This UK case might be of interest to those in Ireland working in occupations where care of children and vulnerable persons is paramount. The claimant in this case was a qualified teacher who, whilst working as a taxi driver some six or seven years ago, was accused, tried and acquitted of rape. He later applied for various teaching posts but was not successful. The main reason appears to have been that the 'enhanced criminal record certificate' (ECRC), required under the Police Act 1997, included reference to his acquittal for rape and, understandably, put prospective employers off employing the teacher. He appealed the decision to refer to the rape charges:

"There is no conviction. The jury rejected the complainant's evidence and the disclosure of the allegation is so prejudicial as to prevent me from being fairly considered for employment. Even if the disclosure of the allegation was possibly appropriate the disclosure fails to provide a full account of the evidence given and how the jury came to its conclusion. It is wrong, unfair and grossly prejudicial [that] I should have to defend myself every time I apply for employment after the jury have ruled I am an innocent man".

The police defended their decision on review, essentially on the ground that it was, given the seriousness of the charge and the employment sought, safer to refer to it, particularly as the different standards of proof in criminal and civil law made the allegation more likely to be true than not. They justified it thus:

" There was sufficient evidence for the CPS to authorise the applicant being charged with Rape, indicating that they believed there to be a realistic prospect of conviction. If the CPS had not believed the allegation, they would not have authorised the charge. This indicates that on the balance of probabilities the allegation was more likely to be true than false... Although the applicant was found not guilty by the jury, the test for criminal conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt, which is higher than that required for CRB disclosure purposes. Therefore the applicant's acquittal does not prove that he was innocent, or even that the jury thought he was innocent, just that he could not be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt."

The Court of Appeal has agreed with the police - they were justified in referring to the criminal trial faced by the claimant, notwithstanding he was acquitted. Giving the lead judgement, and rejecting the appeal, McCombe LJ said:

"Taken as a whole, it seems to me that the issue of the certificate did not undermine the appellant's acquittal. Nowhere is it said that he was in truth guilty of the offence. The purport of the certificate is to state the fact of the allegation and of the acquittal. It is no doubt implicit that this is an alert to the potential employer of those facts as to a possible risk to the vulnerable. However, that does not, to my mind, undermine the effect of the acquittal. The effect of the acquittal is that the jury was not satisfied, so that they were sure, that the appellant was guilty. The effect of indicating facts from which others may perceive a risk from a particular individual does not contradict the effect of that verdict."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/490.html