Ireland judiciary 

in, for instance, deciding sentencing or 

for the consideration of bail. They are also 

needed by organisations that come into 

contact with offenders to enable them to 

understand what offences have previously 

been committed. This information will 

influence decisions about future action 

that should be taken by the organisations 

concerned, for example: – how to deal with 

repeat offenders; sentencing; location and 

management in prison; management in the 

community; eligibility for compensation etc. 

3. To provide information about suitability 

for employment and voluntary roles 

1.16 The available records directly support 

the work of AccessNI which in Northern 

Ireland is the organisation responsible 

for the issue of criminal record checks. 

These checks for pre-employment and 

volunteering play a key role in public 

protection as I have discussed fully in 

Part 1 of my published review 14 . Other 

organisations such as Social Services are 

also able to request checks, for example, 

related to fostering applications using 

records that PSNI have available. 

1.17 While the police and other criminal 

justice organisations need to use this 

information to undertake their duties, they 

told me that in a great many occasions all 

the information held on an offender’s record 

should not automatically or routinely be 

disclosed e.g. Jaywalking, littering offences 

contrary to Council Bye-laws and no TV 

licence. Part One of my review discussed 

an option of filtering of criminal records 

information and why I believe only what 

is proportionate and relevant should be 

accessed or disclosed to guard against, for 

example, young people being prevented 

from taking up work or training due to a 

minor misdemeanour in their past. 

1.18 I also explained in Chapter Three of 

the Part One report how PSNI may hold 

information which would be additional to 

an individual’s criminal record - known as 

‘police intelligence’ or ‘police information’. 

I will not cover the details again within this 

report other than to repeat one main point: 

I received overwhelming support (94% in 

the on-line survey) for the view that police 

information should continue to be made 

available on the face of an AccessNI check 

to maintain public protection and to allow 

employers and volunteer organisations to 

make the best decisions with full relevant 

knowledge. While it is of course important 

to recognise the rights of applicants, all of 

my consultees agreed that public protection 

and safeguarding of children and vulnerable 

adults were paramount. 

Chapter 2. 

20 

12 

Headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Force, London 

13 

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Prescribed Criteria and Miscellaneous Provision) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 Part 2 

14 


21



The range of criminality 

“ 

information 

1.19 I am acutely aware and have been 

informed by criminal justice organisations that 

there is a broad range of criminality information 

relating to citizens of Northern Ireland held 

within their business systems and in other 

police systems at a national level - for example 

the Violent and Sex Offender Register 15 and the 

National Fingerprint Database 16 . 

1.20 The full range of data available includes 

convictions, diversions and other penalties, 

procedural records such as arrests and 

acquittals, ‘intelligence’ information held by 

police and biometric information such as 

fingerprints or DNA profiles. In many cases the 

scope and amount of information retained is 

considerable and is shortly to be added to with 

the introduction by the Department of Justice 

of Fixed Penalty Notices for disorder offences 

and the Offender Levy 17 . 

Criteria for a criminal record 

1.21 It is clear from my discussions with 

“ 

those with whom I have consulted that due 

to the amount of offender information, the 

differing importance and relevance of the 

information that is currently held, that if an 

individual who had a criminal record was asked 

what it actually contained it is very likely that 

they would not know. The situation is confusing 

as there is no actual definition or rules as to 

what an individual’s criminal record should or 

should not contain. I have also learned that this 

position is probably no different for the majority 

of organisations that are tasked with accessing 

the offender record as part of their duties. 

The inclusion of other 

information makes public 

understanding of what a 

criminal record is more difficult. 

Max Murray 

Northern Ireland Prison Service 

1.22 However, I believe every citizen is 

entitled to have a clear understanding of 

what their criminal record consists of, how 

it is managed, how to access it and how to 

challenge it if they believe it is incorrect. It is 

also my view that a clear definition of what 

elements make up an individual’s criminal 

record would greatly assist the criminal 

justice system. 

1.23 All the stakeholders that I consulted 

supported my view that an agreed, clear 

definition of a criminal record would be an 

essential starting point. 

There is some confusion 

between the police record 

which is used for operational 

purposes and the criminal 

record. A clear definition for the 

criminal record and intelligence 

(locally held police intelligence) 

would address a common 

misunderstanding. 

Andrea McMullan 

Police Service of Northern Ireland 

15 

ViSOR – database of records which includes those required to register with the Police under the Sexual Offences (NI) Order 2008 

16 

IDENT1 – UK’s central national database for holding, searching and comparing biometric information on those who come into contact 

1.24 I have, in my England and Wales 

report, suggested that in the long-term a 

UK-wide definition would be more practical 

as we seek to achieve enhanced links and 

share criminal information on an individual’s 

offending history with other EU countries 

and the rest of the world. For these 

reasons, while it is important to have a firm 

definition I do not believe that it would be 

appropriate to have a fixed definition set 

in law at this stage. It would take time and 

need a formal consultation that the time 

scales for my review do not allow for. We 

also need to consider and align Northern 

Ireland with other jurisdictions that have 

different criminal record systems and 

definitions, such as Scotland. My working 

definition could, if accepted, form a key 

element of the guidance I refer to later in 

recommendation 10 of this report. 

1.25 It is important that an individual 

understands that they do not have a 

criminal record just because they have been 

arrested once and released with no further 

charge, or held on bail, been subject to a 

police investigation or had their fingerprints 

or DNA taken. While the police may 

continue to hold some of this information, 

it is not available for routine disclosure; nor 

should it be in the same way that a criminal 

record would only be legitimately disclosed 

in proper circumstances. 

1.26 Certain personal information is 

relevant to and needs to be associated with 

an individual’s criminal record, if one does 

exist, to ensure that the correct individual 

has been identified and can be again in 

the future. Name, date of birth, national 

insurance number and last known address 

are most commonly used to identify an 

individual. Criminal justice organisations 

should work together to share any 

changes or corrections to this information 

to help prevent incorrect identifications. 

Ideally fingerprints and/or DNA provide 

the most reliable means of identification, 

however this information is currently held 

in databases separate from the criminal 

record. I have noted that a separate 

consultation on the legislative proposals for 

DNA/fingerprint retention has recently been 

completed in Northern Ireland. I have been 

told by the Department of Justice that it is 

expected that these will be taken forward 

within new Northern Ireland legislation to 

more tightly define the terms under which 

DNA and fingerprints are retained. However, 

at this point it is my understanding that 

the proposed changes will not prevent 

their retention against the criminal record 

definition that I recommend. 

Rehabilitation of offenders 

1.27 The Rehabilitation of Offenders 

(NI) Order (ROO)1978, as amended is 

an important piece of legislation and it 

matches the relevant Act in England and 

Wales. It limits the time for which the 

declaration of a conviction has to be made; 

in other words an individual does not have 

to declare certain convictions after a period 

of time has elapsed. In some cases such 

as employment checking, a number of 

occupations are “exempt” and therefore 

the additional information must always 

be disclosed. For example, working with 

children and vulnerable adults is regarded 

as an “exempt” occupation and therefore all 

convictions must be disclosed, regardless 

of when they were committed. This can 

cause further confusion to individuals as 

to what is or is not disclosed and what 

convictions are or are not part of their 

criminal record. 

22 

with the Police as detainees after being arrested 

17 

The target for implementation of Fixed Penalty Notices for disorder and Offender Levy processes in Northern Ireland is 2012 

23



Criterion 1 

1.28 For illustration the ROO can be sumarised by the following table: 

A criminal record should only include Recordable Offences 

Figure 1 - Rehabilitation of Offenders Order - Limitations 

Sentence 

A term of imprisonment exceeding thirty months 

A term of imprisonment exceeding six months 

but not exceeding thirty months 

A term of imprisonment not exceeding six 

months 

A fine or other sentence not specifically covered 

in the ROO 

1.29 So even though sometimes a 

conviction is regarded as “exempt” by the 

ROO and does not need to be disclosed 

it still remains part of an individual’s 

criminal record which could be disclosed 

on occasions where the ROO does not 

apply. The Government of England and 

Wales is considering bringing forward 

amendments to a bill 18 to change the 

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and bring 

down the time limits that apply. The Minister 

of Justice in Northern Ireland may wish 

to consider if he should also make similar 

proposals to amend the ROO in Northern 

Ireland. It would cause some anomalies 

in employment checking for example if 

someone who had committed offences 

in England and Wales applied for a basic 

Rehabilitation period - Spent 

Never spent 

Ten years (five years if person is under 17 at the 

time of conviction) 

Seven years (three and a half years if person is 

under 17 at the time of conviction) 

Five years (two and a half years if person is 

under 17 at the time of conviction) 

check. They might be spent under the ROA 

there but not spent in Northern Ireland 

because of the difference in time limits. 

This could potentially put Northern Ireland 

citizens in a worse position for employment 

purposes in comparison to their England 

and Wales counterparts, which would 

be unfair. 

1.30 All this confusion adds further weight 

to the need to clarify this area by having 

some form of definition of a criminal 

record. I believe that in developing a 

working definition there is common ground 

with England and Wales. In the context 

of Northern Ireland, with its particular 

requirements, I can see three criteria which 

may be used to help assess what a criminal 

record should contain. 

What is a Recordable offence? 

1.31 A Recordable offence is legally defined 

in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern 

Ireland) Order 1989, PACE (NI). In practice, 

it says that all offences, that are punishable 

with imprisonment, should be known as 

Recordable offences, should be maintained 

on a central record by the police and will 

formulate an individual’s criminal record. As 

a standard procedure, PSNI has the power to 

take and retain fingerprints if an individual is 

being charged with a Recordable offence. 

Examples: Recordable offences - 

Imprisonable 

• Murder contrary to Common Law 

• Cruelty to children contrary to section 

20(1) of the Children and Young Persons 

Act (NI) 1968 

• Arson contrary to section 1 of the 

Vagrancy Act 1898 

1.32 A complication to this rule is that there 

is another subset of around 50 or so offences 

that are non-imprisonable but which have 

been designated as Recordable offences, and 

are specified in the Northern Ireland Criminal 

Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 

1989. Therefore these offences are also 

offences where fingerprints are taken and form 

part of an individual’s criminal record. 

Examples: Recordable offences – 

Non-Imprisonable 

• Giving Intoxicating Liquor to Children 

Under Five Years of Age 

• Kerb Crawling contrary to section 1 of 

the Sexual Offences Act 1985 

• Taking or Riding a Pedal Cycle without 

the Owner’s Consent 

1.33 The use of fingerprints avoids many of 

the problems with identifying an individual that 

arise by solely relying on name and date of 

birth. In addition fingerprints can then be used 

to search both the local PSNI database and if 

appropriate the national UK database for any 

record of previous offending. 

1.34 All other offences are known as Non- 

Recordable offences and the maximum 

penalty does not involve a term of 

imprisonment. 

1.35 In practice, these Non-Recordable 

offences were deemed to be so by statute and 

are normally for offences that Parliament has 

considered to be less serious crime. 

They should not form part of an individual’s 


Examples: Non-Recordable offences 

• Excess speed contrary to Article 43 

of the Road Traffic Regulations (NI) 

Order 1997 

• No mirrors on motor vehicle contrary 

to Article 58 of the Road Traffic (NI) 

Order 1995 

• Selling fireworks without a licence 

contrary to Regulation 4(1) and 12 of the 

Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (NI) 

1997 

24 

18 

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 

25



1.36 It is important that a record of all 

offences (Recordable and Non-Recordable) 

can be accessed by those who have a legal 

responsibility to do so, e.g. Public Prosecution 

Service Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland 

Courts and Tribunals Service, Northern 

Ireland Prison Service. However this does not 

necessarily mean that all of the information 

available should be part of an individual’s 

criminal record e.g. Non-Recordable offences 

are not designated as imprisonable and do 

not form part of the additional recordable 

subset referred to above. For these reasons, 

I do not believe that all Non-Recordable 

offences should be part of an individual’s 


Examples: Non-Recordable Offences – 

Which should not form part of a Criminal 

Record 

• Defective exhaust system 

• No spare wheel 

• Emission of avoidable smoke 

1.37 However, to maintain protection for the 

public a criminal record must also contain 

those offences which ought to be disclosed to 

the criminal justice system or an employer or 

voluntary organisations because they would 

wish to know about them before making any 

determinations. 

1.38 Therefore it follows that we must 

ensure that all the relevant Non-Imprisonable 

offences are included in the list of those 

deemed in legislation to be Recordable 

offences and form part of an individual’s 

criminal record for disclosure purposes so that 

the public are more properly protected. 

1.39 Due to the passage of time and changes 

both to society and the law, I believe various 

offences defined as either Recordable or 

Non-Recordable are outdated. Given that one 

can commit a Non-Recordable offence for a 

public protection matter, for example cruelty 

to animals and not have a criminal record or 

a trace on an enhanced check from AccessNI 

but conversely have a criminal record for 

something considered more minor such as 

‘taking a cycle without authority’ that has less 

public protection concerns, then the definition 

of what is and what is not a Recordable 

offence does appear outmoded and ought to 

be reviewed and brought up to date. 

1.40 Disclosure is about giving the right 

information to the right people at the right 

time to safeguard the public. Providing 

irrelevant information is not proportionate and 

conversely failure to disclose information of a 

safeguarding matter could be careless at the 

least and dangerous at the worst. 

1.41 Although I consider that the principle of Recordable and Non-Recordable offences 

should be maintained, all of the stakeholders that I consulted supported my view that the 

time is right for a review of which crimes should be Recordable and should form part of 

a criminal record and conversely which offences should be classed as Non-Recordable 

and never form part of a criminal record. To rectify the current anomaly I recommend a 

complete review of which offences are classified as Recordable and which should be 

classed as Non-Recordable should be undertaken by the Department of Justice. The 

outcome from this review would assist with the development of a proper definition of an 

individual’s criminal record. I have also been informed that a re-categorisation will have 

implications for how fingerprints and DNA information is maintained in the future. I am 

aware that the Home Office is undertaking a review of Recordable offences in England and 

Wales and there may be benefits for Northern Ireland if it was to initiate a similar parallel 

review that was aligned but unique to the jurisdiction. 

Recommendation 1 

I recommend that a review of those offences categorised as Recordable 

and Non-Recordable is carried out as a priority. 

Example: Many offences under the Welfare 

of Animals (NI) Act 1972 including animal 

cruelty, causing unnecessary suffering, use 

of poisons and traps are all non-recordable. 

It is therefore possible for someone who 

causes suffering to animals not to have a 


26 

27



Criterion 2 

A criminal record should record disposals related to breaking the criminal law 

1.42 An individual admitting to or being found guilty of a criminal offence is normally given 

some form of punishment which is recorded as a result. This may be a conviction or another 

type of disposal. 

1.43 The main forms of disposal in Northern Ireland resulting from court action are: 

1.46 PSNI can also use non-court diversions to deal with less serious offending or in some 

circumstances the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) can direct a diversion. Although the details 

may be less serious than for a crime that goes to court, a diversion for a Recordable offence 

such as ‘Aggravated Assault on a boy under 14 years’ is clearly significant. These types of 

disposal are sometimes also referred to as non-conviction diversions and are a means of 

diverting the offender away from court action. They are: 

Figure 3 - Non-Court diversion types 

Figure 2 - Main forms of disposal 

Main forms of disposal 

A discharge 

Diversion type 

Informed warning 

Description 

A formal reprimand by the police, and although 

it is not a court conviction, it is recorded on the 

person’s offender record for 12 months. 

A fine 

A community service order 

A custodial sentence (including mandatory and discretionary sentences, suspended 

sentences and extended sentence whether served in prison or detention) 

An ancillary order (e.g. driving disqualification, community responsibility order, reparation 

order or court-ordered youth conferences) 

1.44 Civil law issues and outcomes do not 

form part of an individual’s offender history. 

As such they are never recorded or disclosed. 

As there is a danger of criminal and civil law 

issues and outcomes becoming confused 

by the public, criminal justice organisations 

and in general, the criminal record must only 

contain such actions imposed for breaches of 

the criminal law. 

1.45 Breaches of civil law should be 

recorded elsewhere. Therefore matters dealt 

with in the civil courts, such as Restraining 

Orders, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders 

(ASBOs) or Sexual Offences Prevention 

Orders (SOPOs), should not be included. 

Often a civil order, for example a SOPO, will 

be issued to an individual who has a criminal 

record. However, they will also be issued 

using the civil court standard for evidence 

(the balance of probabilities). In these 

circumstances the order itself does not reach 

the threshold to be included in a criminal 

record as it is considered to be a civil rather 

than a criminal matter. It is worth noting 

that normally a breach of a civil order may 

become a criminal offence and if appropriate 

may be added to the criminal record. 

Caution (or restorative caution for juveniles) 

Diversionary Youth Conference 

Another type of formal reprimand by the police, 

and again although it is not a court conviction, it 

is recorded on the person’s offender record for 

five years in the case of an adult or thirty months 

in the case of a young person. 

A Diversionary Youth Conference is for 

cases when PPS decide not to proceed 

with prosecution. PPS can direct that a 

full conference with the victim should be 

offered once the young offender has agreed 

and admitted guilt. A youth conference is a 

meeting or series of meetings with the victim 

and young offender, accompanied by their 

parents or appropriate adult. Unlike a court 

youth conference the diversionary plan is not 

a conviction but is recorded on the young 

person’s offender record for thirty months. The 

procedure is as follows: 

PPS makes a decision to offer a Diversionary 

Youth Conference to the offender. A conference 

is arranged and at the conference a course of 

action may be devised e.g. that the offender 

undertake anger management or carry out some 

community work. The Youth Justice Agency 

draws up the plan and the PPS is asked whether 

it accepts or rejects the plan. If accepted, the 

offender then must carry out the requirements in 

the plan. If the offender does not agree to attend 

the Diversionary Youth Conference, does not 

accept to carry out the terms of the plan or does 

not carry out the requirements properly, the case 

is referred back to the PPS for prosecution. 

28 

29



1.47 In July 2011, 786 Diversions were 

the information to fulfill their statutory 

1.53 Discretionary disposals are included 

an exception should be made here and that 

issued in Northern Ireland. Of these 254 

responsibilities; e.g. the Police, Public 

in the offender’s criminal history held in 

discretionary disposals should not form 

were for Recordable offences, which were 

Prosecution Service and the Courts and 

police records, as clearly it is necessary 

part of an individual’s criminal record even 

mainly dishonesty or drug related. The 

Tribunals Service, who require it for the 

to track the use of discretion against an 

though there is formal acknowledgement 

breakdown was 543 Cautions, 83 Informed 

normal operation of the criminal justice 

offender. This ensures that different officers 

of an offence having been committed. This 

Warnings and 160 Youth Conferences 19 . 

process, for example a decision to 

for different crimes do not give the offender 

allows the recipient of such a disposal to 

prosecute or presentation to the Judiciary 

several discretionary disposals and hence it 

have a second chance and not be burdened 

1.48 As described previously Cautions, 

for determination of sentencing. 

is used to inform decision-making as to the 

with a criminal record. I believe that this 

Informed Warnings and Diversionary Youth 

appropriate future criminal justice disposal 

goes someway to help prevent young 

Conferences are not retained indefinitely 

1.50 PSNI operates a further disposal 

should the person commit further crimes. 

people who may make a mistake from 

on the criminal record as they are stepped 

down after a set period of time. This 

means they are no longer part of an 

individual’s criminal record but they are not 

permanently deleted. 

For example - John (a young person) 

receives a caution for carrying an 

offensive weapon in January 2009. 

After thirty months if he has committed 

no further offences the caution will be 

option which is known as Discretion. This 

option was introduced following a ‘Review 

of Policing’ inspection conducted by Sir 

Ronnie Flanagan in 2008 20 when he was 

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary. 

1.51 The Discretion procedure aims to 

encourage officers to use their professional 

judgement to resolve low level crime to the 

satisfaction of victims and the community 

whilst maintaining accountability. 

1.54 Since the purpose of the Discretion 

scheme is to avoid convictions for low-level 

crime and as it was not the intention that 

these should form part of an individual’s 

criminal record, I do not think it appropriate 

to go behind that intention and so I believe 

being criminalised for life by a one-off error. 

Many of those with whom I consulted were 

keen to find a way to help young people. 

Barriers to education and jobs only sought 

to further marginalise youth rather than 

reintegrate them into society. 

stepped down. This means it will not 

be routinely disclosed to a potential 

employer unless he has applied for a 

prescribed occupation i.e. working with 

children or vulnerable adults. 

1.52 For example it might be used for 

dealing with minor shoplifting offences, or 

anti-social behaviour such as graffiti and 

breaking windows. If the police can identify 

the suspects, they admit the offence and 

1.49 Even after the diversion information 

is stepped down, in order to allow this 

previous offending behaviour to be 

considered in the event of future reoffending, 

the information still forms part 

of an individual’s full criminal history but 

not part of his criminal record which is 

routinely used for disclosure purposes. 

The full criminal history is only made 

available to organisations that have a 

legitimate business requirement to access 

they are not persistent offenders then the 

matter may be suitable to be dealt with by 

Discretion. Should the victim be content 

then a suitable outcome can be agreed 

with the police that will be offered to the 

suspect to agree to, for example repairing 

the window or paying for a stolen item. If 

the suspect does not agree the matter 

will be dealt with by using other disposals 

including Informed Warnings, Cautions and 

Court Prosecution. 

19 

Statistics provided by the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland 

30 

20 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080919134927/police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police-reform/review_of_policing_ 

final_report/ 

31



Criterion 3 

Criminal records should involve the establishment or formal admission of guilt 

1.60 However, I firmly believe that such 

and public protection, they do not swing too 

offences as given in the example above 

far one way at the risk of leaving vulnerable 

1.55 Through consultation and discussion 

with stakeholders I have concluded that 

the establishment of guilt should ordinarily 

be a key distinction between what is 

contained in a criminal record and the other 

criminality information held by PSNI or other 

criminal justice organisations. This may 

be experienced either through the criminal 

court process or an alternative structured 

process that involves a formal admission 

of guilt. 

1.56 Generally non-conviction disposals 

(Informed Warnings, Cautions and 

these non-conviction disposals may be 

removed from the criminal record after 

a specified period of time. This process 

is part of PSNI’s normal procedures and 

is covered in its working guidelines. This 

is over and above the provisions of the 

Rehabilitation of Offenders Order. The 

stepping down policy is more advanced 

than the current arrangements in place in 

England and Wales where they no longer 

operate any type of filtering. 

1.58 Non-conviction disposals which 

arise from a clear and formal admission 

should be disclosed in Enhanced checks to 

ensure that public protection is maintained. 

If this type of information is not routinely 

disclosed then Northern Ireland will be 

out of step with England and Wales. 

Furthermore the potential risk to children 

and vulnerable adults would be too great. 

As I mentioned in my Part One report this 

type of non-disclosure was at the heart of 

the Soham tragedy (i.e. information that was 

known to the Police but not shared with 

those seeking disclosure for employment). 

Government must ensure that in trying to 

find the right balance between civil liberties 

people unprotected. 

1.61 Recommendation Nine 22 contained in 

my Part One review report highlighted my 

view that AccessNI should routinely disclose 

Informed Warnings, Cautions and details 

of Diversionary Youth Conferences on 

Standard and Enhanced checks. Due to the 

existing legislative framework they currently 

do not have the power to do so. Where this 

involves a young person the information 

should only be disclosed if the offence is 

recent as per the step down procedure 

operated by PSNI. See table below: 

Diversionary Youth Conferences) are used 

of guilt can often be for quite serious 

where the individual admits they have 

Recordable offences (e.g. a caution for 

offended (admission of guilt) and where 

the level of offence is regarded to be at the 

intent to endanger life by arson) and should 

therefore not be generally excluded from an 

Figure 4 - Step down periods 

lesser end of the scale of criminal activity. 

While youth conferences are normally 

individual’s criminal record for the purposes 

of disclosure and wider public protection. 

Diversion type 

Step down period 

for young offenders, most cautions and 

informed warnings are given to adults. 

1.59 I am aware of the recent Youth Justice 

Review (YJR) in Northern Ireland and 

Informed warning 

1 year 

Example: A Caution may be issued for 

that the team conducting the review has 

tampering with a motor vehicle where 

arrived at a similar view to me in relation 

the offender was caught but had caused 

little damage. However, the offence itself 

to the treatment of young offenders. The 

YJR accepted that it is important for the 

Caution 5 years (2.5 years for those aged under 17) 

is recordable and could result in a Court 

Police, for criminal justice purposes, to hold 

fine for more serious cases should the 

information about people of whatever age 

offender be dealt with through 

the courts. 

who have committed offences (A Review 

of the Youth Justice System in Northern 

Diversionary youth conference 2.5 years for those aged under 17 

Ireland, September (2011) Paragraph: 

1.57 I have considered various views on 

3.11.6). As I mentioned in my Part One 

whether these disposals should pass the 

Report 21 I accept that we should not seek 

threshold to generate a criminal record. 

to “stigmatise” young people who have 

There is however a policy in Northern 

made a mistake or deny them appropriate 

Ireland known as Stepping Down where 

employment opportunities. 

32 

21 


22 

Section 2 Chapter 4 , Para 5.12 – A Managed Approach, A Review of the Criminal Records Regime in Northern Ireland by Sunita Mason 

33



1.62 One of the main focal points for my 

1.64 I also seek to reiterate my view 

1.66 Under the Justice Act (Northern 

1.67 In my Part One report I discussed the 

review is ensuring that public protection 

expressed in my Part One report that 

Ireland) 2011 passed by the Northern 

feasibility of filtering criminal records. This 

is not diluted while trying to maintain a 

the Government should seek to amend 

Ireland Assembly new Fixed Penalty 

would be over and above the step down 

balance and proportionality. The conundrum 

current legislation to enable non-conviction 

Notices for offences related to disorder will 

procedures currently operated by PSNI 

of what to disclose to whom and for how 

information to be disclosed by AccessNI for 

be introduced. It is planned that these will 

and go further than the Rehabilitation of 

long is one that previous administrations 

adult and youth cases, taking into account 

be implemented in Northern Ireland during 

Offenders Order. I believe that disclosure 

have grappled with. I therefore believe that 

the PSNI step down model. At the moment 

2012. Penalty Notices will provide a further 

of criminal records information should be 

the stepping down process does give a 

this can be dealt with by PSNI including 

disposal option to be used for criminal 

made available but that the information 

young person who avoids further offending 

the information as ‘police information’ but I 

matters but as they will not involve a formal 

should be relevant and proportionate 24 . 

a second chance by removing an informed 

believe that these disposals are part of the 

admission of guilt it is not intended by the 

warning after a year and for more serious 

diversions after two and half years, as set 

out above. 

1.63 In general, any filtering in this context 

should be clear and straightforward in both 

application and explanation. Anything too 

complicated will slow down the process 

and add to bureaucracy. I believe public 

protection must be paramount and the 

PSNI should retain the option of disclosing 

the stepped down disposals in certain 

circumstances such as an Enhanced 

information which should be compulsorily 

disclosed as in England and Wales. 

1.65 It follows therefore that clear and 

consistent information needs to be given 

to individuals upon accepting a disposal so 

that they are aware of the consequences 

of accepting an out of court disposal. PSNI 

has developed guidance to help ensure 

the individual is aware that it will form 

part of their criminal history and that it will 

be disclosed in certain circumstances. 

However, when an individual is told that the 

Assembly that they should form part of the 

formal criminal record 23 . I agree with this 

proposition, as it is proportionate. One of 

the examples I came across in my England 

and Wales consultation was the Enhanced 

disclosure for a teacher of a penalty 

for disorder for excessive standing at a 

football match! This disclosure was neither 

proportionate nor relevant. One of the aims 

of this review is to put some common sense 

into the current criminal record regime and 

so a pragmatic view is necessary. 

A proposed working definition 

for a criminal record 

1.68 In summary I believe that a criminal 

record should be defined based on the 

criteria I have set out above. If an offence 

has been defined as recordable; involves 

committing a crime; and the individual has 

been proven guilty or admitted guilt then 

it should result in the creation of a criminal 

record. In the case that the offence only 

results in a diversion and there is no further 

offending, then the record would be cleared 

Disclosure employment check for 

disposal is not a conviction there is still a 

after the requisite period. 

an individual wishing to work with 

tendency to assume that it means it is not 

young children. 

part of their criminal record. 

Example: A young person may have an 

Informed Warning for an Assault with 

Actual Bodily Harm and, particularly 

if recent, this could be an indicator 

one could argue that it should not go 

unnoticed. In more serious cases this 

offence has a penalty of up to 7 years in 

prison. It is my view, and one shared with 

most consultees, that they would want 

to know about this prior to considering 

offering employment. 


I recommend that an individual’s criminal record should be clearly 

defined as all Recordable criminal offences in respect of which an 

individual has been convicted or received a caution, informed warning or 

diversionary youth conference (which has not yet been stepped down). 

34 

23 

From 2012 a Fixed Penalty Notice will be an option for an offence under Article 18(1)(a) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 

1987 (NI 7) (disorderly behaviour). 

24 

A Managed Approach – A Review of the Criminal Records Regime in Northern Ireland by Sunita Mason, Part 1, paragraphs 5.17 – 5.27 

35

Chapter 2 

Management of 

Criminal Records


Chapter 2 

Management of Criminal Records 

Introduction 

2.1 In this section I aim to explain how 

criminal records are stored in Northern 

Ireland and what steps are taken to 

make sure the information is available to 

neighbouring jurisdictions. 

2.2 In England and Wales the Police 

National Computer (PNC) is the core 

mechanism used to manage criminal 

records but for historical and practical 

reasons this has never extended to 

Scotland or Northern Ireland. However both 

Scotland and Northern Ireland have access 

to the PNC to search and share criminal 

record information. 

2.3 Over the past few years the 

management of criminal records in 

Northern Ireland has seen many changes 

with the introduction of a new central data 

sharing mechanism known as Causeway. 

The need for change was recognised in 

2001 with the realisation that a different 

approach to the administration of criminal 

justice was required to deliver some of the 

recommendations contained within the 

Review of the Criminal Justice System in 

Northern Ireland (2000) 25 and the Patten 

Report 26 which were designed to provide 

the catalyst for major reform of the Criminal 

Justice System in Northern Ireland. 

Causeway data sharing 

mechanism 

2.4 Causeway was designed to improve 

efficiency and effectiveness in the 

criminal justice system and to provide a 

better service between criminal justice 

organisations that make up the criminal 

justice system in Northern Ireland. It 

was constructed with a vision that all the 

information shared within the criminal 

justice system would be up-to-date, 

accurate and accessible electronically by 

anyone with the right to use it. 

2.5 In 2002, six of the main criminal 

justice organisations joined in partnership 

to develop the Causeway Data Sharing 

Mechanism – the Police Service of Northern 

Ireland (PSNI); Forensic Science Northern 

Ireland (FSNI); Department of the Director 

of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland 

DPP, (now known as Public Prosecution 

Service, PPSNI); Northern Ireland Courts 

Service, (NICtS), (now known as the 

Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals 

Service (NICTS)); Northern Ireland Prison 

Service (NIPS); and Probation Board for 

Northern Ireland (PBNI). 

2.6 The Causeway solution was developed 

on two fronts – firstly a review of legislation 

and working practices to streamline 

business processes was completed and 

then a technical solution to support these 

changes was designed and implemented. 

The Causeway Data Sharing Mechanism 

was introduced in two main phases, the first 

in 2004 and the second in 2009. 

25 

www.nio.gov.uk/review_of_the_criminal_justice_system_in_northern_ireland.pdf 

26 

www.nio.gov.uk/a_new_beginning_in_policing_in _northern_ireland.pdf 

39



2.7 I have been informed that one of the 

“ 

key elements of the first phase was the 

provision of a central means of searching 

the criminal history database, which was 

assembled from data shared by the criminal 

justice organisations. The second phase 

progressed further by enabling sharing of 

criminal case files between organisations 

and the direct updating of court outcomes 

to central records. 

2.8 I have also been told during my 

consultation that Causeway functionality 

impacts on several levels of case 

processing; it: 

• enables organisations to respond more 

quickly to internal and external enquiries 

and reduces the volume of inter-agency 

requests for information; 

• better informs criminal justice operations 

through the sharing of timely, relevant 

and accurate criminal case information; 

and 

• eliminates duplication of effort as the 

data is entered only once and then 

shared centrally. 

2.9 In addition, it was confirmed that the 

move from paper to electronic records has 

reduced the level of resources devoted to 

copying; moving paper documents; and to 

correcting transcription errors. Immediate 

access to criminal record data is now 

available electronically for criminal justice 

organisations that have a right to access 

this information, without having to apply to 

the PSNI Criminal Records Office. 

(Through Causeway) we have 

instant access to updated 

data which previously could 

take days to obtain. 

Raymond Kitson 

(former Senior Assistant Director) 

Public Prosecution Service 

The Criminal Record Viewer 

2.10 I also learned that an important 

function of Causeway was the compilation, 

processing and management of offender 

information through the Criminal Record 

Viewer (CRV). The CRV is a mechanism 

that enables criminal justice organisations 

to access an electronic offender history 

and also controls the level of access they 

are provided. 

2.11 It was confirmed by stakeholders that 

before Causeway, all organisations had to 

request copies of the criminal record from 

PSNI. PSNI maintained the criminal record 

on its own internal system. This information 

was normally supplied on paper. Following 

Causeway DSM 0 (the first phase), 

immediate access to the electronic criminal 

record data became available to those 

organisations with the appropriate authority 

to access this information. 

2.12 Responsibility for updating the 

criminal record still rested with PSNI; this 

was undertaken on a daily basis. 

2.13 Further enhancements were delivered 

through Causeway DSM 1 (the second 

phase) in 2009. The criminal record is now 

updated immediately when court results are 

recorded by NICTS officials and through 

the recording of cautions and diversions by 

PSNI and PPS. 

“ 

Example of a Causeway Service Level 

Agreement: “All criminal court results 

relating to custodial elements must be 

treated as a priority and must be entered 

and confirmed as soon as possible. If 

a court sitting is concluded by 2:00pm, 

it must be sent to Causeway that same 

day; if a sitting has concluded after 

2:00pm it must be sent to Causeway by 

noon on the following day.” 

In August 2011 the percentage of the 

results relating to custodial elements 

confirmed and entered on Causeway on 

the same day was 98.6% and by the end 

of the next business day 100% 27 . 

The Causeway CRV is 

normally up to date within a 

day. In the old manual system 

it could have been several 

weeks before sentencing 

information was updated 

on central records and 

made available to those that 

required it. This has made a 

considerable difference for 

criminal justice organisations 

that use this information as 

an important element of their 

decision making. 

Gary Archibald 

Causeway Business Manager 

2.14 During my stakeholder interviews 

with criminal justice organisations the 

support for Causeway was unanimous. 

None of them would wish to return to 

previous methods which I was informed 

were less efficient and open to error. It is 

also interesting to note that Causeway has 

helped to highlight and seek resolution 

for business process issues that were not 

readily apparent when previous methods 

were in place. For example in the past 

issues arose due to inconsistent data held 

by different criminal justice organisations 

but this is now much less likely due to 

the central sharing of data. The shared 

ownership and management responsibilities 

have assisted the timely and effective 

transmission of criminal records data 

between key organisations. There is now a 

‘single source of truth’ for decision-makers. 

Users of criminal record 

information 

2.15 Access to the criminal record data 

is not just restricted to the main criminal 

justice organisations responsible for 

delivering the Causeway solution. Any 

organisation which can prove a valid 

and legitimate business need to access 

criminal record information can apply 

for entry to the Criminal Record Viewer. 

However such entrance is tailored to 

reflect legitimate business entitlement 

and the business needs of each individual 

organisation based on legality, necessity 

and proportionality. 

40 

27 

Data provided by Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service 

41



2.16 Other users of the central records 

beyond the main Northern Ireland criminal 

justice organisations are AccessNI (for 

employment checks) and the Compensation 

Agency (for criminal injury and damage 

claims). In providing access for the Benefits 

Security Service of the Northern Ireland 

Social Services Agency (for benefit fraud 

investigation purposes) a portal has been 

developed which may be used to connect 

other Northern Ireland Civil Service 

Departments, if appropriate. 


I recommend that the Causeway 

Data Sharing Mechanism should 

continue to be the central system 

for maintaining, managing 

and sharing criminal records 

in Northern Ireland, and that 

investment in the system should 

be maintained to ensure it evolves 

to meet future requirements. 

2.22 In my report on the retention of 

criminal records I discussed the reasons 

why I believed it was important to retain 

information on the PNC and I consider 

that the positives would be exactly the 

same for the Northern Ireland CRV. For 

the purposes of public protection, there 

needs to be strong evidence available to 

assess and form a comprehensive view of 

what information is essential to retain and 

what is not. To make any recommendations 

regarding the deletion of CRV data I need to 

2.25 In Scotland there are plans to review 

the age of deletion (currently 70 yrs) in 

recognition that the average age of the 

population is increasing. For example, 

volunteers working with children could 

be from that age range which means that 

information previously held on them could 

be of value for safeguarding. I understand 

that the Netherlands are also looking at 

their arrangements for similar reasons. 

Looking at the different approaches 

adopted by the 26 countries I reviewed 

2.17 Outside Northern Ireland access 

is available to Disclosure Scotland - an 

agency with responsibilities similar to 

AccessNI and a time-bound link has 

been provided to the UK Borders Agency 

Watchlist and the Information Control 

Unit for Olympic accreditation purposes. 

Recently a link to the Defence Business 

Services: National Security Vetting (DBS: 

NSV) has been completed. 

2.18 After speaking with Causeway 

stakeholders I have concluded that the 

Causeway Data Sharing Mechanism is 

a key element of the Northern Ireland 

Criminal Justice System and within the 

United Kingdom unique to Northern 

Ireland. The Criminal Record Viewer (CRV) 

is an important part of the mechanism 

that permits efficient and effective access 

to information on an offender’s criminal 

record history. This access is well managed 

and controlled so that only those that 

have a legitimate right can gain entry to 

the information. I believe that it is vitally 

important that the benefits and future 

opportunities of having such a system as 

Causeway should be fully recognised. 

How long should a criminal 

record be retained? 

2.19 I have found that currently there is no 

retention policy for criminal records held on 

the CRV in Northern Ireland. This means 

that currently criminal histories are retained 

forever on record in Northern Ireland, 

without any likelihood of deletion. 

2.20 In my previous report for the UK 

Government “A Balanced Approach” I 

investigated this matter in an England and 

Wales context. I recommended that criminal 

record information on an individual that is 

held on the PNC is stored for one hundred 

years from their date of birth. Government 

in their response to my report endorsed 

this approach. 

2.21 The Court of Appeal in England 

and Wales recognised the value of this 

information to the police in conducting their 

statutory and common law responsibilities. 

In particular, they recognise that this 

information is an important part of police 

investigations and can be vital in certain 

circumstances. For example, information 

held on the PNC and the Northern Ireland 

Criminal Record Viewer (CRV) can be useful 

in detecting and solving historic cases, 

such as rape, where there is no forensic 

evidence available. 

be assured that any deletion did not have 

an adverse effect on public protection. 

2.23 In looking at this issue previously 

and gathering evidence, I considered 

criminal record retention in other European 

jurisdictions to assess whether there is 

a consistent approach or policy that is 

commonly used or adopted. I noticed that 

in some countries, all criminal records 

are retained until the offender reaches a 

particular age. In others, criminal records 

are expunged automatically after a set 

period of time or may be expunged after a 

period of time depending on the length of 

the original sentence imposed. 

2.24 Where they are expunged, the rules 

governing what and when vary significantly. 

The differences between countries 

occur for a number of reasons, such as 

legislation, types of offences, governance, 

IT infrastructure etc. However, one of the 

noticeable elements of those that do delete 

full criminal records is the age at which 

they choose to do this. The age appears 

to range between 80-100 years from a 

person’s date of birth. This highlights that 

they are retaining the information for a 

considerable period of time, in a similar 

manner to the approach taken in England 

and Wales. 

there is little consistency between them 

in terms of the duration that information 

is held. Therefore, there is no specific 

retention period in this context that 

can be identified and recommended for 

Northern Ireland. 

2.26 The Court of Appeal judgment 

on 15 October 2009 28 was based on 

consideration of information, evidence 

and statements from a range of sources in 

relation to PNC retention and safeguarding. 

Without any further clear evidence to the 

contrary I have concluded, on balance, that 

it is sensible to take the lead from the steer 

delivered by the Court of Appeal. 

2.27 I believe the rule on how long a 

record is kept should be simple and easily 

understood. The main options are a period 

from the first conviction or a period from the 

offender’s date of birth. 

2.28 In light of this judgment and my 

previous report, the Association of Chief 

Police Officers (ACPO) for England and 

Wales has decided to retain criminal record 

data on the PNC for one hundred years 

from the subject’s date of birth. I agree with 

this view and I see no reason for Northern 

Ireland not to be consistent with England 

and Wales in this regard. 

42 

28 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1079 

43



“ 

“ 

If we get the disclosure 

framework right, then how 

long a criminal record is 

kept/retained is of less 

significance and ceases to 

be a ‘Civil Liberties’ issue. 

Paula Jack 

Youth Justice Agency 

Information needs to be 

retained for a lengthy period. 

There can be significant 

gaps between re-offending, 

particularly in relation to sex 

offences. 100 years would 

appear suitable. 

Terry Doherty 

Probation Board for Northern Ireland 

2.30 There is also limited research and 

analysis that can be drawn upon which looks 

at the impact of differing retention periods on 

public protection arrangements. In looking to 

the future, in particular with the current debate 

on DNA retention, Governments may wish 

to commission research in this area. It may 

be decided that if Governments state that 

certain DNA material is to be deleted, then so 

should any corresponding criminal information 

attached to that biometric information so 

one is truly deleting information. It may 

also be considered appropriate to consider 

different time limits for information that does 

not result in any action i.e. if an individual is 

arrested but there is no further action, one 

would question why it was proportionate to 

retain that information for the lifetime of that 

person. I do not believe it would be, and 

so perhaps this further subset of criminal 

information that is not part of a criminal record 

should be considered for deletion at a more 

appropriate time limit in accordance with 

MOPI (Management of Police Information) and 

in accordance with retention requirements set 

out by the Information Commissioners’ Office. 

The link to UK central records 

– Police National Computer 

2.32 During my consideration of the 

management of Northern Ireland criminal 

records I was surprised to learn that unlike 

the remainder of the United Kingdom there 

is no process to permit the routine updating 

of all Recordable offences from the CRV to 

the Police National Computer (PNC). I was 

informed that a manual process is currently 

in place to ensure that a substantial set 

of the most serious offences (specified 

offences) are passed to PNC by PSNI. 

The situation is different in Scotland where 

there is already a substantial degree of 

integration of Scottish criminal records 

onto the PNC, with data relating to offences 

that are recordable in England and Wales 

being uploaded. 

2.33 There is a considerable public 

protection risk primarily for England and 

Wales of not maintaining a comprehensive 

central record of all criminal offenders, 

which is updated regularly and which all UK 

police jurisdictions can effectively access. 

2.34 It was brought to my attention that Sir 

Ian Magee 29 raised this issue in his report 

three years ago and it was also highlighted 

in a recent HMIC 30 report. I understand that 

a technical solution for the problem has 

been designed. While I have been working 

on this report I am aware that following 

discussions between PSNI, Department of 

Justice and the Home Office agreement 

has been reached on funding for the 

necessary changes to be implemented to 

transfer the required information to the PNC 

as soon as practical. I understand that work 

has now started to provide the link. 

2.35 I welcome this as it is vital for wider 

public protection across the UK that 

the jurisdictions of England and Wales, 

Scotland and Northern Ireland have the 

means to effectively exchange criminal 

record data in the future. This positive 

development also includes the uploading 

of fingerprints from Northern Ireland to the 

national IDENT1 database. The fingerprint 

data will help to ensure the identity of 

the individual relating to each record is 

accurate and can be authenticated. 

2.31 In summary I agree with the principle of 

2.29 A few organisations that I have 

consulted with are not keen on retaining 

an individual’s criminal record, being securely 

retained during their life-time. 

all the data for such a long period as they 

believe it raises questions on proportionality 


- particularly for minor offences. However, 

I consider that serious issues would arise if 

all of the information about an individual is 

not available to the criminal justice system 


I recommend that an individual’s 

I welcome the agreement reached with the Home Office concerning 

the routine updating of the Police National Computer with all Northern 

Ireland criminal records and recommend that the new mechanism should 

for investigation of crime, future sentencing, 

probation or parole purposes. Clearly the 

key is tight control on the access to the 

data and ensuring it is only disclosed as 

appropriate to the situation. 

criminal record should be retained 

within the Northern Ireland Criminal 

Justice System for 100 years from 

the date of the subject’s birth. 

be implemented as soon as practicable. 

44 

29 

Review of Criminality Information; Sir Ian Magee 2008; Home Office; www.homeoffice.gov.uk 

30 

HMIC – Inspection of Police Service of Northern Ireland (Feb 2011) – Recommendation 2 

45



Co-operation with the 

Republic of Ireland 

2.36 Given the land border with the 

Republic of Ireland it is important that the 

Police Service of Northern Ireland and 

An Garda Síochána continue to enjoy a 

positive working relationship to manage 

the risk posed by individuals with criminal 

intent who operate close to the border 

or use it to their criminal advantage. As 

raised in my Part One report I understand 

that there is no statutory provision in the 

Republic of Ireland to permit the disclosure 

of any information other than convictions 

for employment purposes. 

2.37 However, I have been extremely 

encouraged by feedback received from 

consultees who confirmed with me that the 

current system works well and is extremely 

beneficial for participants. Although 

they consider that enhancement of the 

information shared would be a positive 


outcome they were keen to stress that work 

to achieve this should not put at jeopardy 

what already is in place. 

2.38 I have been informed that a recent 

review of current policy has led to a 

determination by the Republic of Ireland 

to make appropriate legislative changes to 

permit additional information to be shared 

between both jurisdictions. I have also 

been made aware that officials in Northern 

Ireland are considering how best to deal 

with updating the information available from 

the Republic of Ireland. 

2.39 This is obviously an important 

and delicate issue and I would urge the 

Department of Justice in Northern Ireland 

to work closely with its counterparts in 

the Republic of Ireland to provide the best 

possible protection for vulnerable groups 

in both jurisdictions, accepting that what 

more can be done may be limited in the 

current circumstances. 

I welcome the current collaborative arrangements for sharing of 

individual criminal record information between police services in 

the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I recommend that 

these arrangements should be appropriately enhanced to aid public 

protection for both jurisdictions. 

Sharing criminal records within 

the European Union (EU) 

2.40 Currently the development of policy 

for the management and sharing of criminal 

records within the European Union is a 

Reserved matter and the responsibility of the 

Home Secretary. I have recently undertaken 

a review into how effective is the integration 

of overseas data into the criminal records 

regime in England and Wales. The outcome 

of my consideration of this matter can be 

found in my report “A Common Sense 

Approach – Report on Phase 2” which was 

published in December 2011 31 . 

2.41 In the light of the work that has 

already been completed and the issues 

that have been flagged up by the various 

agencies involved, I have recommended 

that the UK Government would benefit from 

commissioning a refresh of the international 

strategy that was produced following the 

Magee Review 32 and the Home Secretary 

has asked me to do some further work in 

this area. 

2.42 This should focus effort and resources 

on those areas that are the highest priority 

for Ministers and also those most likely 

to make progress (bearing in mind recent 

experiences of trying to take this agenda 

forward). I have also highlighted a number 

of areas that have been brought to my 

attention during the consultation which I 

feel are worthy of further consideration in 

defining a strategy for the future. 

2.43 I have highlighted that the UK 

Government will need to consider how it 

can more clearly articulate its international 

strategy, co-ordinate the effort across 

departments and agencies, and drive 

forward delivery of that agenda with the 

resources it has. 

2.44 I have also recommended that in 

looking at this area it is worth remembering 

that Ministers will need to work closely with 

their colleagues in Scotland and Northern 

Ireland to ensure that the strategy also 

works for, and takes account of the needs 

of, the different criminal records regimes in 

those jurisdictions. 

2.45 I have summarised below the package 

of recommendations that I have made and 

which UK Ministers have asked me to look 

into further with a view to refreshing the 

cross-Government strategy for improving 

the international exchange of criminal 

records. This will include consideration of 

the following elements: 

(i) ensuring the transfer of fingerprint 

records with criminal records as often as 

possible (particularly with EU countries); 

(ii) ensuring greater levels of notification of 

criminal offences committed by British 

citizens outside the EU; 

(iii) looking at whether more can be done to 

prevent the entry of foreign nationals 

who have committed serious offences 

abroad and who present a serious risk to 

public protection; 

46 

31 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/criminal -records-review-phase 2 

32 

Review of Criminality Information; Sir Ian Magee 2008; Home Office; www.homeoffice.gov.uk 

47


(iv) seeking agreements to allow the Criminal 

Records Bureau (CRB) to obtain criminal 

records from a person’s country of 

nationality where the applicant and 

employer request this as part of the CRB 

disclosure process and where adequate 

safeguards can be put in place; 

(v) developing a coherent and consistent 

cross-government policy setting out 

the circumstances in which foreign 

governments should be told about 

the convictions of their nationals and 

ensuring that all UK agencies adhere 

to it; 

2.46 In response to these recommendations 

the UK Government in England and Wales 

has asked me to lead some further work 

in developing the strategy for international 

criminal record exchange. I would therefore 

be able and willing to look at the issue of 

Northern Ireland in the broader UK aspects 

of this work and liaise and consult with those 

in the Department of Justice in Northern 

Ireland if invited to do so. 

Chapter 3 

Access to 

Criminal Records 

(vi) allowing British residents to obtain 

a standard CRB certificate when 

applying for a post abroad that would 

be excepted from the Rehabilitation of 

Offenders Act if it was in the UK, and to 

a check of the barred list where it would 

have amounted to regulated activity; and 

(vii) ensuring that existing and developing 

initiatives in this area are adequately 

resourced (recommendation 10). 

48


Chapter 3 

Access to Criminal Records 

3.1 I have examined the current controls that 

are in place to protect the criminal record data 

in Northern Ireland and also considered how 

to improve the process for an individual to 

challenge information held about them. 

3.2 The following organisations or business 

areas currently have access to the Causeway 

Criminal Record Viewer for defined purposes: 

Organisation 

Police Service of Northern Ireland 

Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland 

Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service 

Northern Ireland Prison Service 

Access Northern Ireland 


Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland 

Compensation Agency for Northern Ireland 

Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern 

Ireland 

Department of Justice Northern Ireland 

Disclosure Scotland 

United Kingdom Central Authority for the 

Exchange of Criminal Records 

Social Security Agency – Benefits 

Investigation Service 

Northern Ireland Office – Security and Legacy 

Group 

National Security Vetting: Defence Business 

Services (formerly Defence Vetting Agency) 

United Kingdom Borders Agency (Warnings 

Index Control Unit) 

Who should have access and 

for what purposes? 

3.3 Criminal records contain sensitive 

personal information and it is clearly important 

for public confidence that the access to this 

information is tightly controlled. Also those 

organisations granted access should be clear 

about their own responsibilities to protect the 

data and be knowledgeable about how to 

interpret the data that is available. To ensure 

this is managed, Causeway has devised a 

Data Sharing Protocol, described in more 

detail below, which organisations must accept 

and fully comply with before access 

is granted. 

3.4 In Northern Ireland direct electronic 

access to criminal records is possible via 

the Causeway system provided a set of 

criteria and controlling procedures are met. 

Alternatively organisations with a valid need 

to view criminal record material may request 

and obtain reports of data on a regular basis 

again via the Causeway system. 

Governance of access to 

Causeway data 

3.5 All applications for access are considered 

in relation to the legitimacy, necessity 

and proportionality of the request and if 

appropriate, approved firstly by the Causeway 

Joint Information Management Group. 

This group has representatives from all the 

criminal justice organisations participating 

in Causeway. Endorsement at this level is 

required before applications are presented 

to the Causeway Management Board for 

final approval. Only then will access to the 

information be provided. 

51



“ 

3.6 As mentioned in Chapter 2, the key 

criminal justice organisations in Northern 

Ireland are directly involved in Causeway 

and hence they have controlled access as 

part of the management structures in place. 

3.7 All other organisations must fully 

demonstrate that they have a necessary 

business requirement that is legitimate, 

proportional and necessary, to access 

Causeway information. Some like AccessNI 

are provided with the access under Part 

V of the Police Act 1997, which allows 

for the provision of access to records for 

disclosure purposes. 

Stringent controls on staff 

access for juror checks 

minimise the risk of misuse 

of criminal record information 

in the NICTS. 

Jacqui Durkin 

NI Courts and Tribunals Service 

1. Code of connection 

3.9 The information in the Code of 

Connection provides assurance that the 

IT systems used to exchange / store the 

information meet the security standards 

expected for ‘Restricted’ data. Also it 

requires that officials handling the data are 

security cleared to at least basic clearance 

(or its vetting equivalent) and have received 

the appropriate training to meet their data 

protection responsibilities. 

2. Data sharing protocol 

3.10 The Data Sharing Protocol addresses 

responsibilities in particular in relation to the 

disclosure of criminal record information 

from Causeway to other parties. It 

maintains strict controls on the purposes 

for which the information is used and with 

whom information is shared. 

3.11 It also mandates audit processes 

to provide assurance that checks are 

authorised and carried out in accordance 

with approved purposes. 

3. Service level agreement 

3.13 Regular audit checks are carried out on Causeway to provide additional assurance that 

the above controls are effective and any area of concern can be quickly acted on. 

3.14 I was pleased to see how much progress has been made due to the measures already in 

place to control access to criminal records in Northern Ireland. However, I make the following 

two recommendations to reinforce the importance of ensuring that a focus is maintained on 

this important area. 


I recommend that access to Northern Ireland criminal record data should 

continue to be strictly controlled and that it should only be provided to 

United Kingdom criminal justice and related government organisations 

that have a legal, necessary, valid and legitimate business need for 

access to fulfil their statutory duties. The access provided should be 

proportionate to the statutory duties that are required to be fulfilled. 


I recommend that any organisations that are provided access to the 

Northern Ireland criminal record data, now or in the future, must continue 

to maintain an auditable record of every record accessed and the 

purpose for such access. 

3.12 A Service Level Agreement defines the 

Assurances by providers / 

users of criminal record data 

3.8 The Data Protection Act 1998, the 

Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom 

of Information Act 2000 put statutory 

responsibilities on the chief officers and 

statutory office holders of organisations in 

relation to information processed by that 

organisation. Causeway uses three specific 

methods to provide assurance that all 

parties have fully considered and signified 

their responsibilities under the respective 

range of services to be provided including 

the hours the services are required, the 

service availability and costs. It provides 

details of agreed support arrangements 

setting out customer and supplier 

responsibilities, service reporting and 

reviewing arrangements and in the event 

of a break in services, IT service continuity 

and security arrangements. Each Service 

Level Agreement is tailored to reflect 

arrangements for the individual organisation 

which provides / uses Causeway data 

What capacity should individuals have to access and challenge 

their own criminal records? 

3.15 It is also important for public confidence that records held about individuals are correct 

and that a clear process exists to access and challenge the data if required. As I mentioned 

in the Part One report of my review 33 , it is re-assuring that the evidence suggests a low-error 

level in Northern Ireland. In the 2010/11 business year the number of complaints raised to 

AccessNI was 319 from over 127,000 applications received. Of these cases only 97 resulted 

in the amendment or removal of data from the PSNI record which is less than 0.08 % of total 

applications. AccessNI explain on each certificate the process for challenging information 

contained within it and this is replicated on its web site. 

laws before access to criminal record data 

is allowed. These methods are: 

52 

33 


53



“ 

There is no clarity on how 

the criminal record can 

be challenged. Proper 

guidance is required. 

Marcella McKnight 

3.18 Should PSNI Criminal Records 

Office (CRO) find possible discrepancies 

in the results, CRO examines ICOS. If a 

discrepancy is on ICOS, CRO requests 

NICTS to investigate the issue. If the 

alleged discrepancy is between ICOS and 

CRV, Causeway is requested to make an 

3.21 A Service Level Agreement between 

PSNI and AccessNI confirms that 

PSNI is responsible for considering the 

accuracy, relevance and disclosure of the 

criminal history information. PSNI is also 

responsible for dealing with any disputes 

about the accuracy of any records held on 

3.24 In a dispute not involving a disclosure 

certificate the complainant would usually 

contact the CRO directly. However on 

these occasions the disputed record may 

not be the responsibility of PSNI, but the 

Causeway family. PSNI are merely the 

conduit for challenges of this type. 

Compensation Agency 

3.16 However, it was made clear to me 

by those I consulted that they believe 

the process should be made more open, 

transparent and easier for those who wish 

to challenge the information. The general 

guidance on the criminal records regime, 

which is discussed fully in the next chapter, 

should deal with the matter of viewing and 

challenging an individual’s personal record. 

3.17 Before one can understand how to 

access and challenge their criminal record I 

think that it is helpful to explain the process 

of how criminal records are compiled and 

managed in Northern Ireland: 

• Firstly Court decisions are put on the 

Integrated Courts Office System (ICOS) by 

the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals 

Service (NICTS); 

• ICOS automatically populates the Criminal 

Record Database in approximately 24 

hours; and 

• details held by NICTS on ICOS are 

considered to be the primary reference 

when considering complaints. 

amendment on the instructions of NICTS or 

PSNI, as appropriate. 

3.19 I have been told by PSNI that most 

challenges/disputes result from the issue 

of a disclosure certificate by AccessNI and 

usually these are concerned with a challenge: 

• that conviction information is incorrect; or 

• about the identity of the individual to 

whom the record belongs. 

Most disputes relate to Enhanced Disclosure 

Certificates (EDCs). 

3.20 As AccessNI is the issuing body, 

most disputes are initially processed by it 

regardless of the nature of the complaint 

or where the alleged error has occurred. 

However, PSNI do receive a number of 

these from complainants’ representatives. 

A standard letter to the applicant is issued 

informing them that the matter has been 

passed to the CRO for investigation. 

The CRO is required to adhere to a strict 

timetable for resolution. I have been told that 

currently 95% of disputes are resolved within 

21 days; 99% within 25 days and 100% 

within 60 days. 

the CRV for data entered pre-Causeway 

DSM1 and for managing disputes post 

Causeway DSM1 or any records PSNI 

creates on the Police National Computer. 

However, responsibility for actually 

amending information on CRV as a result of 

PSNI review falls to Causeway to action. 

3.22 A system exists that examines 

whether records are correctly recorded 

and held against the individual concerned 

and this is managed by the police. If 

the complaint is upheld, CRO establish 

an appropriate resolution for example 

informing the applicant that: 

• fingerprints are required to resolve an 

identity dispute; 

• an error has occurred and information 

provided is in the process of being 

rectified (in which case CRO would 

request AccessNI to issue a new 

certificate); or 

• after thorough investigation the disputed 

information has been found to be 

accurate. 

3.23 A dispute/challenge of the retained 

criminal record may also arise as the result 

of a subject access check following receipt 

of conviction history information along with 

court summons/charge sheets or through 

an application for a visa. 

3.25 One route for an individual in Northern 

Ireland to access their criminal record is to 

request a basic check through AccessNI as 

this provides a list of ‘unspent’ convictions. 

However, it will not contain any police 

information so an individual may not receive 

a list of everything that could be disclosed 

about them. This remains an option for 

an individual wishing to obtain information 

for the purposes of applying for routine 

types of employment and occupations 

which are not prescribed. The natural route 

to challenge the details is then through 

AccessNI which will liaise with the PSNI 

Criminal Records Office on the individual’s 

behalf as set out above. 

3.26 In addition, the Data Protection Act 

provides for ‘subject access’ that gives 

individuals who are the subject of personal 

data a general right of access to the data 

that relates to them. A ‘subject access’ 

check from PSNI provides all and any 

information held by the police about an 

individual. The subject access check may 

well reveal information that would not 

otherwise be disclosed, for example, to 

a potential employer. There are controls 

around how this can be used. I understand 

that the police will not provide subject 

access information if they believe that an 

employer has requested an individual to 

seek a subject access check as part of a 

pre-employment check. 

54 

55


3.27 However in all my consultations and research it was reported to me that there is still 

some confusion as to how exactly details contained on a disclosed criminal record might be 

disputed. PSNI provided me with clear details of the current process undertaken to resolve 

disputes and I have also been made aware that AccessNI highlights on its website and 

certificates that it produces for applicants how someone should appeal if they consider that the 

information disclosed about them is inaccurate. 

Chapter 4 

Figure 5 - Information provided by AccessNI 

Guidance on 

Criminal Records 

The information on my disclosure certificate is wrong - what should I do? 

If an applicant believes information disclosed about them is inaccurate, they 

should contact their Registered Body (RB), in the case of a Standard or Enhanced 

Disclosure Certificate, and ask them to raise a dispute with us in writing. If the 

dispute involves information on a Basic Disclosure Certificate, applicants can write 

directly to AccessNI with their concerns. 

3.28 It is clear to me that a robust system in Northern Ireland does exist to allow individuals 

to challenge perceived inaccurate information contained within their criminal record. 

3.29 The process is effectively co-ordinated and managed by PSNI on behalf of all the 

criminal justice organisations in Northern Ireland that input to the criminal record information 

that is disclosed. 

3.30 However, I consider that it would be helpful if more details about the process that is 

undertaken were to be publicised on appropriate criminal justice organisations’ websites and 

by other means. This would ensure that there is more clarity for an individual and the public 

on how to challenge perceived inaccurate information held about them and the process that is 

undertaken to resolve any issues that arise. 


I recommend that the Department of Justice, in collaboration with 

other criminal justice organisations, should more clearly publicise the 

process for individuals to challenge perceived inaccurate information 

contained within their criminal record to ensure that erroneous 

information is corrected. 

56


Chapter 4 

Guidance on Criminal Records 

4.1 I considered the area of guidance in 

relation to employment checking in my 

Part One report 34 but there is also the wider 

context of the whole criminal records regime. 

The public need easy access to information 

that will inform them what a criminal record 

will contain and how it will be managed in 

Northern Ireland. It is also important for an 

individual to understand what such a record 

should contain and that in seeking to create a 

definition I am not attempting to widen what 

is included, but to clarify what is or is not 

included. 

4.2 I believe that it is what is disclosed 

and to whom and for what purpose that is 

relevant to the issue of guidance on criminal 

record information. 

4.3 This review has indicated that guidance 

and available information could be vastly 

improved to clarify the Northern Ireland 

Criminal Records Regime for those who 

use it or are affected by it. As previously 

“ 

stated I found little evidence of accessible 

information about criminal records on any 

criminal justice organisations’ or Northern 

Ireland Government web sites. 

4.4 In particular, I consider that there is a need 

for the public to be clear on when an individual 

will have a criminal record, what it will contain 

and what they can do if they believe the 

information is incorrect. Equally it is important 

to be clear on what is not in a criminal record 

and to dispel the “myths” around what is 

known as police information. More detailed 

guidance about what police information 

contains how it is used and how it is deemed 

to be relevant should all be provided. 

Information resource 

4.5 There needs to be a clear set of 

information available about the Northern 

Ireland criminal records regime which 

interested parties can get ready access 

to when required. This information should 

be comprehensive and suitable for both 

criminal justice organisations and individuals 

interacting with them. Although the criminal 

justice organisations generally all have a 

considerable volume of information available 

there is a risk that key facts such as who 

should have access to it and how long it 

should be held for, cannot easily be located. 

Hence there is a danger that consistent 

advice will not be given in all circumstances. A 

joined-up approach is in my view the best way 

forward and so all key stakeholders should 

be invited to input into developing clear and 

consistent advice that they can then tailor to 

their own specifications and audience. 

There is a need for clear 

articulation on the content 

and uses of criminal record 

information. The responsibility 

on organisations to inform the 

public grows as the criminal 

record information is put to 

greater use. 

Raymond Kitson, (former Senior 

Assistant Director) 


34 


59


“ 

We need criminal record 

guidance which is 

understandable and tailored 

for its audience; often the 

needs of young people 

are overlooked. 

Paula Jack 

Youth Justice Agency 

may lead an individual to believe that these 

disposals will never form part of a criminal 

record or be disclosed. 

4.8 I believe that the leap forward in IT over 

the last few years is one of the best ways 

of providing clear and tailored guidance, so 

for example downloadable video clips with 

someone talking through the issues rather 

than vast quantities of written material 

may be much more beneficial. One could 

access such information from smartphones 

Conclusion 

4.6 There also need to be arrangements 

in place within the criminal justice system 

whereby information is provided to those 

affected by the criminal records regime at 

key points in the process. This information 

needs to clearly explain the terminology and 

the implications of each action. 

as well as computers and so reach a 

wider audience. Question and Answer 

type guidance can also be helpful. As I 

suggested in my Part One report AccessNI 

should be resourced to provide a one-stop 

shop for guidance about disclosure in 

employment matters. PSNI also need to be 

more accessible. There is no point in stating 

4.7 An individual will wish to know exactly 

what is held on a criminal record and how 

long it is retained, who can have access 

to the information and for what purposes, 

how they can receive access to what is held 

about them and how they can challenge it 

if they believe it is incorrect. This is where 

tailored guidance can be particularly useful. 

For example guidance for young people 

needs to be clear and explained correctly 

that a procedure exists for challenging 

criminal record information if this cannot be 

found on its website or anywhere else and 

once it is available, it too should be clear 

and consistent. For example, it should state 

which department one should contact, how 

long it can take to resolve disputes, what 

are the options for correcting information 

and what happens if a dispute cannot be 

resolved etc. 

e.g. the different periods for stepping down 

and the specific details around the use of 

Diversionary Youth Conferences. PSNI has 

developed a leaflet called ‘Youth Diversion’, 

which is given out to young people to 

explain some of these differences. Whilst 

this is a step in the right direction I believe 

that it is still confusing in some parts and 

4.9 It should be clear from this report 

just how complex the criminal record 

landscape is in Northern Ireland and so 

a great deal of care and attention should 

be given to getting the issue of guidance 

correct. Simplification where possible 

should be a priority so that awareness and 

understanding can increase. 


60 

I recommend that comprehensive and easily understood guidance 

is developed and tailored for individuals to fully explain the criminal 

record management process.


Conclusion 

An overview of this report 

Ensuring the correct standards for delivering public protection has been a priority 

for this review. 

In Northern Ireland I have been impressed with the Causeway system for sharing 

criminal record information swiftly, accurately and cost effectively. The system 

is the first of its kind in the UK and much can be learnt from its benefits to the 

criminal justice system. 

In seeking to review recordable and non-recordable offences I believe that 

offences that are recorded should reflect public protection concerns and I am 

worried that they currently do not. The public would expect certain conviction 

information to be made available when an Enhanced check is requested and 

sensible and pragmatic decisions ought to be made. Conversely information 

which is currently classed as recordable and disclosed but need not be ought to 

be re-classified as non-recordable. 

In seeking to obtain a working definition of a criminal record I am not attempting 

to widen the definition but to refine what is included and therefore what an 

individual can expect to find, understand what can be disclosed and any 

challenge they have to this, and finally to understand what retention policy is 

applied. The link to exchange criminal information with the rest of Europe to 

protect the public is also at the heart of this recommendation. 

I have used the wide consultation that I have undertaken in this review as well 

as the on-line responses and the experience of my previous reviews to make 

recommendations that I trust will be considered pragmatic and beneficial for 

Northern Ireland. 

As always I have tried to keep in mind the balancing act that needs to be 

maintained for those whom the system can defeat and stigmatise for life and 

ought to be given a chance to escape this, with the issue of maintaining a robust 

public protection system and considering the impact and needs of victims who 

can get lost in the system by not being considered. 

63


Conclusion (cont’d) 

Annexes 

My review suggests areas for further consideration and refinements to 

the current system that will make it simpler to operate and easier for all to 

understand. I also hope the recommendations will form the basis to guide 

future strategic decisions for the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice System. 

I have met with a range of people during the course of my work in 

Northern Ireland. I am grateful to them for their time and input as they have 

helped me to formulate my views, test these out and bring to the fore the 

differences between the criminal record system in Northern Ireland and that 

in England and Wales. Hence I have been able to concentrate on what is 

particularly relevant to progress in this jurisdiction. 

I value the input I have been given and trust my report reflects the views 

submitted to me in an eloquent and fair manner. I hope that the readers 

will find that my recommendations make this complex area easier to 

understand and implement in the future as well as maintaining a high 

standard of public protection. 

In summary I believe that my recommendations will maintain public 

protection and improve transparency thereby increasing understanding of 

the management of criminal records in Northern Ireland. 

64

Annex A 

Terms of Reference - Part 2 of the Review of 

the Criminal Record Regime in Northern Ireland 

The Review will also look at how criminal records are currently managed in Northern 

Ireland and consider whether there are any improvements that could be made, 

specifically in relation to the following: 

• How should the content of a “criminal record” be defined? 

• Who should have access to criminal records databases, for what purposes and 

subject to what controls and checks? 

• To what extent should police intelligence be disclosed? 

• What capacity should individuals have to access, challenge and correct their own 

criminal records? 

• Could the administration of criminal records be improved? 

• Could guidance and information on the operation of the criminal records regime 

be improved? 

67

Annex B 

Summary of Recommendations 

Recommendations (cont’d) 


I recommend that a review of the offences categorised as recordable and non recordable is 

carried out as a priority. 


I recommend that an individual’s criminal record should be defined as all recordable criminal 

offences in respect of which an individual has been convicted or received a caution, informed 

warning or diversionary youth conference (which has not yet been stepped down). 


I recommend that the Causeway Data Sharing Mechanism should continue to be the central 

mechanism for maintaining, managing and sharing criminal records in Northern Ireland, and 

that investment in the system should be maintained to ensure it evolves to meet 

future requirements. 


I recommend that an individual’s criminal record should be retained within the Northern Ireland 

Criminal Justice System for 100 years from the date of the subject’s birth. 


I welcome the agreement reached with the Home Office concerning the routine updating of the 

Police National Computer with all Northern Ireland criminal records and recommend that the 

new mechanism should be implemented as soon as practicable. 


I recommend that access to Northern Ireland criminal record data should continue to be strictly 

controlled and that it should only be provided to United Kingdom criminal justice and related 

government organisations that have a legal, necessary, valid and legitimate business need 

for access to fulfil their statutory duties. The access provided should be proportionate to the 

statutory duties that are required to be fulfilled. 


I recommend that any organisations that are provided access to the Northern Ireland criminal 

record data, now or in the future, must continue to maintain an auditable record of every record 

accessed and the purpose for such access. 


I recommend that the Department of Justice, in collaboration with other criminal justice 

organisations, should more clearly publicise the process for individuals to challenge perceived 

inaccurate information contained within their criminal record to ensure that erroneous 

information is corrected. 


I recommend that comprehensive and easily understood guidance is developed and tailored 

for individuals to fully explain the criminal record management process. 


I welcome that the current collaborative arrangements for sharing of individual criminal 

record information between police services in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I 

recommend that these arrangements should be appropriately enhanced to aid the protection 

for both jurisdictions. 

68 

69

Annex C 

Face-to-Face Consultations 

Face-to-Face Consultations (cont’d) 

Steven Allison 

Department of Justice - Offender Recall Unit (now Public 

Protection Unit) 

Jacqui Durkin 

NI Courts and Tribunals Service - Head of Business 

Operations 

Gary Archibald 

Department of Justice, Causeway Business Manager 

Jaymes Faulkner 


Tom Beck 

Forensic Science Northern Ireland 

David Ford 

Minister of Justice, Northern Ireland 

Kate Bickerstaff 

AccessNI 

Sonny Gadvi 

Home Office Safeguarding and Public Protection Unit 

Gordon Buckley 


A/D/Superintendent Iain Hall 

Police Service of Northern Ireland - Criminal Justice 

Mairead Burns 


The Hon Mr Justice Hart 

Judge of the Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland 

Maura Campbell 

Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Development (now 

Access to Justice) - Deputy Director 

Al Hutchinson 

Police Ombudsman Northern Ireland 

Patricia Campbell 

Department of Justice - Statistics and Research Branch 

Paula Jack 

Youth Justice Agency - Chief Executive 

John Carron, 

David Cheesman 

Compensation Agency Northern Ireland - Head of Tariff 

Branch, 


Patricia Kerr 

Raymond Kitson 

AccessNI 

Public Prosecution Service – (former Senior Assistant 

Director) 

Wendy Chinn 

Department of Justice - Mentally Disordered Offenders Unit 

Olwen Laird 

Police Ombudsman’s Office - Corporate Services Director 

Tom Clarke 

AccessNI, General Manager 

Hadge Mayes 

Northern Ireland Prison Service, Life Sentence Unit 

Paul Cleland 

Police Service of Northern Ireland, Information Security Branch 

Arlene McAvoy 

Department of Justice - Statistics and Research Branch 

Sam Coates 

Police Service of Northern Ireland – Disclosure Unit Manager 

Shaun McCann 

AccessNI 

Catherine Corrigan 


Eilis McDaniel 

Department of Health and Social Services and Public Safety 

Garry Davies 

NI Prison Service - Head of Departmental Security Unit 

Marcella McKnight 

Compensation Agency Northern Ireland - Chief Executive 

Terry Doherty 

Probation Board for Northern Ireland - Assistant Director 

Brian McLoughlin 

Department of Justice - Legal Adviser 

Harry Donnelly 

Department of Justice, Causeway 

Superintendent Andrea 

McMullan 

Police Service of Northern Ireland - Criminal Justice 

Department 

70 

71

Annex D 

Face-to-face Consultations (cont’d) 

List of those responding to the on-line consultation 

Sally McNicholl 


(Respect Project) Farset Youth & Community Development ltd 

Gary Milling 

Carol Moore 

Max Murray 

Susan Nicholson 

Pamela Reid 

Pauline Robinson 

Simon Rogers 

Seth Spiers 

John Woodcock 

NI Prison Service - Causeway Business Change Manager 

Department of Justice, Criminal Justice (now Access to 

Justice) – (former) Director 

NI Prison Service - Director of Operations 

Department of Justice - Mentally Disordered Offenders Unit 

NI Courts and Tribunals Service - Causeway Programme 

Manager for NICTS 

Police Service of Northern Ireland, Information Security 

Branch 

Department of Justice, Protection and Organised Crime, 

Deputy Director 



A2B Driving Solutions Ltd 

Advanced Community Care 

Apex Housing Association 

Apple Recruitment Services 

ArdavonTrust 

ArjoHuntleigh 

Armagh and Dungannon Adolescent Partnership (a service working within 

Barnardo's NI) 

Armagh & Dungannon Voluntary Bureau 

Atlas 

Banbridge District Council 

Barnardo's 

Beeches Management Centre 

Belfast Bible College 

BHSCT 

Bsd training ltd 

BTCV 

Capita Business services (TV Licensing) 

72 

73

List of those responding to the on-line consultation (cont’d) 


Carrick YMCA 

Castleview Pnh Ltd. 

Catholic Guides Of Ireland 

CCMS 

Childrens Day Care Nursery Owner 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 

Clan Mor Sure Start 

Clareview Nursing Home 

Coleraine area Child Contact Centre 

Cornerstone City Fellowship 

Country Creche 

CPNI 

Crumlin Together 

Derry City Council 

Disability Action 

Driver and Vehicle Agency 

Driver Vehicle Agency Northern Ireland 

Early Years 

East Belfast Mission 

Electoral Office for NI 

ELLE ENTERPRISES (NI) LTD 

Extern 

FASA 

FGS McClure Watters 

Focus on Family 

Galaxy Coaching 

Glr na Mna 

Gras 

Housing Rights Service 

Kilcranny House 

LCF (UK) Ltd 

Limavady Volunteer Centre 

Lisburn YMCA 

Love for Life 

Maurice Flynn & Sonns Ltd 

Methodist Church in Ireland 

Mission Africa (The Qua Iboe Fellowship) 

Montessori 

74 

75



Independent Age 

Newtownabbey District Policing Partnership 

Newtownabbey Citizens Advice Bureau 

NI Hospice 

NI Prison Service 

NICHS 

North Down Community Network 

North West Regional College 

Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service 

Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission 

Omagh District Poliicng Partnership 

Open Arts 

Parents Advice Centre (NI) Ltd 

Portadown Independent Methodist Church 

PSNI 

Psychology, QUB 

Reed Specialist Recruitment 

Restore 

Riding for the Disabled Association 

Robins Nest Day Nursery 

Royal Mail Penny Black Charity Club 

Royal Yachting Association 

Scouting Ireland 

Silverdale Care Home 

Sion Mills bastist church 

South Eastern Education and Library Board 

Southern Health & Social Care Trust 

Southern Health and Social Care trust 

Springboard Opportunities Limited 

Springwell Centre 

St Mary's Youth Club 

The Beeches P&T Services Ltd 

The Utility Regulator 

TIDY Northern Ireland 

Ulster Gaelic Athletic Association (Ulster GAA) 

Ulster Supported Employment Ltd 

Ulster Youth Choir 

Volunteer Now 

76 

77

Annex E 


List of written responses received 

Western Health and Social Care Trust 

Children’s Law Centre 

Wheatfield House 

Children in Northern Ireland 

Wka Northern Ireland kickboxing 

NIACRO 

Youth Outreach 

Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner 

Youthnet 

Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations 

Zero-8-Teen 


A further 23 organisations responded to the on-line survey but asked not to be 

contacted as a consequence of this. We have therefore not listed their names above. 

64 respondents to the on-line survey did not leave any organisational details. 

78 

79

A Managed Approach - Department of Justice

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?