Skip to main content
For people with criminal records
For people with criminal records

Author: Unlock Admin

Government responds to Supreme Court ruling with plans to change criminal records disclosure regime

Responding to government plans to change the criminal records disclosure regime to address the Supreme Court judgment in the case of P and Others v SSHD & SSJ (the ruling on the filtering system and the disclosure of criminal records), Christopher Stacey said:

“We welcome the government’s intention to fully comply with the Supreme Court ruling on filtering. Unlock intervened in that vital case because we know thousands of people are unnecessarily anchored to their past due to an arbitrary regime which forces the disclosure of old and irrelevant information. The changes announced today are a crucial first step towards achieving a fair system that takes a more balanced approach towards disclosing criminal records.

 

“However, we are still left with a criminal records system where many people with old and minor criminal records are shut out of jobs that they are qualified to do. Reviews by the Law Commission, Justice Select Committee, Charlie Taylor and David Lammy MP have all stressed the need to look at the wider disclosure system. The government’s plan for jobs should include a wider review of the criminal records disclosure system to ensure all law-abiding people with criminal records are able to move on into employment and contribute to our economic recovery.”

 

Background

On 30 January 2019, the Supreme Court directed the Government to fix the broken Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) system. Four claimants had challenged the blunt and punitive rules, that require them to disclose multiple offences, no matter how historic or minor, and to disclose cautions received in childhood. Every year about 25,000 youth cautions are disclosed in criminal record checks, around 75% of those cautions were for incidents that happened over 5 years ago.

The Court, agreeing with two lower courts whose judgments the Government had challenged, said the Government needed to fix the rules to allow people to move on from past mistakes.

Planned changes 

This change affects spent convictions that may continue to be disclosed on standard and enhanced checks. It does not affect unspent convictions which will continue to be disclosed.  

A Statutory Instrument is a way of amending existing law. It means changes can be made in a shorter timeframe than passing new primary legislation. The planned changes to the filtering rules are set out in Statutory Instruments relating to the Police Act 1997 and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. 

The Statutory Instrument’s remove the automatic disclosure of: 

  • youth cautions, reprimands and warnings (an out of court disposal issued to young offenders that were replaced by youth cautions in 2013); and 
  • all spent convictions where the individual has more than one conviction (except where disclosed under the other rules) 

What will not change 

Convictions resulting in a custodial or suspended sentence will still be disclosed.

Convictions or adult cautions for an offence that can ‘never be filtered’ will still be disclosed. 

The time that must pass before filtering applies remains the same – 11 years for a conviction (5.5 years for convictions under the age of 18) and 6 years for adult cautions (youth cautions will no longer be disclosed). 

In addition, enhanced criminal records certificates may also include any information which a chief officer of police reasonably believes to be relevant and in the chief officer’s opinion ought to be included in the certificate.

What does this mean for you? 

It’s important to note that these changes are not yet law.

You will no longer have to disclose reprimands, final warnings or cautions received under the age of 18 on application forms for regulated jobs or university courses. These will no longer be disclosed on a standard or enhanced DBS certificate. 

Multiple childhood convictions will be filtered after 5.5 years unless they are for a specified offence and did not result in a custodial or suspended sentence. 

Multiple convictions acquired after the age of 18 will be filtered after 11 years, unless they are for a specified offence or resulted in a custodial or suspended sentence. Adult cautions have not changed. 

Find out more about the impact of these planned changes.

Useful links

  1. The government announcement can be found here.
  2. The letter to Unlock from Victoria Atkins explaining the changes
  3. Unlock’s response to the judgment on 30th January 2019, including case studies and a background to the case, is available here.
  4. More information about our policy work on the DBS filtering system is available here
  5. #FairChecks movement – calling for a fresh start for the criminal records system

Notes

  • Press & media
  • Unlock is an independent national charity that provides a voice and support for people who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence.

MP puts #FairChecks on Boris Johnson’s radar

Boris Johnson was called out this week for “dithering” in sorting out our “damaging and discriminatory” criminal records system.

At Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions, John Spellar MP, who represents Warley constituency, called for Boris Johnson to “sort out this scandal now”.

The Prime Minister conceded there are issues with the system that need looking at urgently, adding “I think that every MP will have had representations from people who feel they’ve been unfairly treated by it.” Watch the clip here.

It’s thanks to those of you that have written to your MP through the #FairChecks site that MPs like John Spellar feel compelled to bring it to the government’s attention. Your support is making all the difference!

The bigger the movement the bigger the change. Help us grow in numbers by signing up if you’ve not already done so, and encouraging your friends, family and networks to write to their own MP about #FairChecks.

What’s your experience of ban the box?

As part of our fair access to employment project, we are gathering evidence of employers’ approaches to people with criminal records. We work with employers to develop fair policies and practices and highlight good practice. Ban the box is a key part of helping people with convictions get back into the workplace, and we have called on government to place it on a statutory footing. We know this is only part of the answer though – employers need to have embedded fair recruitment practices to make ban the box effective.

We’re gathering evidence on how ban the box works in practice.

 

 

  • Did it encourage you to apply for a job you might not have otherwise?
  • Did you feel you were treated fairly?
  • Or maybe the employer claimed to support ban the box but had a blanket ban on unspent convictions?
  • Maybe it made no difference at all.

Whatever your experience, we want to hear about it.

What we need from you

If you have experience of applying to a ‘ban the box’ employer, contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: ban the box’. Please include:

  • Your name
  • Contact details (email and telephone) and how you’d like us to contact you
  • Details of your experience (please include the name of the employer and of any staff you spoke to, include emails/screenshots etc if possible)
  • What you think should change
  • Whether you would be willing to take part in media coverage on this issue (this is for our reference, we won’t share your details with others).

Any information you provide will be kept in line with our confidentiality policy. Any personal information provided to us will not be shared externally without your consent.

Find out more about how we handle your data.

Bad policies and practices by employers

As part of our fair access to employment project, we work with employers to develop fair policies and practices and highlight good practice. We know that employers don’t always follow their own policy, and that sometimes decision making is subjective. We’re gathering evidence of bad practice and challenge this where we can – and we need your help to do this.

We want to hear your experiences of bad practice. In some cases, we will challenge employers directly. In other situations, we press for action to be taken by others including the DBS or the ICO. Where we’ve been successful in achieving changes in practice, we write the example up anonymously and post it on our website for employers to help employers learn where others have gone wrong. Ultimately, we want to see all employers operate fair and inclusive practices towards people with a criminal record.

Bad practice could include:

  • Asking about spent convictions for a job that is covered by the ROA.
  • Blanket policies of not recruiting people with unspent convictions
  • A ban the box employer asking questions on application
  • Carrying out DBS checks for roles not eligible for them
  • Requesting applicants provide a copy of their ‘police record’ (also known as ‘enforced subject access’)
  • Failing to give applicants an opportunity to explain their criminal record
  • Sharing information about criminal records without your consent (for example in references)

Take a look at some of the examples we’ve posted on our website for employers.

What we need from you

If you have experience of bad practice by employers, contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: bad practice’. Please include:

  • Your name
  • Contact details (email and telephone) and how you’d like us to contact you
  • Details of your experience (please include the name of the employer and of any staff you spoke to, include emails/screenshots etc if possible)
  • What you think should change.
  •  Whether you’d be willing to take part in media coverage on this issue in future (this is for our reference only, we won’t share your details with others)

Any information you provide will be kept in line with our confidentiality policy. Any personal information provided to us will not be shared externally without your consent.

Find out more about how we handle your data.

Find out more about our work with employers.

Has an employer wrongly carried out a standard or enhanced DBS check?

As part of our fair access to employment project we’re gathering information on employers who have carried out standard or enhanced checks where only a basic is legally permitted.

For some jobs, employers are allowed to consider cautions and spent convictions (unless they have been filtered). Employers recruiting for these jobs are legally permitted to carry out a higher level DBS check – a standard or enhanced check. Both checks disclose cautions, spent and unspent convictions and enhanced checks may also include additional “soft intelligence” held in police records. It is a criminal offence for an employer to knowingly request a check at a higher level than the law permits.

Find out more about eligibility here.

What we need from you

Has an employer has carried out a standard or enhanced criminal record check for a role that wasn’t eligible?

Have they taken into account spent convictions or other information that they were not entitled to see (so called “soft intelligence” or “local police information”?

If so, please contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: ineligible DBS check’. Please include:

  • The name of the employer (or umbrella body if relevant) that did the check
  • The job title of the role you applied for, and a description of the responsibilities
  • A copy of the job advert (if available)
  • The full details of your criminal record
  • Details of any correspondence with the employer about the check – for example, did they tell you it was necessary for the role you were applying for and, if so, did they say anything else about why?
  • Details of what happened when the disclosure certificate was given to the employer
  • Whether you would be willing to contribute to any media coverage on this issue in future (this is for our reference, we won’t share your details without consent)

Any information you provide will be kept in line with our confidentiality policy. Any personal information provided to us will not be shared externally without your consent. To help us provide you with the best advice, we may discuss your case, anonymously, with legal practitioners.

Find out more about how we handle your data.

Find out more about what we do with your experiences and evidence.

Blog – Criminal justice, racial discrimination and criminal records

In this blog, Christopher Stacey shares some thoughts on the current Black Lives Matter protests, the criminal justice system, racial discrimination and the impact of criminal records.

The protests and debate following the killing of George Floyd should make organisations of all shapes and sizes reflect on how they make racial justice a key part of their work.

At Unlock we spend a lot of time thinking and talking about fairness for people who have been through the criminal justice system. We know that criminalisation holds people back from achieving their potential. And we know that the justice system doesn’t treat people of all races equally.

Research has shown time and again that people from some backgrounds are disproportionately represented at all stages of the criminal justice system. The term ‘BAME’ sometimes masks differences between groups and so we avoid using it where we can. People of black and other minority ethnic backgrounds are:

  1. More likely to be stopped and searched – Over the last 5 years, the proportion of suspects who were stopped and searched from white ethnic groups has decreased while the proportion of suspects across all minority ethnic groups has increased – from 13% to 22% for black groups, from 8% to 13% for Asian groups, from 3% to 4% for mixed ethnic groups and from 1% to 2% for Chinese or other groups.
  2. More likely to be arrested – Over the last 5 years, the proportion of white children arrested in London has decreased from 42% to 33%, while the proportion of black children arrested in London has increased from 34% to 42%,
  3. More likely to get a caution – Although the use of cautions is decreasing overall, the proportion accepted by black people in police custody has grown. In the 11 years to March 2019, the total number of youth cautions went down by 91% (from 93,656 to 8,552), and there was a decrease in every ethnic group. The percentage of cautions given to white children went down from 88.0% to 83.1%, while the percentage given to black children increased from 6.6% to 11.0%. A caution is a criminal record. It can prevent someone getting onto a teaching or medicine degree, or from getting a job in law, accountancy or government.
  4. More likely to be prosecuted – Black defendants have a much higher rate of prosecution, and therefore are at an increased likelihood of receiving a conviction.
  5. More likely to plead not guilty – Black defendants are consistently more likely to plead not guilty than white defendants. This means that, if found guilty, they are likely to face more punitive sentences than if they had admitted guilt. The result of this is a criminal record that will invariably end up having to be disclosed for longer under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) because the time it takes for the conviction to become spent will be longer.
  6. More likely to get a longer sentence – White people have had a consistently lower average custodial sentence length for indictable offences than all other ethnic groups since 2014. Black teenage boys are more likely to be charged with murder than manslaughter and more likely to receive a higher or maximum sentence than white boys. One in four black teenage boys guilty of manslaughter were given maximum jail terms, while white children found guilty of the same crime were sentenced to no more than 10 years, with the majority getting less than four. This particular statistic is striking within the context of the criminal records regime, where any sentence of more than 4 years in prison can never become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. More generally, longer sentences take longer to become spent (if they ever do), meaning a criminal record will cause more difficulties for longer. In other words, the white boys will have a better chance of moving on than the black boys convicted of the same crime.

We know the problems of a criminal record are compounded by discrimination for black people and people from some ethnic minorities. 75% of employers admit discriminating against applicants with a criminal record. Black and brown young people already face discrimination and a criminal record compounds that.

We can’t fix the justice system quickly. But we can try not to continue that discrimination after a sentence ends. That’s why we’re committed to pushing forward the recommendations that we made in Double discrimination? as part of our campaigning and advocacy work on reforming the criminal records regime.

It’s also why it’s important that we share this knowledge with the employers, organisations and universities that we work with, but we can always do more. We will step-up our efforts in challenging employers and others that have discriminatory attitudes towards people with criminal records, because we know this has a disproportionate impact on black and brown people.

And we must look much closer to home. In common with much of the charity sector, Unlock’s small team of staff and volunteers is comprised entirely of white people, which neither reflects society nor many of those we’re here to help. We will work to address this. We are watching, listening and learning, looking at how we can improve our support. And we will push harder for changes in policies and practices to challenge the disproportionate impact that the criminal records disclosure regime has on people from black and other minority ethnic backgrounds.

Big news! Two new job vacancies at Unlock

We’re excited to announce two new job vacancies. We’re looking for ambitious, creative and determined individuals to join our small staff team to become our first Digital and communications manager and our first Policy officer.

The closing date for these roles has now passed. Applications can no longer be submitted.

A summary of the roles can be found below, with links to a recruitment pack for each.

To apply for one of the roles, download the job application form and equal opportunities form, and follow the instructions in the recruitment pack.

Unlock is an equal opportunities organisation and committed to increasing diversity. Applications from candidates who are BME, have a disability or who are from a less privileged background are particularly encouraged. We warmly welcome applications from all suitably skilled people regardless of background and we are especially keen to appoint people who have themselves met with and overcome the disadvantages of having a criminal record. A past criminal record is not a requirement for this role but nor is it a bar. See the recruitment packs for each role for more information.

 

1. Digital and communications manager

This is an exciting opportunity for an ambitious and creative individual that is committed to the use of digital and communications to improve people’s lives.

The digital and communications manager role is a new post in the charity, taking an operational lead in implementing key aspects of the charity’s first digital strategy. This ambitious strategy aims to ensure that digital enables Unlock to increase the reach, accessibility and impact of our work to improve the lives of people with criminal records. The new role will also support Unlock to continue to ‘punch above its weight’ in policy, influencing and other ways by developing the charity’s external communications.

The role includes coordinating Unlock’s digital presence to ensure that we reach as many people as possible and help them to self-serve digitally, optimising digital tools to improve engagement – websites, video, communications, email and social media. The role will lead on embedding digital design principles into our work, joining-up our content approach, implementing innovative tools to help people and redeveloping the Unlock websites. The role will be responsible for creating powerful communications that raises the voice and experiences of people with criminal records, increases awareness of Unlock’s work and supports our policy and influencing work to challenge the stigma and discrimination that people face.

 

2. Policy officer

This is an exciting opportunity for an ambitious and determined individual with a track record of influencing policy to achieve real change.

The policy officer role is a new post created to support the charity’s work to reform policy and legislation to reduce the stigma and discrimination that people with criminal records face. With a focus on reforming the criminal records regime, the policy officer will build on Unlock’s recent work – including successful legal intervention in the Supreme Court, the #FairChecks movement and work on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 – to influence policy makers and key stakeholders to secure changes to legislation and government policy.

The role also includes supporting the development of Unlock’s strategy of using the law for achieving change in policy, as well as building on the charity’s previous research to develop a strategy that strengthens the evidence-base for changes in policies and practices that will have a positive impact on the lives of people we exist to help.

 

Questions?

After reading the recruitment pack for the role you’re interested in, if you would like an informal discussion to answer any questions you have before you apply, the details of who to contact are in the recruitment pack.

The closing date for these roles has now passed. Applications can no longer be submitted.

Blog – Looking to the future: incentivising employment of people with convictions

It’s fair to say 2020 has been a year of major change – and we’re only halfway through. Whether you’ve been adapting to home working, learning a new skill, or embracing your natural hair, we’re all dealing with change. That can be challenging but there’s a sense that this moment is a portal to the future.

Unlock’s helpline receives calls every day from people who want to change their future by applying for a new job, or a promotion. No matter what skills, qualifications or experience they have, they know that once they tick the box to say they have a conviction, there’s a good chance they’ll never hear from the employer again. Sometimes people get as far as the interview before being told ‘oh no, you can’t work here – we’ve got a policy about that’.

This week, Unlock have published a briefing calling on the government to use financial incentives to improve employment prospects for people with convictions.

There are more than 11 million people in the UK with a criminal record. Most have never been to prison and most will never commit another crime. Yet 75% of companies admit discriminating against applicants who declare a criminal record. In a 2016 survey, 32% of employers had concerns about this group’s skills and capability, 45% were concerned they would be unreliable and 40% were worried about the public image of their business.

These might seem reasonable concerns – but they’re just not accurate. Employers who pro-actively recruit people with convictions report positive experiences. Polling from 2019 shows that 81% of employers say hiring people with criminal records had a positive impact on their business, while 75% of consumers would buy from a business that hired people with convictions.

Exclusion from the job market has a significant effect not just on individuals and their families but also their communities. People from some ethnic backgrounds – particularly Black and Gypsy, Roma, Traveller – are over-represented in the justice system and face this additional barrier when looking for work.

Keeping people out of the work place because of a criminal record is unnecessary – and it’s expensive. People with convictions want to support themselves and their families, but unemployment has a scarring effect that can last a lifetime. Reoffending costs £18bn a year but targeted opportunities just for people leaving prison could reduce that by around 10%.

Financial incentives can be a powerful force for change. In Belgium, subsidies have improved employment prospects for disabled people, while a 2018 study in the US found that 80% of employers said a tax credit on a worker’s wages would encourage them to hire someone with a conviction.

None of us can predict what the future will bring but it’s going to need a collective effort. The more people in work, the quicker the economy can recover. Do we want to live in a country that excludes people because of their background, or one that sees what people have to offer and gives them a chance?

Download the briefing here.

Contact us for more information.

 

 

 

May 2020 update on research understanding the influence of an early life criminal record on adult life courses

Nicola Collett, a PhD student at Keele University, is currently researching the potential influence of a criminal record acquired between the ages of 10-25, later on in adulthood. Following on from her last update in September 2019, Nicola writes here about how her research is progressing.

I am delighted to be sharing another update on my PhD research exploring the potential influence of an early life criminal record later on in adulthood.

Since my last update in 2019 I have been incredibly busy thinking about the information shared with me in the interviews and drawing together the key ideas and arguments I wish to make in my thesis. I have been busy writing draft chapters and getting essential feedback from supervisors – a very long and reflective process. I would like to again thank those who took part for sharing so many personal experiences and thoughts with me. I look forward to sharing some more detailed thesis ideas with you at a later date.

Nicola presenting at the conference in Ghent

In September 2019 I presented some preliminary findings and reflections at the European Society of Criminology conference in Ghent. I highlighted four themes emerging from my work that highlight the complexities of living with a criminal record from youth – anchoring, everlasting, uncertainty and resilience. You can read more about these by downloading these slides.  

At the event I also drew on the interviews I had conducted, emphasising the diverse range of experiences shared with me. I shared some powerful quotes* taken from my transcripts  and explained to the audience that each person I spoke to shared something unique and personal to them. No two individuals experienced the same challenges in the same way. People were surprised to hear that in England and Wales a historical youth record can be disclosed later in adulthood in such a wide range of instances. They were keen to ask further questions about the experiences of those I had spoken to and it was a real privilege to be able to share this with them.

A third important update to share is that I successfully encouraged Keele University to sign up to the Fair Chance for Students with Convictions pledge designed to improve access and participation to UK universities. Given the research I am conducting I felt it was important to ensure my institution was engaging with this and challenging their admissions policy. Keele is now one of 16 universities which have signed up to this pledge.

What’s next?

Despite the disruption caused by the coronavirus I have been fortunate enough to continue working from home, albeit at a slower pace. I am pressing on with my writing whilst continually reflecting upon the work I have produced so far having video calls with supervisors where possible. As circumstances continue to change it is unclear when this project will be finished but I will continue to provide updates along the way. 

I hope everyone is keeping safe and well in these challenging times.

Written by Nicola Collett

* Direct quotes have only been used where permission has been granted via a signed consent form. Where participants did not want direct quotes used, paraphrasing has been used instead.

 

 

We want to make sure that our website is as helpful as possible.

Letting us know if you easily found what you were looking for or not enables us to continue to improve our service for you and others.

Was it easy to find what you were looking for?

Thank you for your feedback.

12.5 million people have criminal records in the UK. We need your help to help them.

Help support us now