- Aim of this page
- Why is this important?
- Introduction
- Does it help people with convictions?
- Google’s system
- The Information Commissioners Office view
- Making an application to Google
- Reporting a concern to the Information Commissioners Office
- What will the ICO do?
- What can you do if Google refuse to remove a link and the ICO agree with them?
- Other ways of dealing with the Google effect
- Personal experiences
- Discuss this with others
- Useful links
- More information
Aim of this page
In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that individuals should be able to request the deletion or removal of personal data published online where there is no compelling reason for it to remain. This right to erasure is often referred to as ‘the right to be forgotten’.
This page sets out how to request the removal of online information and how you can appeal the decision if an online search engine refuses your request.
Why is this important?
Once your conviction is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, there is no legal obligation for you to disclose it when applying for the majority of jobs. However, information on the internet can stay around, long after a conviction becomes spent.
We’re aware that some employers will do ‘Google’ searches as a way of informally checking someone’s criminal record. If there are stories on the internet which relate to your conviction, an employer may be able to find out more about you than they are legally entitled to know.
If you’re aware of any links to your name on the internet and your conviction is spent, it’s definitely worth applying to have the links removed. If your application is successful, then you can be confident that any future employer or work colleague who searches for your name on the internet, won’t be able to find any information relating to your criminal record.
Introduction
In May 2014, Google launched a system whereby individuals can request information about them be removed from Google’s search results. This came about because of a ruling on the 13th May by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google’s search results infringed his privacy. The court found in his favour, which has already had wide-reaching consequences for search engines like Google.
The ruling only covers the removing of the search results – the information will still exist on the website that published the original article but Google won’t be able to deliver matches to some enquiries that are entered. Deletion of the original information would still be the responsibility of the website owner, and in our experience, it’s very rare that websites agree to remove details relating to convictions (see more in reporting of criminal records in the media).
Information will only disappear from searches made in Europe. Queries piped through its sites outside the EU will still show the relevant search results.
However, many people are still seeing the ruling as a potential way of dealing with the ‘google effect’ that often haunts people for lots of different reasons, and our Helpline and Forum have already seen this being raised by quite a few people when it comes to past convictions that have been reported online. So the important question for us is whether it will actually help people with convictions?
Does it help people with convictions?
Under the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ anyone in the UK and EU can make a request to Google (and other search engines) to have information about themselves removed. For the first time, this ruling and the Right to Erasure provides individuals with a legal mechanism through which news articles, images, videos and other digital content can be removed.
In 2022, Google delisted approximately 56% of the “right to be forgotten” requests it received. The percentage of successful requests varied depending on the type of information concerned:
- Criminal record information – 61% of requests were delisted.
- Professional wrongdoing and other professional information – less than half of requests were delisted.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in their “Court reporting: What to expect – Information for the public guidance”, have also made reference to the removal of links stating:
“If your convictions have been ‘spent’, you may have legal rights to have links to articles about these convictions to be removed from search engines. If you make a formal request to an internet search engine directly, they may remove these articles from search results.”
Google’s system
Google state that they always comply with their legal requirement to remove pages from Google search results and encourage individuals and authorities to contact them if they believe the continued publication of information violates the law.
Google summarises it’s approach as follows:
“We will balance the privacy rights of the individual concerned with the interest of the general public in having access to the information, as well as the right of others to distribute the information. For example, we may decline to remove certain information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials”.
From our point of view, we strongly believe that once a conviction is spent, this should be removed from the internet (on request). Otherwise, protections that are afforded under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are undermined.
It’s highly unlikely that Google will be willing to remove search results that relate to unspent criminal convictions.
The Information Commissioner’s Office view
Back in 2014, the ICO looked at what the ruling meant for people in the UK. In a blog post, a particular point they made was that;
“It is also important to remember that the exemption for journalism, art and literature under Schedule 2, part 5 (26) of the Data Protection Act 2018 can be applied by media organisations, bloggers and other publishers of information, depending on the circumstances. What this is not, then, is a full or absolute ‘right to be forgotten’.”
This casts doubt over to what extent Google (and others) will remove details such as convictions, where media organisations have claimed a legitimate exemption of the basis of journalism.
The Article 29 Working Party (which the ICO is part of) Guidelines on the implementation of the Courts judgement, gives a good indication as to how the ICO will treat complaints that it deals with. The ICO has also published their search result delisting criteria.
Making an application to Google
As part of Google’s current system, you have to do a couple of things.
Firstly, you have to provide the URL links for each link appearing in a Google search.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, you have to explain why the search result is “irrelevant, outdated, or otherwise inappropriate”. At the moment, the clearest argument is that your convictions are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and so in most cases, you can treat it as if it had never happened. You should look to put forward any other reasons why you think it meets the definition of “irrelevant, outdated or inappropriate”. Until we begin to see examples of what’s worked and what hasn’t, it’s difficult to give much more guidance at this stage. The ‘representation box’ only allows you to use 1000 characters so you’ll need to keep your argument short and succinct.
Thirdly, you have to provide proof of your identity. Some people have expressed concern to us about this last point. However, we have no reason to think that this should put people off – ultimately, if your information is already available online, this application process cannot make things worse!
We have devised a search engine removal request template which can be used as a guide to completing the online form.
If you’re interested in making an application to Google, the online form is available here.
Reporting a concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office
Once you have a decision from Google, if they refuse your application, we would advise people to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
What will the ICO do?
If you decide to make a complaint to the ICO regarding Google’s refusal to remove a link then, the ICO will consider your request based on a set of criteria. If they believe that any links should be removed they will contact Google and ask them to de-list the information. Google will either agree with the ICO removing the link or refuse and refer back to the ICO.
What can you do if Google refuse to remove a link and the ICO agree with them?
If Google inform the ICO that they are refusing to remove a link after a request is made, the ICO will review the matter under their case review process with the involvement of senior colleagues, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case and arguments presented by all parties in order to decide whether the original decision was correct.
Where the ICO agrees with Google and decides that the link does not have to be removed from their search engine, you can still make an application to the court under section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018, seeking an order that the court is satisfied there has been an infringement of your rights under the data protection legislation. The court would reach its own view as to whether they are satisfied there has been an infringement of your rights under the act. If you pursue this option you may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Having reviewed the overall circumstances of the case, we have concluded that it is appropriate to amend our assessment and we consider the search results likely to comply with the Data Protection Act. Therefore the ICO will not be requiring Google to delist the search results.
Although we recognise that the conviction is now deemed ‘spent’ for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and we take this into account, we must also consider the public interest in the availability of information about criminal convictions. Our published criteria explain that we are less likely to require the delisting of information about serious offences, and we consider sex offences involving minors to fall into this category.
While a number of years have passed since the conviction, we consider there to be a significant degree of public interest in the availability of information about convictions of this nature and on balance we consider this to mean the information in the search results remains relevant. In reaching this view, we also take account of the fact that you held a position of trust at the time the offences took place.
We recognise that the availability of the search results may be detrimental to you, but the right to have search results delisted is not absolute and does not necessarily entitle individuals to have negative information about them removed. When reaching decisions we must also take into consideration the relevance of the information to the public interest, which in this case we consider to be significant for the reasons I have explained. We have concluded that the original decision provided to you did not adequately take account of these factors.
Whilst the above refers to a sex offence, this does not mean you cannot apply to have your link removed if you have a spent conviction for a sex offence. You need to be aware that under ‘public interest’ a decision could be made that will result in your application to have your link removed declined.
Other ways of dealing with the Google effect
This problem isn’t new, and regardless of this new system, many people with convictions will continue to experience difficulties because of their convictions being reported online.
One option that some people look at is changing their name. Although this doesn’t get you away from your criminal record (because if an employer does a criminal record check, depending on whether your convictions are spent, and depending on the level of check, it will still come back) it does prevent people from getting access to information that they would otherwise not be allowed to (e.g. spent convictions if the job is covered by the ROA).
Another option that some people look at is trying to flood the internet with alternative, positive, stories about them, to ‘force down’ the reports that relate to their convictions.
Online reputation repair companies
There are many companies offering services to repair your online profile by replacing negative search results with positive coverage. Some of these can be very expensive, often tying you in to long term contracts and only doing what you can do yourself.
Details of a couple of organisations we would recommend can be found in the useful links section below.
Personal experiences
The personal stories below have been posted on our website.
Success with dealing with the ‘google-effect’ – Sam explains how her life has been turned around since Google agreed to remove links to her name
I got the link to my sexual offence conviction removed from a search engine
Discuss this with others
Read and share your experiences on our online forum.
Key sections include:
- Applying to have links removed from internet searches
- Stopping the ‘google effect’ for people with spent convictions
Useful links
Below you will find links to useful websites relating to this page. More specific details (including addresses and telephone numbers) of some of the organisations listed below can be found here.
- Information Commissioners Office – The ICO are an independent authority set up to uphold individuals’ information rights.
- Mycleanslate – If you have a spent conviction, Mycleanslate may be able to act on your behalf by making a request to search engines such as Google, Yahoo and bing to have links to your name removed. They currently charge a flat fee of £295.
- Internet Erasure – Offer a free consultation to assess your eligibility for removal and will then outline their predicted timescales and costs.
More information
- For practical information – More information on changing your name and counteracting negative ‘Google’ or other internet search information
- To discuss this issue with others – Read and share your experiences on our online forum
- Questions – If you have any questions about this, you can contact our helpline.
This page was last fully reviewed and updated in October 2024. If you’ve spotted something that needs updating, please let us know by emailing the details to advice@unlock.org.uk
Comments
Add CommentLeave a Reply
Learn more about this topic
Do you need help & support with an issue you’re facing?
We provide support and advice for people in England and Wales who need guidance with either their own, or someone else’s, criminal record.
Please use the search box to start typing your issue. If you cannot find an answer to your problem then you’ll be given options to contact us directly.
Popular advice
- Travelling to the US – Will I get a visa?
- Travelling to the UK
- Disclosing unspent convictions to existing insurers
- Overview of the DBS
- Information: Relationships, children and dealing with social services
- Becoming a childminder
- Information contained on UK passports
- What will be disclosed on a basic DBS check?
I have tried twice with Google now and it does feel like they don’t get it. My conviction was spent over a year ago so now I have to be able to start living again, going out, getting a job, studying and not worrying that our son will be confronted with it suddenly.
That is what is meant by convictions being spent but they clearly are not if a three second search brings up all the lies the press reported about me (the real story was that I was obviously innocent but forced to plead guilty and kidded into it by being told I’d get 80 hours community service from the Magistrate only to get 6 months in prison. I had only a comb with me at the Magistrate Court and was working out how long it would take to get back to my son in North Wales when it suddenly happened. My solicitor mentioned an hour before, after 14 months build-up, that I could go to prison)
It is a “sexual offence” if you could even call it that, but in the end I can’t do anything without getting it removed and their justifications sound like they never will, so the change in the law has been hopeless and only proves who really runs the country.