Sharmini contacted our helpline following the withdrawal of two job offers; one with an insurance company and the other a high street bank.

She told us that during her interviews with both employers she disclosed that she had a motoring conviction and that both employers indicated that this would not be a problem. On the most recent occasion, Sharmini was given a start date and said she had been really looking forward to the challenge of a new role. Immediately after she received her basic criminal record check from Disclosure Scotland she sent it to her potential employers who then contacted her. In her words:-

‘They were surprised by the contents of the disclosure certificate and felt that they had been misled by her explanation at interview. In the circumstances therefore they had no option but to withdraw the job offer’.

To try to get a better understanding of her conviction, we asked Sharmini for further details. She told us that in 2013 she had been convicted of drink-driving after having an accident in her friend’s car. Her friend, unaware that she had taken the car, had reported it stolen and despite informing the police that he did not wish Sharmini to be prosecuted, the police took the decision to charge her not only with drink-driving but also aggravated vehicle taking. In court she received a driving ban together with a 6 month sentence suspended for one year for theft.

We asked Sharmini whether she had explained her offence in this way to the employer. She confirmed that all she’d told them was that she had a motoring conviction because she considered the theft to be linked to the drink-driving charge. She was also concerned that she’d never be given a chance if she mentioned her suspended sentence.

We explained that having listened to her disclosure at interview, the employer would have expected to only see a drink-driving ban on the certificate. What they actually received showed a further conviction which had resulted in a suspended prison sentence. It’s possible therefore that they had taken the view that she had not been totally upfront and honest with them and, as a result of this perceived ‘breakdown’ in trust, they were less likely to let her explain further.

We suggested that although Sharmini may find it hard to disclose her suspended prison sentence, it would (at the moment at least) come to light if an organisation were to do a basic criminal record check. If asked at application or interview, explaining it face to face would give her the opportunity to describe the circumstances that led to the convictions. An employer would hopefully be able to see for themselves how the two offences were linked and that in this situation the ‘aggravated vehicle taking’ probably sounded a lot worse than it actually was.

We told Shamini that having seen a copy of her basic disclosure, she now knew how her criminal record would be presented and she could use this knowledge to her advantage when disclosing it to an employer.

Two months later, Sharmini contacted us again to give us an update. She told us that she’d been for an interview with a financial services company. The job was her dream job with lots of potential for training and promotion. Despite her fears, Sharmini used the information and advice we’d given her and disclosed in full. The company told her they would let her know. Several days later, she was offered the job.

Sharmini said:

When I contacted Unlock I’d started to think that I’d never get a job. When the advisor told me that, given my current situation and the type of jobs I was applying for, it was best to disclose everything I couldn’t see any immediate advantages to this. However, the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. At my last interview, I just went for it and told them everything. I really thought I’d blown it but a couple of days later I was offered the job.

 

Ironically, I haven’t been asked to do any formal criminal record checks so I probably could have got away with not telling them about the suspended sentence. However, recently my boss told me that he’d shortlisted two candidates – there was little between us. What swung it for me apparently was my honesty!!’

Lessons

This case shows the importance of a good disclosure be it in writing or verbally. Any vagueness, hesitation or omitting key facts could make you look dishonest. In this case, her convictions were unspent and the employer was doing a basic check, so knowing what that looks like on paper can held an individual to better disclose verbally.

Links

We have information on our self-help information site which looks at disclosing to employers, including how to get a copy of a basic disclosure.

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.

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.

Lee said:

‘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’.

Lessons

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.

Links

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.

Benny contacted our helpline to find out whether his convictions from about 15 years ago would be filtered and if so, what was the process for asking the DBS to filter them. He explained that as a result of an undiagnosed mental health illness, he was convicted of two offences and had received a hospital order. Once diagnosed, he immediately started treatment and has had a clean record ever since.

He told us how his children were members of their local Beavers and Cubs groups and he was really keen on getting involved with one of these types of organisation. He had been a Boy Scout himself and remembered fondly the amazing friendships he’d made and the fantastic trips he’d been on to Holland and Switzerland.

We advised Benny that due to his having two convictions, neither of these would be eligible for filtering. We explained to him that just because they would appear on his DBS Certificate, this alone would not prevent him from volunteering.

Benny was extremely disappointed with this information and told us that he didn’t think he could continue with his application knowing not only that his previous convictions would show up but that he would also have to explain about his mental health. He believed this was yet another reason for an organisation to discriminate against him.

We discussed with Benny ways of disclosing his conviction and reassured him that if this was something he was passionate about doing, then he should do it. Benny went away to have a think about it.

Several weeks later, Benny contacted us again to say that he had decided to ‘bite the bullet’ and had enquired about becoming a Scout Leader. He’d spoken to the Leader at his local group about getting involved in some way. He’d disclosed his convictions as well as explaining how these had come about. The Scout Leader told him to apply and got him to complete the DBS application form there and then.

Six weeks later his DBS Certificate was returned with his two convictions showing and he duly handed it over to the Leader. There was no further discussion about the contents of the certificate and Benny was immediately offered the opportunity to start volunteering as a helper with a view to start training as a Leader and then having his own group.

Benny said:

‘I was so disappointed when I heard that my convictions wouldn’t be filtered but the advisor at Unlock was so upbeat and positive that I started to believe that I could apply to become a Scout Leader and that I would be able to disclose my offences.

I’m so glad I’ve done it and I can’t thank Unlock enough for the help and advice they gave me. I’m really looking forward to doing something I’ve been dreaming about doing for years.’

Lessons

This case shows the importance of understanding your criminal record and never assuming that you will automatically be refused a job or voluntary position just on the basis of having a criminal record.

Links

There’s information on disclosure on our self-help information site.

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.

Anne contacted our helpline when she required advice and support around an appeal hearing she was going through with her university.

Anne had been studying for a PhD. She passed her oral examination subject to some minor corrections just over two years ago and a submission date for the completed thesis was set for a couple of months later.

During the course of her study, Anne had been arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply drugs, assisting an offender and perverting the course of justice. Her trial started before she’d submitted her completed thesis and the anxiety and stress arising from this meant that she was unable to submit before the deadline. Anne was convicted and sentenced to prison.

Anne told us that during her time in prison she has been able to reflect on the past. Last year she moved to an open prison and started a voluntary role shortly after. As a result of these positive changes, Anne started to feel able to look to the future and began to consider what she would do upon her release from prison.

Deciding that her future could lay in academia, Anne, with the help of family and friends, set about completing the corrections to her thesis and updating it to reflect relevant changes to legislation.

Given the amount of time that had passed, it was necessary for Anne to reapply to the university and on this occasion had to disclose her criminal convictions. She was told that her application needed to go before the Student Conduct Council who would consider the relevance of her criminal record.

Anne was prepared for there to be some reluctance from the university. She felt they may put conditions upon the acceptance – i.e. not allowing her onto the university campus or not awarding her the PhD whilst she remained a serving prisoner.

Last month, Anne received the university’s decision. In her Dad’s words, the University decided:

‘To expel you from the University with immediate effect. Explusion from the University is compulsory, permanent withdrawal from the University and means that the student is no longer eligible to be registered for a programme of study or a component of a programme of study; or to be awarded a degree or exit award from the University or to reside in University accommodation. 

Anne was devastated by what appeared to be a particularly harsh and permanent decision. Although her convictions would become spent at some time in the future ,Anne believed that the university were not just punishing her for her past mistakes but fixing this punishment for life.

Anne decided that she would appeal the University’s decision and due to the university’s clear focus on her criminal record, decided that she would contact us for some additional help and support.

In their letter to her, the University had stated that:-

‘A PhD represents a senior membership of the university in a world-renowned department. Given the circumstances of the case, it would be inappropriate for you to continue.’

Anne felt that this comment alone demonstrated that the university’s decision was not made purely on any element of risk but on the reputation of the university. She felt strongly that if all universities were to take this approach, then anybody with a criminal conviction would be excluded from gaining an education.

We agreed to assist Anne’s appeal by writing a letter of support. This highlighted the value of education in preventing re-offending and the very unlikely publicity which would result from awarding the PhD since any media interest in Anne’s case would have significantly waned. We are awaiting the results of their decision.

This case is of particular interest to us because in November 2014, we responded to the government consultation into the review of education in adult prisons led by Dame Sally Coates. One of the points that we had highlighted was how the good work done by individuals to educate themselves in prison can come crumbling down due to the attitudes and practices of further education and higher education providers in the community towards people who have been to prison. Although Anne had studied for five years for her PhD prior to going into prison, the attitude of her particular university adds weight to this point. Anne had already completed the majority of her study and the award of her PhD was, in this instance, more of a bureaucratic process.

Anne stated:-

‘I’d like to thank Unlock for the help and support they have provided. I am hoping for a positive outcome and I’ll let you know as soon as I hear anything.’

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to our case work and policy work on university admissions.

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

Davina contacted us for some assistance with an employment dispute.

She had been employed as a dental receptionist having been recruited by a friend (who was the Practice Manager). The manager was aware of her previous convictions which included shoplifting and driving offences but as the recruitment process was very informal, Davina wasn’t asked to disclose them on any application forms nor at interview.

Whilst working at the Practice, the CQC undertook an unannounced visit where it was discovered that the Practice hadn’t undertaken DBS checks for any of its employees. They were told that this had to be done and the CQC would arrange a further visit at a later date. Davina agreed to an enhanced check, (although she did not believe that her position within the Practice required this). She felt that as her convictions were very old and not relevant then they would not affect her role at the Practice. Before the certificate was returned to her, she was diagnosed with cancer and was signed off sick from work.

Whilst on sick leave, she was contacted by her employer to say that due to an office reorganisation she was being made redundant. She was not offered any alternative position. Davina believed the redundancy was as a result of her illness and decided to take her employers to an Employment Tribunal.

At the first Hearing, her employer told the Panel that Davina had been chosen for redundancy as a result of a reorganisation. When it became evident that the Hearing was going in Davina’s favour, her employer stated that following receipt of her DBS check (which had come back with previous convictions), a CQC Inspector had stated that these were ‘not acceptable’ and that Davina should be asked to leave.

When Davina spoke to us she had been given a date for her Final Hearing and wanted to know whether she should have disclosed her previous convictions on application.

We confirmed that anybody responding to an advertisement which does not state whether a job is covered or exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act should disclose nothing, if their convictions are spent. We advised Davina that in our experience, the CQC rarely forced employees to dismiss employees with convictions which were not relevant to the work they were doing. We contacted the CQC and were able to speak directly to the inspector who had visited the Practice. He confirmed categorically that he had not insisted that the Practice sack Davina and agreed to put this in a written statement.

Details of these discussions and were passed to Davina and her advocate for use at the Hearing.

Davina contacted us immediately the Tribunal was over to let us know that it had gone very well and that she had won the case.

Davina said:

‘I was initially disappointed that Unlock were unable to represent me at the Employment Tribunal but I understand why that was the case. However, Debbie did everything she could possibly have done to gather information to support me and I am sure that the statement from the CQC inspector was the real turning point. Thank you so much for everything Unlock. I feel that justice was done.’

Lessons

This case shows how an employer might sometimes use a criminal record as an excuse, but that once you know your rights, you can stand up for yourself and challenge this.

Links

We have information on our self-help information site which look at criminal convictions and employment law.

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.

Alan contacted us for some information about applying to come off the Sexual Offences Register. He was on the register indefinitely and so far had been on it for almost 15 years.

He had found it almost impossible to get a job and has only had one short term temporary position since 2001. He’d had interviews and been offered jobs but once he disclosed his conviction, then the job offer was withdrawn. Alan felt that his ideal job would be a bus driver but he knows that his local bus company does basic criminal record checks and so he wouldn’t be able to apply as, in his words, “sexual offences never become spent.”

On the question of applying to come off the register, we advised him that there is now a right to appeal against being on the Sexual Offences Register for life, but that this isn’t possible under after 15 had passed.

However, more importantly to his problems with employment, we explained that it’s a myth that “sexual offences never become spent” and advised that when he received his 4 year custodial sentence in 1997, it was true that his conviction would never have become spent – but that was because of the sentence he’d received, not the offence he’d committed. Now, as a result of changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which came into force in March 2014, his conviction was now considered spent and he would no longer need to disclose it for a bus drivers job that only involves a basic criminal record check.

Following his conversation with Unlock, Alan decided that he would not only apply for bus driving jobs but would also apply for an SIA Licence, something he had never had the confidence to do before. He used the criminal records indicator on the SIA site which stated that he would be eligible for a Licence even though he still had to disclose his conviction in this situation. Alan has just received his SIA badge.

Alan said:

“I couldn’t believe it when the lady at Unlock told me that my conviction was spent and I didn’t need to disclose if. I love driving and my dream had always been to be a bus driver. The minute I put the phone down I realised that I could do anything I wanted to do and in the end I had the confidence to apply for an SIA Licence which I’ve just received. Next step will be getting off the Register.”

Lessons

This case shows the importance of understanding your rights. Alan had been over-disclosing to employers for many years. As soon as he realised where he stood, his employment chances changed overnight. It also boosted his confidence, giving him the push he needed to apply for his SIA badge.

Links

There’s information on when convictions become spent on our self-help site here. You can also use our Disclosure Calculator to work this out online.

There’s information about applying for a SIA licence with the Security Industry Authority here.

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.

Alistair contacted us after a decision by a supermarket to revoke their delivery driver job offer to him following disclosure of a conviction which had come back on a basic criminal record check.

Alistair said that before he’d applied for the job he’s checked to see the status of his conviction and had been told that it was spent and he had no legal requirement to disclose. He had followed this advice was therefore confused as to why his conviction was now appearing on his basic certificate. He was very distressed and desperate for help.

We asked Alistair to send us a copy of the certificate. Part of Alistair’s disposal had been a compensation order which he had paid immediately after his conviction. Alistair had provided Disclosure Scotland with confirmation of the payment.

We contacted Disclosure Scotland on Alistair’s behalf and were asked to provide them with copies of all previous correspondence and evidence of the payment. Following a thorough investigation, Disclosure Scotland accepted that a ‘technical error’ had occurred and were happy to reissue Alistair with a ‘clean’ certificate and a letter to the supermarket confirming that the disclosure had been a mistake on their part.

We contacted the supermarket with this new information and they were able to confirm that once they’d had sight of the new Certificate, they would be able to offer Alistair a new start date.

Lessons

This case shows the importance of applying for a copy of your own basic disclosure well before applying for any work where you think certain convictions won’t show because you believe they’re spent.

Links

There’s details of how to apply for your own basic disclosure here. There’s information on when convictions become spent on our self-help site here. You can also use our Disclosure Calculator to work this out online.

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.

Gary contacted our helpline after being told by the university at which he was studying that, as a result of his criminal conviction, they would be permanently excluding him.

Gary explained that he had been studying Civil Engineering when on the way home from a friend’s house one night, he was assaulted by a stranger in the street. Out of fear and instinct, Gary fought back and the stranger ran away only to go immediately to the local police station and make a complaint against Gary who was later arrested for GBH.

The police took a statement from Gary and following a full investigation, accepted that he had been acting in self-defence although they concluded that he had used excessive force. In Court, he was given a suspended sentence. He informed the university about the incident and was told that he would no longer be able to study due to the risk he posed to other students, staff and service users.

The university had given Gary the opportunity to appeal and Gary approached us to ask whether we would be able to write a letter of support.

We wrote to the university setting out our views on the importance of education and training as a way of giving individuals a realistic chance of desisting from crime. We quoted a previous Chief Executive of Unlock who said ‘education liberated him from a life of crime’.

Our letter set out the circumstances around Gary’s conviction and explained that although the law allowed an individual to use reasonable force to defend themselves from an attack, psychiatrists have gone on record stating their belief that people seeking to defend themselves from attack act with a combination of fear and anger which is not taken into account in Court.

We confirmed to the university that Gary’s conviction wouldn’t prevent him from meeting the requirements of any relevant professional body and stated our belief that upon successful completion of his degree, Gary would be able to secure suitable employment.

In addition to writing the letter, we suggested that Gary should contact other organisations such as the Longford Trust, the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League and ask if they would also write letters of support. The Longford Trust agreed to do so.

Gary contacted us immediately after the appeal hearing and said:

I got back in! And your letter was very persuasive. In fact without support from you guys and the rest of the sector, I wouldn’t have been reinstated. I’m still struggling in a few areas but there’s a scrap of a chance of me getting on and succeeding now so I will!

 

Lessons

This case highlights how universities can sometimes make decisions to exclude students without fully assessing the risk they pose and the relevancy of their conviction to the course they are studying.

Links

• Applying to university

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s casework.

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

Jane contacted Unlock as she was extremely concerned about a DBS check she needed for her new job. One year earlier she had walked out of a shop with a make-up tester and was stopped by a police woman and issued with a ‘yellow ticket’. The police woman told her that it wasn’t a conviction but hadn’t really explained what it was. Jane wanted to know whether she had to declare it to her employer and was worried that it would show up on her DBS.

Jane had contacted another organisation who told her that it was a criminal conviction, it would appear on her DBS Certificate and that it would be spent after 5 years. Jane wanted a second opinion from Unlock.

Once we understood her situation, we were able to confirm that Jane had been given a Community Resolution Order which was not a conviction and didn’t have a rehabilitation period. We told Jane that if she were having a standard DBS check then it would definitely not be disclosed and if she were having an enhanced DBS, it was highly unlikely that it would be disclosed under ‘Additional Information’ .We advised Jane to say nothing to her employer until she received her DBS Certificate. We also told her that she certainly shouldn’t hand in her notice as the chances of the CRO coming up was very small.

At the time, Jane told us:

“‘If it is disclosed, I’m going to go onto benefits because I can’t bear the idea of disclosing to my employer. She is a lifelong friend and neighbour. It would ruin my life more than unemployment would. I’ve already written to the police highlighting my situation, but I really think it will be back to sickness or unemployment benefit for me. The other option for me would be to simply hand in my notice and get the DBS to stop the check”.

Jane took our advice and waited for the DBS Certificate. There was no mention of the Community Resolution Order and Jane is thoroughly enjoying her new job. She said:

“I found everything about Unlock great – the information from the advisors, the website and also the forum. I’m in work and I would have definitely handed in my notice were it not for Unlock.”

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s Helpline.

Important links relating to this case study include our information on community resolution orders and what is disclosed on enhanced disclosures.

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