The ISA passed the issue on to the Home Office, and – as I previously reported – then there was silence, despite prompts from me. Silence too reigned when I contacted my Labour MP, Jeremy Corbyn, three times about the matter. Between them they didn’t even reply the once.

The ISA had the good grace to be embarrassed by this, and did respond (and in a positive way about the parts of the issue within their remit).

But post-election, and with a new ministerial team in place at the Home Office, I thought I’d try once again. And you know what? Bingo, a prompt and detailed reply – and one that lays out a position very different (and much better) from the one in the original guidance that I’d started off commenting on. With revised guidance being produced, it looks as if my original concerns are all being covered.

Good news.

Oh, and what was at the bottom of the reply? That original email from me to the Home Office which had gone unanswered for so long but clearly had safely reached them. Amazing what a change in ministers can do…

[I am concerned by] Paragraph 5.6.1 of “Guidance Notes for Barring Decision Marking Process”, which states in part:

“even where a jury has found someone not guilty of having done something, you must always remember that, at most, this means is that the court did not find that someone did something “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the criminal standard of proof).”

My concern is simply this. When a jury acquits it may do so for all sorts of reasons. One may be that it thinks someone was probably guilty, but not “beyond a reasonable doubt”. But another is that it has decided that there is no credible evidence at all for the case.

Imagine the situation where you have been framed for a criminal act, but the truth comes out in court, the jury is completely convinced that you are innocent and you are acquitted. Can you really, hand on heart, say that in such circumstances you would be quite happy for someone to say that all your acquittal means is that “at most all the court has done is decide you didn’t do it beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Wouldn’t you feel that use of “at most” greatly underplays how you have in fact been fully acquitted, without any doubts?

Sometimes people are wrongly charged and fully, without doubt, acquitted. It is a shame that your guidance is so reluctant to admit that.

Fair dos, the ISA spotted my post, is taking up the correspondence issue with the Home Office and (most importantly) sent me the following response from Sir Roger. It sounds promising about the ISA’s future attitudes towards innocence meaning innocence:

Can I firstly personally apologise for the delay in replying to your email. I am conscious that the ‘why and wherefores’ of the reasons for the delay will be of no interest to you suffice to say that as soon as I became aware of your concerns I have replied.

I think you raise a very valid point and thank you for doing so. The thinking behind our approach to court findings is to ensure where appropriate we consider ‘acquittals’ that may in fact have occurred when (for example) a vulnerable witness finds themselves unable or unwilling to give evidence in court. This is not an unusual occurrence for victims of the types of abuse that the ISA deals with and we think it right that in such cases we should at least consider the evidence available to the prosecution.

Equally, I cannot imagine circumstances where the ISA would take a different view to the court in the circumstances you describe. The court in such circumstance has been unequivocal on their finding of innocence.

In addition, I am sure you are aware that if we are ever considering barring a person then (by law) we have to share with them all the information on which we rely in order that they can make comment.

A decision to treat an acquittal differently (to that of the court) would only be taken in very limited circumstances and always only after the case had been reviewed internally and at a senior level.

I take the point entirely about the wording in our caseworker guidance. We are currently reviewing sections of the guidance and I will ensure that your comments are ‘fed into’ that process.

I am grateful for you taking the time to contact me and am pleased that our decision to publicise our guidance notes is also helping us to ‘fine tune’ them.

There’s no doubt that the big issues around the ISA’s existence and method of operation are beyond the reach of an individual letter from A.N.Other member of the public, but as regular readers will know this is by no means the first time when a missive targeting an important matter of specific detail looks to have hit the mark.

I emailed Sir Roger Singleton [see letter here] on 14 September about my concerns with the way the Independent Safeguarding Authority’s guidelines state that if someone has been found innocent in a court of law that does not mean they could have been completely innocent. Particularly given the many issues about the ISA’s remit, this choice of wording in their own guidelines is one of obvious concern.

I heard nothing so I emailed again on 16 October. On 19 October I was told by the Vetting & Barring Scheme Information Team that the issue had been passed to the Home Office. Again, I heard nothing further so I got in touch on 27 November. On 1 December the team apologised for the delays and said they would raise it with the Home Office again. I have not heard anything since.

In summary: it is over four months since I first contacted Sir Roger Singleton and over three months since I was first told the issue was with the Home Office.

I have in fact written to my MP – Jeremy Corbyn – twice about this matter because the first letter, er…, didn’t receive a reply. Nice touch of irony

And as for the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Home Office, good thing it’s not as if either is a body that has to worry much about dealing with paperwork properly or that either’s workings have much of an impact on people’s lives. Oh, hang on…