Terence received a conviction for a sexual offence when he was a teenager; he’s now in his 40’s. He contacted our helpline recently seeking advice around an issue he was having with social services.

Terence explained that he had recently started a relationship with a lady who had two children. However, they had been forced to split up due to the intervention of social services.

He believed that his partner’s estranged husband had become aware of his conviction through Sarah’s Law and had made a complaint to social services. Terence had been interviewed by them and was told that:

• The law stated that as a result of his conviction he was required to disclose it to anybody he started a relationship with.
• As he hadn’t disclosed to his new partner, they believed that potentially he could be looking to groom her children.
• If Terence didn’t end the relationship, the children may be removed from their mother.

Terence described the interview as an “interrogation”, taking him back to a period in his life which he’d tried to put behind him.

We provided Terence with the following information:

• As he was no longer on the Sex Offenders Register or subject to a SOPO/SHPO, there was no legal  requirement for him to disclose an historic conviction to a new partner.
• If social services had any concerns, they should have conducted a risk assessment evidencing the risk they believed the children to be at. We suggested that Terence apply for copies of all data held by social services by submitting a Subject Access Request.
• If he felt the risk assessment was not proportionate or he believed that social workers was abusing their power, then he could consider making a complaint.

Terence has since made a complaint to both social services and his MP. Social services have refuted his claim that they accused him of grooming. He and his partner have now made the decision to have another assessment in the hope that they will be given permission to live together with the children.

Lessons

We appreciate that there is a need for social services to carry out risk assessments where people with certain violent or sexual offences are entering into new relationships, especially if their new partner has children. However, these risk assessments are often not proportionate with regard to the evidence available and the historic nature of the offence and can result in people being told to end their new relationship.

We would always recommend that where an individual feels a social worker is not acting proportionately when dealing with a case, then they should appeal or challenge their decisions. Although parents may be threatened with having their children removed, this can’t happen without a proper risk assessment having been carried out.

Links

• Practical information: Relationships, children and dealing with social services

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.

Published September 2019

Gerry contacted our helpline for some advice around employment and, in particular, the pressure he was being put under by the police and probation to disclose his conviction to his employer, even though his employers had never asked him to disclose.

Gerry explained that he’d been convicted of a sexual offence and although he’d never been to prison, he was on the Sex Offenders Register (SOR). He’d developed a good working relationship with his previous probation officer who had encouraged him to find a job, believing that it was likely to reduce Gerry’s risk of re-offending. After many job applications, Gerry found himself a job with an employer who didn’t ask applicants any questions about criminal records. He was enjoying the work and felt that he was in a ‘good place’. His probation officer told him:

“I’ve seen the difference in you when you’re working and when you’re not. Your depression and mental health seem to have improved and I believe you are less of a risk and less likely to re-offend now that you’re working.”

However, following staffing changes at probation he’d been allocated a new officer who, along with Gerry’s supervising police officer, thought that it was important for him to disclose his conviction to his employers.

Gerry told our helpline advisor that he was extremely concerned that if he did disclose his conviction to his employer, he would lose his job which could potentially lead to a return of his depression.

We advised him to arrange a meeting with his probation and police officers to make them aware of his fears around disclosing to his employer and also to highlight the views of his previous probation officer that he was less likely to re-offend if he were in employment.

A few days later Gerry contacted us again with an update. He’d been sent a text message from his probation officer to let him know that he would be visiting Gerry’s employer with his supervising police officer the following day to disclose the details of Gerry’s conviction. Gerry told us that he’d rather leave the job, than have his conviction disclosed and he was on his way to a meeting with his probation officer.

We suggested that Gerry ask the officers to:

• Set out in writing the reasons why they believed it was necessary to disclose his conviction to his employers.
• Provide details of the risk they believed he posed to work colleagues and members of the public.

Gerry contacted us later that day stating he’d made representation to the officers, but they were adamant that they were still going to disclose as “they were being ordered to by their senior management”. Gerry immediately contacted his employer and resigned from his job.

Three weeks later Gerry’s father contacted us to let us know that since resigning from his job, his son had committed a further offence and was currently on remand in prison.

Lessons

Whilst we appreciate the difficulties that the police and probation have in risk assessing individuals, there are occasions when the assessments they carry out don’t match the evidence that is available to them.

As Gerry’s case demonstrates, even though his previous probation officer felt that being in work would reduce his risk of re-offending and had been happy for him to accept the job without disclosing, a change of supervising officer meant that it became necessary for Gerry to disclose the conviction.

It’s interesting to see that the decision to disclose the conviction seems to have been made by ‘senior management’ and not the officers who dealt with Gerry on a day to day basis.

We’re aware that decisions can change when an individual gets allocated a new police or probation officer. However:

1. If you feel that an officer is acting disproportionately when asking you to disclose your conviction, ask that they put their reasons in writing.
2. If you disagree with the reasons, you should appeal the decision in writing, providing reasons and evidence of why the disclosure is not appropriate.
3. If the decision has been made by ‘senior management’, request an appointment with them, so they can explain their decision to you.
4. If, having made your representations, the police/probation still believe it’s appropriate to disclose, ask them to allow you to disclose to your employers yourself – you’ll be in a better position to explain the circumstances surrounding your conviction and answer any questions your employer may have.

Links

• Disclosing criminal records to employers
• Sex offence notification requirements
• Probation

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.

Katie contacted our helpline for some advice around employment after she’d been cautioned by the police for common assault after ‘slapping’ her 7-year old son Jake.

Katie explained that this incident had been completely out of character but Jake’s behaviour whilst out having a family meal had been terrible and had included him hitting and scratching her and screaming at the top of his voice.

Katie told us that as soon as she’d smacked him she was mortified and her son was also fairly shocked although quite calm. Katie was able to sit down with him and explain why his behaviour had been so unacceptable. They went on to watch a television programme together and, as far as Katie was concerned, the incident was ‘over and done with’.

However, at school the following day, Jake told his teacher what had happened and the school immediately contacted the police and social services.

The incident was investigated by both social services and the police and resulted in the caution for common assault.

Whilst the investigation had been ongoing, Katie had kept her employer updated of the situation and they’d allowed her to take some time off as unpaid leave. However, she’d been asked to attend a meeting with her employer’s to give a full explanation of the caution and how it had arisen. After listening to what she had to say, Katie was told that due to a breach of the employer’s Code of Conduct, she could potentially be dismissed and she was told that she was being suspended whilst her employers considered the information she’d given to them.

Following the meeting, Katie read her employers Code of Conduct and was relieved to see that she’d done everything she was required to do. She was confused therefore as to what reason her employer would have to dismiss her and felt she was being treated harshly and unfairly. At that point, Katie searched online for:

“Can I be dismissed for having a caution?” 

and came across Unlock’s details.

Katie spoke to one of our advisors who informed her that as her job was covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and that cautions are spent immediately, then her employers would be collecting and processing excessive information if they were to use her spent conviction as a reason for dismissing her. They could be in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Katie contacted her employer with the information she’d received from Unlock. A few days later, her line manager rang her to tell her that they wouldn’t be taking any further action and that she should return to work the following Monday.

Katie stated:

“I can’t thank Unlock enough for giving me all the information I needed to help me defend myself and prevent me from being dismissed. The advisor I spoke to was not only informative but friendly and supportive – I don’t think I’d have kept my job if it wasn’t for Unlock.”

Lessons

Although Katie followed her company’s Code of Conduct and informed her employer of her caution, under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), they had no lawful basis and condition for processing this criminal record data.

The employer didn’t intend carrying out a formal criminal record check to verify the information Katie had given to them and this could therefore be considered excessive data collection, a breach of principle (c) of GDPR.

By taking Katie’s spent caution into account, her employer would have been acting unlawfully under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and, as a result be in breach of principle (a) of the GDPR.

Links

• GDPR and data protection – Guidance for individuals

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.