Lee contacted our helpline after receiving a call from his Public Protection Unit (PPU) Officer who stated that he wanted to arrange a time to meet with Lee and his employers to disclose Lee’s conviction.
Lee was extremely upset when he spoke to us and stated that he’d been really shocked to get the call. He explained that this particular issue had been raised by his solicitor in Court following sentencing as Lee had been given a SOPO which included the following clause:-
‘Not to use any devices capable of accessing the internet without risk management software installed ….. with the exception of a business environment which must have appropriate security measures in place, whether human or electronic, as deemed suitable by police or designated police staff’
Lee had been worried that if the police chose to disclose his conviction to his employers he would immediately lose his job and his solicitor had requested the removal of this particular clause. Although the request was refused Lee had been assured that any disclosure would be dealt with discreetly and sensitively.
Lee felt that when the Public Protection Officer spoke to him he had been very aggressive and seemed intent on upsetting what had been a very stable job. Lee knew that the loss of his job would cause him and his family severe financial hardship and the chance of his securing a new job would be slim. Lee wanted to know what options were open to him and whether the PPU Officer had the right to work in such an invasive manner.
We advised Lee that as he was managed by the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) then this provided his PPU Officer with the authority to request a disclosure to a third party. If the PPU Officer had decided that the disclosure was necessary, there would be little that Lee could do to stop this going ahead.
We suggested that one option open to Lee would be to try and get his PPU Officer ‘onside’ and negotiate the best way of disclosing to is employer to cause the minimum level of problems.
Although Lee was disappointed that there was little legal recourse he agreed to try and have an open and honest discussion with his PPU Officer and see whether he could ‘appeal to his better nature’.
Several weeks later Lee got back in touch us Unlock to let us know that he had taken our advice. Even though his PPU Officer had insisted on visiting his employer and checking that security measures were in place, he’d done it under the guise of a local business initiative and had explained to the employer that he was visiting local companies to check what measures they had in place. The PPU Officer did not personally identify Lee.
‘Although the answer I received from Unlock was not what I wanted to hear, they did give me some good advice which I took on board. Words can’t describe how relieved I was when the Officer explained what he was intending to do’.
This case shows the authority the police have in disclosing details of convictions to third parties and the importance of trying to develop good working relationships with relevant agencies.
We have information on our self-help site which looks at convictions for sexual offences, which is often the types of case where police disclosure takes place.
Notes about this case study
This case study relates to our helpline
Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.