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

Archives: Case Studies

Ian – Unlock provided me with information and advice and introduced me to another new business start up

Ian initially contacted our helpline for some advice in 2019 after the solicitors he had worked for, for 25 years suspended him when his conviction from 1988 came to light.

In order to ensure that they were fully compliant with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Ian’s employers decided to carry out retrospective background checks on all employees and Ian felt that he had no option but to disclose his conviction to one of the managing partners. His employers took advice from both the SRA and an employment law specialist but neither were able to offer any definitive guidance as to whether Ian’s conviction prevented him from working in a finance role.

Although the SRA later confirmed that Ian’s role did not fall within the scope of the regulations and he didn’t need to have a criminal record check, his employers had already made the decision to terminate his employment.

When our advisor spoke to Ian he was shocked to find himself unemployed after 25 years and we were able to provide him with advice around ‘friendly’ employers and disclosing his conviction.

In early 2020, Ian got in touch with the helpline again. He explained that finding a new job was proving difficult and he’d decided to utilise his skill set and knowledge to set up his own business. Ian asked whether we were aware of any organisations that he could approach for a start-up grant or loan and if we knew of any web designers that might help him with a new website.

We gave Ian the details of two organisations that fund business start-up’s as well as information relating to a scheme run by the Department for Works and Pensions. We also introduced Ian to a digital design company set up by a gentleman following his release from prison in 2018.

Ian emailed us a couple of weeks ago to say:

“I’m now up and running my own company. That would be a cause for celebration in itself, but I also have clients. It’s been just over a year since I lost my job and the past 12 months have been tough, but with the support and help from people like you and others, I got through this and the future does not seem as daunting.”

 

Notes about this case study

  1. Ian was supported by Unlock’s helpline
  2. We have practical guidance on self-employment/running your own business
  3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

 

 

Ulrik – Applying for a degree in medicine doesn’t mean universities are exempt from disclosure laws

Ulrik contacted our helpline for some advice following an application he’d made to study medicine at university.

He explained to our helpline advisor that when he’d applied to the university he’d been asked to declare any spent or unspent cautions or convictions that would show on a criminal record check. Ulrik ticked the “Yes” box and disclosed the details of a caution for harassment which he’d received approximately six years previously.

On receipt of his application the university asked Ulrik to attend a fitness to practice panel meeting to discuss the details of his caution in further detail. Following the meeting his application was refused on the basis of his criminal record with the university stating that:

“He posed a risk and there was little evidence that he would not be a risk in the future.”

Soon after receiving the university’s decision Ulrik became aware that his caution for harassment was eligible for filtering and would not appear on his enhanced DBS check.

Wondering whether he had any grounds for an appeal, Ulrik contacted a barrister who told him that for medical courses, universities were able to take filtered cautions and convictions into account.

After listening to his concerns, our advisor confirmed that Ulrik’s caution would be filtered from standard and enhanced checks. Even though he had disclosed it, this had been done in error and should have been disregarded by the university. The advisor suggested that it may be worth him appealing the university’s decision as they could potentially be in breach of GDPR and data protection legislation.

Ulrik put his appeal in writing to the university drawing attention to the legislation surrounding filtering, namely The Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2013. He also provided links to the General Medical Council’s website which provided guidance around filtered cautions and convictions and stated:

“If it is protected (filtered) it does not need to be declared when you apply for registration. If you do disclose a protected offence, we can’t take it into account when we assess your application for registration”.

Several weeks later Ulrik contacted Unlock again to say:

“The university have upheld my appeal. I can’t tell you how happy I am with the outcome. Thank you so much for all your help.”

 

Lessons

This case demonstrates how colleges and universities are not always aware of the filtering rules and can mistakenly take into account convictions that they’re not legally entitled to consider. The worst offenders seem to be universities offering courses in medicine who, for some reason, believe that filtering is not applicable to them. 

Notes about this case study

  1. Ulrik was supported by Unlock’s helpline.
  2. We have practical guidance on the filtering of spent cautions/convictions.
  3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Toby – Failure of the system to amend a restraining order has led to the loss of several jobs

Toby contacted our helpline for some advice regarding a restraining order which he’d received in 2010. He explained that he had originally been given an ‘indefinite’ order which his solicitor considered to be excessive.

An application was made to the Court to amend the order whereupon it was changed to 2 years.

Since then Toby has applied for several jobs and has been unsuccessful in all of them.  Initially he’d assumed that this was because of his criminal record but once his conviction was spent he thought it was more likely to be because he didn’t have the necessary skills and experience.

At the end of 2019 Toby was offered a job as a delivery driver for a large retailer. As his conviction was spent he didn’t disclose it to his employers and he wasn’t worried about his basic DBS certificate being sent straight to them. However on receipt of the certificate his employers withdrew the job offer. His conviction had been disclosed and his employers took the view that Toby had been dishonest.

Further investigations revealed that his restraining order was still recorded as ‘indefinite’ meaning that his conviction remained unspent.

He immediately highlighted the error to the police but it took many telephone calls and copies of his court records before the police accepted that a mistake had been made in the recording of the order.

Toby is currently taking legal advice from a solicitor concerning a possible claim for damages against the police.

Toby said:

“I knew that getting a job with an unspent conviction was going to be difficult but I was surprised when I continued to get rejection after rejection even after my conviction became spent. I find it hard to understand why the Police National Computer wasn’t updated and I’ll never know the true extent of the damage this has caused me.”

 

Notes about this case

  1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on improving how the DBS works for people with a criminal record.
  2. We have practical guidance on applying to a court to end a court order.
  3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
  4. Other policy cases are listed here.

Julian – Extra costs and the possible loss of a job because my records didn’t show I’d paid my compensation order

In 2009 Julian was convicted of ABH and received a community order together with a £1,000 compensation order which he paid immediately.

After waiting the 5 years for his conviction to become spent (this was prior to the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in 2014) Julian applied to Disclosure Scotland (who were responsible for producing basic checks at that time) in April 2014 for a copy of his basic criminal record check; keen to see his blank certificate.

On receipt of the certificate Julian was surprised to see that his conviction from 2009 was still showing. He immediately contacted Disclosure Scotland who told him that he needed to provide them with proof that he had paid the compensation order. Until then, the assumption was that the order was unpaid and Julian’s conviction would remain unspent.

Julian provided the necessary proof and Disclosure Scotland issued a new certificate without any conviction information. They advised Julian that having had proof of payment, his conviction would remain spent on any future basic checks; he wouldn’t need to provide proof of payment again.

In March 2015 Julian applied for another basic check through Disclosure Scotland following the offer of a new job. On receipt of the certificate, the conviction information had once again been disclosed. Julian made a complaint to Disclosure Scotland who quickly established that an error had occurred and a new certificate was issued. Although they maintained that no conviction information had been disclosed to a third party, they accepted that the certificate was inaccurate and had been incorrectly processed.

Julian made a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

The ICO found that in producing the basic criminal record check Disclosure Scotland had breached principles one, three and four of the Data Protection Act, namely:

  • Principle 1 – The processing of personal data must be (a) lawful and (b) fair and transparent.
  • Principle 3 – The processing of personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose for which it is processed.
  • Principle 4 – Personal data undergoing processing must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

Although details of his conviction were not disclosed to his employer, Julian believes that the situation could have been very different. Having had confirmation from Disclosure Scotland in 2014 that his conviction was spent and having received a copy of his blank certificate, Julian was happy for the certificate he applied for in 2015  to be sent directly to his employer. It was only because he’d followed the employer’s policy and asked for the certificate to be sent to his home address that this had not happened.

Notes about this case

  1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on improving how the DBS works for people with a criminal record.
  2. We have practical guidance on applying to a court to end a court order.
  3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
  4. Other policy cases are listed here.

Case of Amir

Amir applied for a job in the training department of one of the big four accounting firms. After a telephone interview, assessment centre and face-to-face interview Amir was selected over the 18 other candidates. He was overjoyed, as he had worked hard over the last 12 years to build the skills and qualifications needed for a job with a prestigious company.

When he was 17 Amir was convicted, along with a group of other young men, for a serious assault on a man. Amir hadn’t actually hurt the man but was part of the group. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison and, when he was released after three years, he moved with his family to a new area to make a fresh start. Amir enrolled in college and completed qualifications in business and IT. He ran a small business from home doing computer repairs and providing training.

After he received the firm’s offer, Amir disclosed that he had an unspent conviction for a violent offence. Initially he was told that, as the offence wasn’t relevant, the offer would progress. Weeks passed and Amir heard nothing. His requests for an update were ignored and there was no written policy on employing people with criminal records. After three months of waiting patiently, Amir contacted the UK Director of HR who said the company had a policy of not employing anyone with an unspent conviction. She couldn’t explain why and wasn’t sure why Amir had been left waiting for so long.

Amir said:

I was so proud when I was offered the job and I thought what a great example I could be to others like me – yes, I went to prison but I worked hard and turned my life around. It seems like I’ll never be allowed that chance though, my conviction will never be spent, I’ll have to tell employers about it forever. I’ve got nearly 40 years of working life ahead of me – when will I get the chance to move on?

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

Like so many others convicted in young adulthood, Amir has done everything possible to show he was rehabilitated – but the law won’t let him move on. Do we want a society that anchors young people to their past?

Lessons from this case

Unlock has long campaigned for fundamental changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), the legislation that governs the disclosure of criminal records to employers, educational institutions, insurers and housing providers. Changes implemented in 2014 (through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012) focused mainly on reducing rehabilitation periods.

More than 8000 people a year receive a sentence of more than four years. As the law stands, these can never become spent meaning people will have to declare them for the rest of their life – on job applications, for housing or insurance. An unspent conviction is a lifelong barrier to moving on.

The employer in this case is not signed up to ban the box even though they don’t ask about criminal records on application. If they had been signed up they might have handled Amir’s disclosure more effectively. Employers should have a written policy on recruiting people with criminal records and be clear with applicants what will happen to information that is disclosed. Failing to do so is likely to be in breach of the GDPR.

 

Notes about this case

  1. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
  2. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on employment and ROA reform
  3. Other policy cases are listed here.

Case of Ian

Ian started work with his professional services firm in the early 1990s back when few employers asked about criminal records. Over the years he developed his skills and was now responsible for managing the office and billing. Ian planned to work there until retirement.

In 2019, the firm introduced new HR systems and retrospectively carried out basic DBS checks on all staff. Ian had been sentenced to 7.5 years in prison in the 1980s for his involvement in an armed robbery. As the law stands, his conviction can never become spent. Ian explained this to his employer and hoped his 25 years of service and exemplary work record would stand him in good stead. Ian’s conviction does not legally prevent him from doing his work, and he is not a danger to staff or clients. There are no online news stories about it and it would be impossible for a client or other staff member to find the information.

Despite this, the firm decided that they had to let Ian go – they said they couldn’t risk anyone finding out an employee had an unspent conviction.

Ian said:

The people that made the decision to terminate my employment were people I’d known for 25 years; I didn’t just think of them as my employers but also as friends. I was obviously nervous about disclosing my conviction to them and I honestly thought that they’d use my 25 years of work experience to make a decision rather than something that happened 31 years ago when I was a very different person. I’m now claiming benefits while I look for a new job instead of paying tax on a good salary.

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

This shocking decision shows just how difficult employers find dealing with criminal records information. Rather than carry out a risk assessment it’s often easier to simply reject or dismiss someone. Ian had done everything possible to show he was rehabilitated – but the law won’t let him move on. This needs to change and that’s why we continue to campaign for reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Lessons from this case

Unlock has long campaigned for fundamental changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), the legislation that governs the disclosure of criminal records to employers, educational institutions, insurers and housing providers. Changes implemented in 2014 (through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012) focused mainly on reducing rehabilitation periods.

Around 9000 people a year receive a sentence of more than four years. As the law stands, these can never become spent meaning people will have to declare them for the rest of their life – on job applications, for housing or insurance. An unspent conviction is a lifelong barrier to moving on.

We think this should change and that’s we we’re campaigning for ROA reform. As part of our campaign, we use case studies to show why reform is necessary to help law abiding people with convictions move on.

Notes about this case

  1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on ROA reform
  2. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
  3. Other policy cases are listed here.

Case of Lauren

Case of Lauren – consecutive sentences can never become spent

Lauren contacted us for help understanding when her convictions would become spent. She was convicted of two separate offences related to the same incident, all dealt with in the same court proceedings. She was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison for cultivating cannabis and a further 18 months for money laundering. The judge ordered that the sentences run consecutively, making Lauren’s total sentence four years and two months.

Where convictions are sentenced in the same proceedings, the rehabilitation period depends on whether the sentences run concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (one after the other). If consecutive sentences are imposed, then the sentences will be added together to calculate the rehabilitation period

As Lauren’s sentences combined were longer than 4 years, neither of her convictions can ever become spent. She will have to disclose them to employers, housing providers or insurers until she is 100 years old.

Lauren said:

I was shocked to find out that my convictions can never become spent. I made one stupid mistake that I will never repeat – if I had committed the same crimes but been convicted on two occasions I would have been able to put this behind me by now. Before this I worked since I left school, but now every employer asks about convictions on their application form so it’s impossible to find a job. 

Lessons from this case

Unlock has long campaigned for fundamental changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), the legislation that governs the disclosure of criminal records to employers, educational institutions, insurers and housing providers. Changes implemented in 2014 (through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012) focused mainly on reducing rehabilitation periods.

More than 8000 people a year receive a sentence of more than four years – either as a single sentence or as a mixture of consecutive sentences. As the law stands, these can never become spent meaning people will have to declare them for the rest of their life – on job applications, for housing or insurance. An unspent conviction is a lifelong barrier to moving on.

Notes about this case

  1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on employment and ROA reform.
  2. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
  3. Other policy cases are listed here.

Charles – Information and advice is great but Unlock also gave me encouragement and support

Charles contacted our helpline following a job offer he’d received for a university lecturer’s job in China. He’d been told that he would need to provide a police certificate in order to get a work visa and he wanted to know whether his two convictions would be disclosed.

When our advisor explained that the convictions would appear on the certificate Charles became very concerned, worried that if his visa was refused then the university would have no option but to withdraw the job offer.

We informed Charles that although the process of applying for visas and disclosing convictions can be stressful, he shouldn’t assume that his visa application would be refused. We reassured him that his convictions were from over 20 years ago, he’d had a clean criminal record since then, he had a solid employment history and had already received a job offer from a reputable university in China.

We explained that many people with convictions are granted visas and that the Chinese Embassy website made it clear that disclosure of a criminal record wouldn’t automatically stop him from getting a visa.

Over the next month Charles contacted the helpline several times worried that the slow progress of his application was an indication that his visa was going to be refused. Eventually he received notification that his application had been successful.

Charles states:

“I’d convinced myself that my visa application was going to be refused despite the positivity of the Unlock helpline advisor. It turned out that the delay was due to the impact of Covid-19 which, on reflection, made perfect sense. It was good to know that somebody from Unlock was at the end of the phone and I could talk through my concerns.”

 

Lessons

It’s sometimes the case that because of their criminal record individuals are deterred from applying for jobs, visas etc in the mistaken belief that they’ll be refused. As this case demonstrates, Charles’ criminal record didn’t stop him getting a visa and ultimately a job as a lecturer in China.

In cases like this, as well as providing information and advice to individuals, it’s important that Unlock’s advisors can offer encouragement and support.

Links

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.

Mehmet – Unlock helped me take the steps necessary to achieve my ultimate goal

Mehmet contacted our helpline following an application he’d made for a volunteering role with a well-known charity.

Mehmet explained that having recently been accepted by the charity as a volunteer he’d just been told that he would need to have an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check prior to starting his training. He was concerned that having two convictions (one of which had resulted in a prison sentence) would stop him from continuing with the training and ultimately volunteering.

We suggested that before completing the DBS application, Mehmet arrange to speak to his branch director and have an informal discussion about his convictions; they would hopefully be able to give him an indication of how the charity risk assessed and considered applicants with a criminal record.

The following week Mehmet contacted the helpline with an update. He’d spoken to the DBS coordinator at the charity and had been told that they had no blanket bans on the recruitment of people with a criminal record; they would assess each applicant on an individual basis to ensure that there were no restrictions or conditions which would prevent them from volunteering. The coordinator explained to Mehmet that depending on the contents of his DBS, it may be necessary for it to be considered by a review panel.

On receipt of the enhanced certificate, Mehmet was informed that it would be taken to the charity’s DBS panel for a decision. He was asked to provide further information including the circumstances that had led to the offences and what, if anything, he had done since being convicted to change his life. Mehmet was asked to provide the information in writing and was reassured that only the branch director and the panel would have sight of the information. The panel members would not be provided with Mehmet’s name.

A helpline advisor discussed with Mehmet what he should include in the disclosure and provided him with feedback on his first draft.

Following the panel meeting Mehmet contacted the helpline:

“I’ve just heard from the DBS panel and glad to say it’s good news and I can continue with my training and volunteering. I’ve been blown away by how helpful Unlock has been and doubt whether I could have made some of the positive steps I’ve taken without your input.”

 

Lessons

We often hear organisations say that they ‘have no blanket bans on recruiting people with convictions’ and they ‘assess each applicant on an individual basis’ but it’s great to see a charity such as this who do exactly what they say they’ll do.

Links

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.

Sean – My employer tried to adhere to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) but this just caused more confusion

Sean contacted our helpline for some advice in answering a vetting form which he’d been given by a potential employer.

Sean explained that he’d been working for the company as a contractor but was in the process of transferring to being a permanent member of staff. He’d been asked to complete a vetting form which asked for details of his criminal record and for consent to carry out a criminal record check. The form stated that he had the right to decline consent but that if consent were refused the business

“May determine that they are unable to process the application.”

Sean told us that he had a conviction from 10 years ago which was now spent. He didn’t think he needed to disclose it but didn’t want to refuse to have a criminal record check and have the employer discontinue the recruitment process.

From the information Sean had provided, we were able to advise him that the job he was applying for would only be eligible for a basic criminal record check. Therefore, he didn’t need to disclose his spent conviction and, once he’d ascertained the level of check the company were going to undertaken, he could give his consent for a basic DBS check.

Sean contacted us a couple of weeks later to confirm that he’d followed the advice given by Unlock. The employer had carried out a basic DBS check which had come back ‘clean’ and Sean was now working for the company as a permanent staff member.

Sean told us:

“I’d never seen a vetting form written in this way before and I was confused about how to answer the question. Speaking to the advisor at Unlock gave me the confidence to question what check the employer was going to do and understand that I didn’t need to disclose my spent conviction.”

 

Lessons

In May 2018 the General Date Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force. This new legislation meant that where an employer wanted to process data relating to criminal convictions, they needed to have a lawful basis for doing so, one of which was consent.

However, where an employer uses consent as a basis for processing data, they have to offer genuine choice and allow individuals to refuse to give consent or to withdraw it. As Sean’s employer stipulated very clearly that failure to give consent could have unfavourable consequences, then it’s unlikely they would be able to rely on consent as their lawful basis.

Links

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 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