As a young adult, Tony had been part of a gang who regularly got into trouble with the police. This had resulted in him receiving four convictions, three of which were for theft/burglary offences. His last conviction was over 30 years ago.

In 1978 he had been convicted of a sexual offence, “intercourse with a girl under sixteen”. He was 18 at the time and the girl in question (who was his girlfriend at the time) was almost 16. Her father had reported Tony to the police and he had received a suspended sentence.

At the time of his conviction, both his solicitor and his probation officer told him that as his offence was of a sexual nature, it would never be spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and he would have to disclose it whenever he was applying for work.

Over the years, Tony disclosed his conviction whenever he was asked, with varying degrees of success. It always caused him a certain amount of anxiety and embarrassment but he thought that he had no choice. It was only when applying for a new insurance policy and the broker told him that his conviction was spent that he started to doubt what he had been told by his solicitor and the probation officer. The broker recommended our disclosure calculator.

After submitting the details of all four convictions, the result provided by the calculator was that Tony’s entire criminal record was spent in July 1989. This meant that for the types of jobs he would be applying for, he no longer had any need to disclose his conviction.

Tony said:

“Although it’s been a long time coming, this has taken a huge weight off my shoulders. I’m disappointed that I wasn’t given the correct advice at the time but you can’t dwell in the past. I’m just pleased that I never have to disclose it again”.

Lessons

There is a lot of confusion around the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and certain misconceptions that rehabilitation periods are based on the offence rather than a sentence or disposal. This can mean that individuals disclose details of their criminal record for far longer than they are required to.

Links

• Use our disclosure calculator to work out when your conviction becomes spent.
• Practical information: Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Notes about this case study 

This case study relates to our disclosure calculator.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Having received his first conviction at the age of 60 for a sexual offence, Fraser had many questions and concerns about moving on with his life with a criminal record.

He’d found himself cast out by members of his family, dismissed by his long term employer and feeling cast adrift with the stigma of the offence he’d committed. His self-confidence was at an all-time low and he encountered problems in everything he tried to do. He wanted advice but more importantly he needed to be able to communicate with people who’d had similar experiences to his own. He felt that he would continue to be judged by the whole of society and wanted to speak to somebody who would listen to him objectively and not rush to judge him.

Fraser eventually found Unlock after doing an online search and then came across the online forum where he says he was able to discuss his problems and start to rebuild his life. Fraser always considered himself to be a strong individual who’d spent most of his career supporting others. However, as a result of his conviction he found himself vilified and cast out after making a bad judgement decision during a period of depression in his life which ultimately led to him suffering from severe depression. He believes that the support provided by members of the forum has saved his life.

The opportunity to talk to people who had direct experience of sexual offences and the fall out on an individuals personal life had a huge impact on Fraser’s mental health. He was able to gain a perspective on his problems from those who were newly convicted like himself and others who’d lived with their convictions for many years. Some provided practical help and links to resources whilst others were able to give support emotionally.

Fraser said:

“I can’t express how much I appreciate Unlock setting up a forum like this. Without it, I doubt if I would still be here. It’s great to be able to speak to people who don’t judge us by the 1% of mistakes we’ve made but by valuing the 99% of good things that we’ve done”.

Lessons

There has been a lot of research demonstrating how people who use forums to talk about stigmatised subjects were found to have gained strong benefits including alleviating feelings of isolation and depression and possibly prevent re-offending. Fraser’s own experience certainly adds weight to this.

Individuals will often seek information and advice from a wide range of sources to overcome their problems but as this case shows, the ability to speak with people who have had direct personal experience is hugely important.

Links

• You can visit (and join) the online forum
• Practical information: Sexual offences 

Notes about this case study 

This case study relates to our online forum.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Daniel contacted our helpline for advice about applying to Google to have links to his name removed.

In 2007, he had received a two year prison sentence for possession of a firearm and threats to kill. Daniel stated that at the time of his conviction, he had been drinking heavily and was trying to deal with the death of several members of his family in a short space of time. Although he accepted that his offence was serious, he did not feel that the online story adequately reflected the mitigating factors.

We explained to Daniel that as his conviction was spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, it was worth him contacting Google to request that the links to his name be removed. He should explain to them how their continued presence was affecting his ability to get into work and start new relationships as well as demonstrate what he had done to rehabilitate himself since his conviction. We provided him with a template document which might assist him in putting his application in writing.

Daniel contacted us a couple of weeks later to confirm that he’d received an email from Google confirming that they would be removing the links to his name.

Daniel said:

“I never thought I’d be able to have these links removed and I’m so glad of the help I was given in putting such a good application together”

Lessons

The presence of information about you online means that anybody can find out information about you which they may not legally be entitled to know. Google are likely to refuse your application whilst your conviction is unspent but, once it’s spent it is certainly worth applying to them.

Links

• Practical information: The ‘google-effect’, internet search results and the right to be forgotten.

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Lucy contacted our helpline as she needed some advice about a possible ineligible check that had been done by an employer.

Lucy explained that she had received a three year prison sentence in 2007 for money laundering. She’d been working on and off since leaving prison but had waited until her conviction was spent before applying for jobs which she felt had some potential career opportunities.

She had applied for a couple of jobs; one as a customer advisor for a food producer and another as project manager with a large oil company. She was invited to an interview with the food company and, as she believed the job was covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, didn’t disclose her conviction. After a great interview she was offered the job and agreed to a criminal record check being done.

Lucy told us that all was going well with the job and she was half way through her training when she was called to the HR office and told that the job offer was being withdrawn due to the non-disclosure of her criminal record. She knew that her conviction was spent so assumed that the company must have done a standard or enhanced check rather than a basic. Lucy was due to attend another interview with the oil company and was keen to get some advice around establishing what level of check an employer is eligible to do and what options are available to you if they chose to do a different one.

We asked Lucy to confirm the details of her sentence and whether she’d received any other disposals. She confirmed that she’d received a confiscation order which she’d almost paid – there was a small amount of interest still outstanding.

We explained to Lucy that whilst there were monies outstanding on the confiscation order then her conviction would remain unspent. We recommended that if she could, she try to settle the balance as soon as she could so that her conviction could become spent and wouldn’t be disclosed on future basic certificates. From the information that Lucy had provided it sounded as though this was how her previous employer had found out about her conviction – that they had done a basic check (which would be the correct level) but that it had disclosed an unspent conviction.

Lucy told us that she was going to immediately deal with the outstanding monies in readiness for her next interview.

We heard back from Lucy a month later when she rang to let us know that she’d borrowed the money from her family to pay off her confiscation order. She’d been offered a job with the oil company and had just received her ‘blank’ basic certificate.

Lucy said:

“I didn’t realise how non-payment of my confiscation order would impact on when my conviction became spent. I’m glad I contacted Unlock. If I hadn’t I probably wouldn’t have got the job I’ve got now.”

Lessons

If you’ve received a ‘relevant’ order as part of your conviction, it’s likely that it will affect when your conviction becomes spent. Some orders such as confiscation orders become spent once they are paid, others will become spent at the end of the term given. However, it’s important to realise that if you’ve been given an indefinite order then your conviction is never going to be spent until such time as you go back to court to have it amended.

Links

• Practical information: Applying to court to end a court order
• Practical information: Long list of sentences/disposals and how long it takes for them to become spent under the ROA
• Practical information: Eligibility for standard and enhanced checks

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Virginia contacted our helpline because she wanted clarification around the filtering of convictions from Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

She explained that over 20 years ago she had received a suspended sentence for a fraud offence. She told us that at the time, she didn’t know what she was getting involved in, as far as she was concerned she was just helping out a friend. It was only when she was arrested that she appreciated the true extent of what she’d done.

Although she was hugely embarrassed and ashamed of her conviction, immediately after it happened, it had little impact on her. She was working as a nurse at the time and continued to do so – criminal record checks didn’t exist so her employers never found out about it.

It was only when she came to move jobs a few years later that she learnt about criminal record checks and the lasting impact her conviction would have.

Virginia said:

“It must have been about 2004 when I had my first CRB check as they were known then. I’d been offered a fantastic job with a big promotion and when I got called in to meet HR, it never crossed my mind that it was going to be bad news. I’ll never forget the look of disgust on the manager’s face as she told me the job offer was being withdrawn because I was a criminal”

Virginia explained that within 10 minutes of that meeting she knew she would never put herself in that position again and effectively ‘retired’ from nursing.

In the years that followed she started lecturing in health and social care on a self-employed basis but missed hands-on nursing. She told us that when she’d heard about the new filtering legislation and the chance that she wouldn’t have to disclose her conviction any longer she felt brave enough to apply for a manager’s job in a care home and had just been offered the job.

Virginia wanted to know whether her conviction would automatically be filtered or whether she needed to apply to have it removed. After listening to her story, our advisor explained that not every conviction was eligible for filtering and, as she had received a custodial sentence (albeit suspended) then hers would fall into this category and would still appear on her DBS certificate.

Virginia immediately took the view that the job offer would be revoked once her employer saw her certificate and stated that she would withdraw her application before this happened.

Our advisor empathised with Virginia but explained that her experiences in the past could be very different to what would happen now. We explained that more employers were willing to give people a second chance and employ those with convictions and that as hers were so long ago it was unlikely that it would be viewed in the same way that it was at the time it happened.

We gave Virginia some further information around disclosure and encouraged her to make an appointment to see her manager.

Virginia later came back to us and said:

“As I finished explaining my conviction to my manager, she looked at me and said “You poor thing you have been through it haven’t you. Still onwards and upwards”. It made no absolutely no difference at all and I got the job so thank you Unlock for encouraging me to go for it”

Lessons

If you’ve been refused a job or treated badly following the disclosure of your criminal record then it’s only natural that you will be loath to put yourself in that position again. However every employer is different and just because you haven’t been successful in the past, you shouldn’t assume that this will always be the case.

Links

• Practical information: Filtering of cautions/convictions – A simple guide
• Practical information: Disclosing criminal records employers

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Ryan contacted our helpline after the school he worked at suspended him from his teaching job due to the non-disclosure of his caution on two ‘Disqualification Declaration’ forms.

Ryan explained that although he had received a caution in August 2008, in September 2014 he was able to benefit from legislation introduced in May 2013 and his caution became eligible for filtering from standard and enhanced checks. When he was offered the teaching job in June 2015, the school carried out an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service which had come back with nothing on it. Confident that his caution had been filtered, when Ryan was asked to complete the disqualification declaration form in 2015 and 2016, he didn’t think that he needed to disclose his caution.

In early 2017, Ryan was asked to attend a meeting with the head-teacher. He was told that the school had become aware that he had a criminal record and they were concerned that despite having been asked twice to declare it, he had chosen not to. The headmaster explained that Ryan would be suspended whilst the school carried out a full investigation.

We were able to confirm with Ryan that as his caution was eligible for filtering, he had done nothing wrong in not disclosing to the school. We offered to write to the school providing further information around the filtering legislation. In our letter we stated that:

• Government legislation introduced in May 2013 allowed for minor cautions to be ‘filtered’ from standard and enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks after a period of 6 years. Once a caution becomes eligible for filtering, it is deemed to be ‘protected’ and legally does not need to be disclosed to an employer.
• In September 2014, Ryan’s caution became eligible for filtering which was confirmed by the DBS certificate the school had received in June 2015.
• As Ryan had been asked to complete disqualification declaration forms in 2015 and 2016, he had no legal obligation to disclose his caution.

Ryan rang us a couple of weeks later to say that he had been contacted by the headmaster and his suspension had been lifted. The head apologised for the stress and inconvenience that Ryan had been caused but said that he was new in post and didn’t have a good enough understanding of filtering legislation.

Lessons

Schools can be very risk averse when they are dealing with somebody that has a criminal record, especially when they believe that an individual has tried to withhold information from them. This case demonstrates how many employers are unaware of filtering legislation and mistakenly believe that they should (or can) take ‘protected’ cautions/convictions into account.

Links

• Practical information: Filtering of cautions/convictions – A simple guide 

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s case work.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Sadie contacted the Unlock Helpline for some advice around the disqualification by association requirements.

She had been studying for a teaching qualification (PGCE) at university, teaching secondary school-aged children, when details of her new partner’s conviction for a sexual offence were disclosed as additional information on her enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service certificate. She had been contacted by the university who had stated that as a result of her partner’s conviction, it was likely that she would be ‘disqualified by association’ and would be unable to teach unless she were granted a waiver by Ofsted.

The university explained that she would be required to sit a panel interview where her risk levels would be assessed. She was advised that this could result in her being prevented from continuing with her PGCE and may also mean that she would be unable to continue with her placement at a local secondary school.

Sadie told us that she had already been offered a full-time job upon completion of her PGCE and that the letter she’d received from the university had thrown into question her future career plans. If she wasn’t able to complete her placement she wouldn’t be able to qualify as a teacher.

We were able to confirm that the disqualification by association requirements apply only to those teaching children over the age of 8 and therefore, there was no reason why she should not be able to continue with her course or start her new job.

We offered to write to the university to set out the legal position as far as the disqualification by association requirements were concerned and Sadie was happy for us to do so. We also suggested that she write to the police to request that the information about her partner be removed from her DBS certificate as this could potentially continue to affect her when she qualified as a teacher. Although she wasn’t disqualified, many schools would still be concerned about employing a teacher who was living with a known sex offender.

On receipt of our letter, the university agreed that in this instance, Sadie was not subject to disqualification by association requirements. However, they still believed that it was necessary for her to go through a criminal records panel to assess any risk that she posed to her students. At this meeting, Sadie was able to demonstrate that she posed no risk to any children in her care and had a good understanding of safeguarding policies and practices. The university agreed for her to continue studying for her PGCE.

Unfortunately, the police refused to remove the additional information about Sadie’s partner on her DBS certificate which not only sets out the details of his conviction but also states that in their opinion, she could be a facilitator for his access to children. She is in the process of appealing this decision with the Independent Monitor.

Lessons

This case once again demonstrates how risk averse colleges and universities can be and will often make decisions without having a full understanding of current legislation.

Many universities will have policies/procedures in place to deal with students who have criminal records but aren’t always sure how to assess somebody who is ‘associated’ to an individual with a criminal record.

Links

• Practical information: Childcare Disqualification Requirements – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’ 
• Policy and campaign work: Scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare settings

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s case work.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Paige contacted our helpline for some advice relating to a situation which had arisen following her nomination as a trustee of her university’s student union board.

Shortly after being elected as a trustee, the student union board had been contacted by another student drawing their attention to newspaper reports of a conviction Paige had received about 6 years earlier which had resulted in a prison sentence. Although she had informed the university of her conviction at the time of her enrolment, she hadn’t been asked to disclose it during any part of the trustee election process.

The chair of the board had contacted Paige and invited her to attend a meeting where she would be asked to explain the facts and circumstances of the conviction and provide details of why she had chosen not to disclose her conviction at the time of accepting the role of trustee. The board were of the opinion that it would have been good practice to disclose, even if she wasn’t asked to.

We suggested to Paige that she put something in writing to the board prior to the meeting so they would have the opportunity to consider her case before the meeting. She should set out the details of her conviction and the circumstances surrounding it as well as highlighting that:

• Her offence would not be one which would disqualify her from being a trustee of a charity.
• At no point during the election process was she asked about her unspent convictions and, there was no obligation on any new or prospective trustees to proactively provide details of any unspent conviction.
• Had she wanted to disclose her conviction she would have found it difficult to do so confidentially. 50% of the board consisted of students that she would have to interact with outside the board room.

Paige provided Unlock’s details to the board who contacted us prior to the meeting for clarification around disqualification and the legislation around disclosure. We suggested to the board that if they felt it was ‘best practice’ for trustees to disclose, then they should consider asking the question during the recruitment process rather than put the onus on a new trustee to share this voluntarily.

The day after the meeting, Paige received confirmation from the board that having considered the facts of her case, they would be happy for her to continue as a trustee. They stated that as Paige was not a student at the time of her offence and trial it could not be associated with the student union. The board stated that they had a keen interest in the rehabilitation of offenders and wished to support her in moving on with her life after her prison sentence.

Paige said:

“I was pretty confident that I wasn’t disqualified from being a trustee and only needed to disclose if I was asked to. However, when the board told me that it was considered ‘good practice’ to disclose I started to doubt myself and worry that I had done something wrong. Unlock gave me the confidence to fight my corner”

Lessons

The ease in which people can search for information on the internet means that anybody who has information published about them online will always run the risk of it being disclosed informally.

This case demonstrates how universities and student unions have a duty to address concerns raised by other students. In this case, the board gathered enough evidence and information prior to their meeting to enable them to make an informed decision.

Links

• Practical information: Becoming a trustee of a charity
• Our policy and campaign work: Enabling people with convictions to become trustees and run charities

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s case work.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Christopher contacted our helpline for some advice around enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks. He’d worked as a service engineer on a sub-contracting basis for over 4 years, primarily in residential care homes.

Recently the company he worked for had been awarded two new contracts working in schools and they had told him that they needed to carry out a DBS check on him. Christopher wanted to know whether his role required that level of check. He was very concerned that if an enhanced check were to be carried out, an old previous conviction would be disclosed and he would lose his job.

We advised him that normally the job of a service engineer would only be eligible for a basic check, and as his conviction was spent this would not be disclosed on this type of check. However, in certain circumstances an organisation may be able to apply for an enhanced DBS check for this type of job.

From the information Christopher provided us with we advised him that it was likely that his job would only require a basic criminal record check. This was because:

1. The frequency of his work (a bi-annual service contract), and the fact that there would be no opportunity for him to have unsupervised contact with children whilst in the schools meant that his role was outside the criteria for regulated activity.
2. The frequency of his role came outside the criteria for regulated activity in a care home as his work didn’t take place more than once a week, four or more times in a 30 day period or overnight and there was no opportunity for any unsupervised contact with vulnerable adults.

We suggested that Christopher speak to his employer, asking them to reconsider whether an enhanced criminal record check was appropriate in light of the above information.

When we followed up with Christopher, he informed us that as a result of the information and advice that we had provided, his employer had acknowledged that an enhanced DBS check was not required and the application process has been stopped.

Lessons

Many employers struggle to determine the correct level of criminal record check they can request from people they employ on a self-employed basis. This can be through lack of knowledge of the roles and criteria that cover DBS checks. However, once they’re made aware of their legal responsibilities some will stop their requests for DBS checks.

Links

• Practical information: Challenging an ineligible DBS check
• Practical information: Regulated activity

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

We were recently contacted by an individual who had been referred by his local job centre to an organisation that ran a job club assisting individuals to get back into work. He was very concerned that the organisation’s referral form asked a question that he believed was misleading and could have led him to disclose his spent conviction. The question stated:

Have you ever been convicted of: *   Sexual Offences Act 2003, Arson, Violent Behaviour, None 

Are you currently subject to any: *  Court orders, Licence Probation, MAPPA arrangements, None

We reassured the individual that irrespective of the wording of the question, there was no legal requirement for him to disclose his spent conviction.

We contacted the organisation to raise our concerns about the misleading question, explaining that under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, individuals seeking to join a job club were only required to disclose unspent convictions. Therefore, in our opinion, the declaration was misleading and could lead people to disclose information that the organisation legally was not entitled to hold.

The organisation contacted us, thanking us for making them aware of our concerns. They informed us that their referral form would be amended, making it compliant with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA).

We subsequently checked the referral form and found they have totally removed all questions relating to criminal records.

Lessons

This case demonstrates how organisations may believe they have the right to ask certain questions to assist with their referral procedure, but fail to follow their responsibilities under disclosure legislation. This can lead to misleading questions being asked, resulting in confusion and individuals over-disclosing or being discouraged from coming forward.

Links

• Practical information: Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s work with organisations.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.