In 1995 Marcus was convicted of 6 offences although he appeared in court only once. The six offences were committed between 1992 and 1994 when Marcus was aged between 14 and 16. He was arrested and charged when he was 17 years old but by the time he appeared at the magistrate’s court for sentencing he was 18.

In 2013 with the help of a solicitor, Marcus applied to the courts for ‘leave to appeal out of time’. Unfortunately this was refused. He took his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission but again, was unsuccessful.

In the same year, after applying for an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, Marcus was told by the DBS that they would not be including him on either the children or adults barred list as they didn’t believe that it was appropriate to do so. However. as Marcus says:

“Not being on the barred list means nothing because the convictions will show up regardless of the list. Some companies implement a risk assessment for you to pass, so even if the DBS themselves say you’re not on their barred list, the company can override this with a risk assessment and you don’t get the job.”

Although on the face of it, Marcus’ case may seem complicated, the background to the offences are important and the circumstances surrounding the case are paramount. However, these don’t show on a DBS certificate so don’t offer an employer a true reflection of the context of the offences.

Marcus was convicted of taking indecent photographs and an indecent assault on a female. He is the first to admit that the offences look terrible but explains that they were committed when he was very young and influenced by a man, 50 years older than him who was already a convicted paedophile who’d served a prison sentence for a sexual offence. This man groomed Marcus at a vulnerable time in his life, sexually abused him and manipulated Marcus into believing that he cared for him, loved him and understood him.

At the time, Marcus was a lonely child, bullied, outcast and struggling terribly with his gender identity (which at that time was a completely taboo subject). He was struggling with mental health problems and isolation. So when he was shown some attention he was drawn to the older man. Over time this man convinced Marcus to film children on the beach for him suggesting that if he didn’t he would no longer offer Marcus his support and friendship.

Marcus received a community order following conviction and the older man a long prison sentence. However, Marcus believes that his punishment has been greater as he continues to be punished 22 years after the event, whereas the older man was retired and the conviction had no impact on his employment opportunities.

Marcus believes that the convictions and subsequent DBS checks have had an extremely damaging effect on him. It has influenced the direction of his life in a negative way, has prevented him from pursuing an interesting career, both in paid work and voluntary work. It has lost him jobs after successful interviews, prevented him from joining a mental health charity and has been a constant source of punishment, humiliation and the biggest hurdle in his struggle with mental health problems. It has prevented him from applying to go on holidays which required a visa and stopped him from engaging in any job or action that required disclosure. It continues to punish him and has left him financially poor and vulnerable.

Marcus stated:

“No matter how hard you work, how much time and energy you give to make amends, how may people believe in you enough to give you a character reference, how much good you do to try to compensate for any wrongdoing, this time-bomb continues to blow up in your face. It depletes you of any sense of control over your life, drags you down and places you in a negative place mentally.

 

No good can come of a system that does not allow forgiveness through good deeds and what do you do if you can never work off a conviction? Where do you go?”

Commenting on Marcus’ experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“This case shows the importance of recognising how all “types” of offence can have context which mean they should be considered for potentially being removed from DBS checks”.

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process.
2. We have practical guidance on filtering of spent cautions/convictions – a simple guide.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

At the onset of puberty Wesley had a lot of mixed feelings about his sexuality. Although he can remember attending sex education classes, he says there was very little information about being gay and this made him feel ‘lost and alone’.

For a while, he explored his sexuality with a friend of his brothers who was five years younger than him. However, a few years later and long after the abuse had stopped, he confessed both his sexuality and the abuse that had taken place to a church minister. The church minister subsequently informed the police.

Wesley co-operated fully with the police investigation and when the case went to court, he was convicted of several counts of indecent assault and received a 12 month community order.

Sometime later whilst working for a company running events for youths, Wesley was asked to apply for a personal licence. Not knowing what would appear on his criminal record certificate, he explained to his employers about his conviction and the circumstances surrounding it. His employers agreed that they would make no decision about his future until they’d seen the certificate. However, once they’d had sight of it, Wesley was forced to resign as his employers believed that he posed a risk to their clients.

As part of his pre-sentencing report, Wesley had been assessed by a well-respected child protection charity who had stated that:

“He would not appear to be a risk to any vulnerable group in any ordinary social or work setting.”

Despite sharing the report with his employers it did nothing to allay their fears.

The actions of his employers was a devastating blow to Wesley. He’d had his career path mapped out and now had to face the fact that if he wanted to continue to pursue this type of work, he’d have to face the fear of future criminal record checks. Wesley decided to change direction as he didn’t feel that he could face what had happened when he was 13 constantly coming back to haunt him.

Wesley stated:

“I was a gay teenager in a world with little support. I did do something wrong but I was honest, open and worked hard to do everything asked of me by the judiciary service. I am now very nervous about the ordeal of dealing with a disclosure for seemingly disconnected events. I am really worried about getting a visa for travel (although I haven’t tried) and I have avoided promotions when a DBS check might be required.

 

As a law-abiding adult I’m baffled that something I did at age 13 would create complications so far into my adult live.”

Commenting on Wesley’s experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“This case shows the ongoing impact of receiving a criminal record in your youth. Sadly there is currently no way of having convictions removed from DBS certificates where there is more than one and people like Wesley will continue to be punished as a man for something they did as a boy”.

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process.
2. We have practical guidance on filtering of spent cautions/convictions – a simple guide.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

At the age of 16, Saeed had fallen in with a ‘bad crowd’ which ultimately led to him being arrested and pleading guilty to involvement in a local burglary.

He received a four-month referral order. The order involved him meeting with a panel of local community volunteers, his victim and their representative and other relevant individuals. The panel discussed the circumstances surrounding his offence and together they agreed a plan of action to remedy the situation.

Saeed was told that providing he completed the order satisfactorily, then his conviction would be spent immediately under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and shouldn’t cause him any further problems. A year later, Saeed had got his life back on track. He committed himself to his studies and volunteered for a charity working with disabled children and adults.

The hard work paid off and Saeed defied all expectations and gained the best A-level results his school had ever seen. These results led to the offer of a place to study medicine at a top university.

Having been told that his conviction was spent immediately, Saeed did not disclose it on his UCAS form. However, immediately he realised that the university would be carrying out an enhanced criminal record check which would disclose his conviction, Saeed contacted the university and disclosed his conviction.

As a result of this new information, the university told him that he needed to attend a ‘Fitness to Practice’ interview to assess his suitability to train as a doctor. After listening to the evidence presented to them, the Panel agreed that the only option open to them was to withdraw its offer of a place. Saeed appealed the Panel’s decision but, this was also refused, and the university did not reinstate his place.

Saeed stated:

“I’m a kid who has grown up surrounded by violence and drugs. I always seem to meet bad people and I’ve realised that this is because I come from a bad place. Give me a chance and I’ll show the universities that I’m not a bad guy. I won’t risk their reputation.”

The university have said:

“In general, the university requests information on a candidate’s ‘unspent’ convictions only. This means that a spent conviction would not preclude a student from being accepted onto the vast majority of its courses.

 

Medicine, however is focused on preparing students for a specific professional career that has particularly demanding requirements. Medical practitioners hold a position of responsibility in society, and must deal with vulnerable people and sensitive situations. The public must have confidence in the integrity and probity of its doctors.”

Commenting on Saeed’s experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“I’m delighted that Saeed has gone on to study medicine at another university, one which can clearly see the potential he has. That goes to show that his past was not a barrier – but the university was seeing it as that. They need to look again at their approach towards dealing with applicants with a criminal record.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on promoting fair admission policies and practices by universities and colleges.
2. We have practical guidance on applying to university.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

In 2005, aged 17, Lynn was convicted of racial assault, an offence she was deeply ashamed of. Due to her age, immaturity and the way she’d been brought up, Lynn didn’t fully understand the impact that her behaviour had on others although years later she had time to reflect on her actions.

At the time of her conviction, Lynn had been homeless and sleeping rough and now recognises that she’d made some bad decisions. Since then however she has made some positive changes to her life and done everything she can do to become a hardworking member of society.

After spending some time volunteering with a charity who helped young people avoid criminal lifestyles by providing them with knowledge and skills to live differently, Lynn realised that she wanted to develop her career in the criminal justice system. More specifically, she wanted to work with young people before they started offending.

Lynn didn’t have the necessary entry requirements to apply directly to university and so applied for an HNC course. It took Lynn about 2 years to be accepted onto the course, having to sit various panels to prove herself worthy of a place and to demonstrate that she did not present a risk to other students.

As part of the course, Lynn had to complete a 200-hour work placement. Not wishing to give the college any further reason to refuse her application to study, Lynn successfully found her own placement, being totally upfront and honest about her conviction.

Lynn’s college applied for enhanced checks for all students and on receipt of her certificate Lynn was told by the college that they would be unable to allow her to attend the placement. This meant that she would be unable to complete the course module and would ultimately fail the course.

Lynn said:

“I feel I am being forced out by the college. I haven’t been given a valid reason only told that they were following a college policy. However, when I challenged this, it turned out they didn’t have one in place for dealing with ex-offenders.

 

I’m facing prejudice and decisions are being made by people who don’t know me they just look at a piece of paper and see the crime not the person. They have me as high risk in the college scoring system but none of them have met me. I feel I’m being discriminated against and all I want to do is finish my education.”

Commenting on Lynn’s experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“This case shows the importance of education providers, such as colleges and universities to have clear policies in place that deal fairly with applicants with a criminal record. There was no good reason for Lynn to be refused a place – the college’s approach to her past shows a need to revisit their approach because they’re missing out on great students like Lynn.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on promoting fair admission policies and practices by universities and colleges.
2. We have practical guidance on applying to university.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.