UK court bindover - question on legality and CRB check?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tradinguk100
  • Start date Start date
T

tradinguk100

Guest
I was given a bindover in 1998 by bow street magistrate’s court. The circumstances of the case were I was arrested at a protest on suspicion of section 5 of the public order act (use of threatening, abusive, insulting words or behavior likely to cause harassment alarm or distress) and charged. I pleaded not guilty to this offence, and on the trial hearing date I was given the option to save a trial going ahead of being bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of 100 pounds. At the time my solicitor informed me this is not a criminal conviction, and in no way am I admitting liability to an offence. In light of this I accepted the bind over.

My question is will this bindover show up on a CRB check? I know convictions and cautions do, however I am not sure of the status of bindovers? I can understand a police caution showing up as to receive a caution you have to admit liability. In reference to the bindover I was not found guilty, nor did I plead guilty to any criminal offence, but merely agreed to "keep the peace for 12 months."

There is also the factor that cases in the European courts have cast doubts on the legality of binding an individual over to "keep the peace" Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 241, [2000] Crim. L.R. 185. Since this judgment court guidance states that:

"In light of the judgment in Hashman and Harrup, courts should no longer bind an individual over “to be of good behaviour”. Rather than binding an individual over to “keep the peace” in general terms, the court should identify the specific conduct or activity from which the individual must refrain"

I would be grateful if people could state what implications such court judgments would have upon my case? Also will the bindover I received show up on an enhanced CRB check? If it did show up on an enhanced CRB check could I argue that in light of the European court ruling it should not be disclosed as the basis on which the bindover was administered was unlawful because it "did not identify the specific conduct or activity from which the individual must refrain".
 
Back
Top