The High Court has just ruled that criminal record checks are 'arbitrary' and unlawful.

The challenge was by a woman trying to gain work as a teaching assistant. She argued that having to disclose her criminal record breached her right to privacy under article 8 of the Human Rights Act and it was disproportionate to have to declare convictions indefinitely. This was for a minor conviction in 1999. That is it in brief.

I now turn to the fact that organisations require declarations about previous financial problems to be made or credit checks to be carried out using multiple Sources. The Gazette records Trust Deeds for 100 years so any Agency paid to check credit files, will use Credit Reference Files, private databases and possibly the Gazette records This would highlight names recorded up to a certain period. Checking agencies who are paid are likely to use every means to ensure nothing comes back on them.

This is, in my view, unfair since not everyone has their name on the Gazette after recent changes, so it is not complete and balanced, and for me it is disproportionate to the problem, particularly since the AIB remove the name one year after the Trustee is discharged.

Previously, I challenged google on a similar subject and was successful, however, when I challenged The Gazette the response was very defensive, and I was advised it could not be changed; it was a matter of historical record for 100 years.

The effort and potential publicity this would have caused to use my MP, approach the Scottish Parliament and the cost of perhaps having to use a lawyer, on balance, persuaded me to dr#8203;op it, however, I did not forget it.

Now having seen this ruling in the High Court, I am considering whether to pursue the question - I believe it to be excessive recording and a breach of privacy to have this remain available to people for 100 years.

Anyone have any thoughts on this in light of the High Court Ruling?