James Hammerton wrote:
> Yet more guilt by accusation in Britain. From the BBC
> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7389547.stm):
>
> "To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare.
>
> An online database of workers accused of theft and dishonesty,
> regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crime, which
> bosses can access when vetting potential employees.
>
> But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National
> Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.
>
> Organisers say that major companies including Harrods, Selfridges
> and Reed Managed Services have already signed up to the scheme. By
> the end of May they will be able to check whether candidates for
> jobs have faced allegations of stealing, forgery, fraud, damaging
> company property or causing a loss to their employers and suppliers.
>
> Workers sacked for these offences will be included on the register,
> regardless of whether police had enough evidence to convict them.
> Also on the list will be employees who resigned before they could
> face disciplinary proceedings at work.
>
> Note the vague "causing loss to their employers" bit of this.
>
> And who’s behind this? The AABC, a group set up under a partnership
> between the Home Office and the British Retail Consortium (i.e. a bit of
> corporate statism):
>
> The register is an initiative of Action Against Business Crime
> (AABC), which was established as a joint venture between the Home
> Office and the British Retail Consortium “to set up and maintain
> business crime reduction partnerships”.
>
> To be fair to the Home Office they say they stopped funding the AABC
> this year.
>
> I wonder whether AABC could be sued for libel by someone wrongly accused
> via this database?
They could be sued for libel (or slander, as the case may be) by someone
*correctly* accused, as long as the incident had been to court and was
old enough (and eligible for becomiing "spent"). The Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act contains provision for exactly that - a person with a
spent conviction can sue if that conviction is revealed without lawful
authority - and the operation of a private database is not such lawful
authority.
But this only applies to convictions. Tittle-tattle about suspicions is
only subject to the Data Protection Act. |