Shortly after joining theForum, Adam started a thread asking how other members coped with their emotions. He stated that one day he’d be fine and felt able to cope with anything life threw at him, and the next he’d be extremely depressed having realised that, as a person with a conviction, he was unemployable.

Several forum members responded to the post offering their thoughts and advice. Some gave details of organisations that supported people with convictions back into work whilst others mentioned the benefits of becoming self-employed.

The majority of the posts empathised with how Adam was feeling:

“I can very much relate to what you are feeling and going through. I think to be honest among ex-offenders it is pretty much par for the course”.

“Thank you for sharing this. You’ve articulated a post in such a way I could have written the exact same thing myself. It is tough and myself and others can completely empathise”.

Adam thanked everybody that had responded to him and explained how much it had helped, knowing that he wasn’t alone and that others were there to support him.

Adam stated:

“I’m glad I started this thread, it’s certainly shown how common this problem is. It’s great to have a forum like this where I can go on a regular basis and chat to others in the same situation where we can support each other to get through difficulties”.

Lessons

Having a conviction can be a very isolating experience; people often lose family and friends and can find it more difficult to make new ones.

As Adam has seen from the responses to his post, many people struggle with the same types of issues and having somewhere to share these and exchange ways in overcoming them, makes it feel like a less lonely experience.

Links

• You can visit (and join) the online forum

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.

Following his successful appointment to a job working in a call centre, Arthur had been told by his new employer that he would need to apply for a basic criminal record check. His employer provided him with a link to an online application form which Arthur used to complete the check. On receiving his basic certificate Arthur was shocked to see that it still showed his conviction which he was certain was spent and shouldn’t have been disclosed.

A few days later Arthur plucked up the courage to speak with his manager and explained that despite his conviction being spent, it was still showing on his basic criminal record certificate. His manager told him that he would probably be dismissed due to his failure to disclose his conviction and the only advice he was given was to resign before he was sacked.

Arthur contacted our helpline to get some further advice and was asked by the helpline advisor to email a copy of his basic certificate. It immediately became apparent that instead of applying to the Disclosure and Barring Service who deal with basic checks for jobs in England and Wales, Arthur had unwittingly applied to Disclosure Scotland for his basic check. The advisor explained the impact of applying to the incorrect organisation for a basic criminal record check:

• As of January 2018, Disclosure Scotland became responsible for carrying out basic checks for jobs based in Scotland; they are produced in accordance with Scottish law. At the same time, the Disclosure and Barring Service started doing basic checks for jobs in England and Wales; these are produced in accordance with English law.
• Changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) in 2014 were only applicable in England and Wales which meant that rehabilitation periods in Scotland are generally longer than they are in England and Wales. For example a conviction which resulted in a fine in England would become spent after 1 year whereas in Scotland it would take five years.

Therefore although Arthur’s conviction was spent under English law it remained unspent under Scottish legislation which was why it had been included on the basic check carried out by Disclosure Scotland.

Although Arthur explained this to his employers, he was told that as the check had been carried out there was nothing more that could be done.

After seeking further advice from Unlock, Arthur spoke to his employers again explaining that:

1. As the company and the job were based in England, the link provided by the company should have taken Arthur to the DBS site for online basic checks and not the one for Disclosure Scotland. Arthur’s basic check had therefore been carried out by the wrong organisation.
2. As the basic certificate had disclosed convictions which were spent in England and Wales, these should have been disregarded by the employer. As the employers were continuing to use this information to disadvantage Arthur, they may be breaching the Data Protection Act by processing data excessively.

Several days later Arthur’s employer informed him that they had made further enquiries into the matter and agreed that they shouldn’t have taken the spent conviction into account and that Arthur could keep his job.

Arthur said:

“I couldn’t believe it when my certificate came back with my conviction on it but as soon as they saw it, Unlock knew exactly what had happened. The advice they gave me was invaluable and I wouldn’t have been able to challenge my employers without their help.”

Lessons

This case demonstrates how some employers in England and Wales have failed to recognise that as of January 2018 the DBS became responsible for all levels of criminal record check. By continuing to apply for basic checks through Disclosure Scotland, employers may be given information relating to spent convictions which they are not legally allowed to know about.

Where a spent conviction is disclosed to an employer in error (as in this case) the employer should disregard it as failure to do so may result in a breach of the Data Protection Act.

Links

• Basic DBS 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.

Wayne had been working as a consultant for several years when he was offered a paid job working for one of his clients. After accepting the job he’d been told that he would be working on a government contract and would need security clearance.

Wayne contacted our helpline and explained that he had two convictions which were now spent. He wanted to know whether they would come up as part of the security clearance process and if so, would his employer be told the reason why he’d failed the checks. His employer had carried out a basic DBS check which had come back ‘clean’ and were therefore not aware of his convictions. He was extremely concerned that he would lose his job if they were to become aware of them.

We advised Wayne that his convictions would appear on a security clearance check and it would be in his best interest to disclose them to his employer as soon as possible. We reassured him that the purpose of these types of checks were usually to protect government assets from cyber security threats, terrorists and other pressure groups and his convictions would probably not be relevant.

Wayne contacted us again after a couple of months to confirm that he had disclosed to his employer, he had been given his security clearance and was now working on a government contract. He said:

I was really worried about what would come up on my security clearance especially as I hadn’t told my employers about my old convictions. Having talked the options through with one of the advisors at Unlock it became clear that I should speak to my employer – if I didn’t get the clearance, they may have been able to put me on another contract.

Lessons

This case shows that having a criminal record isn’t always a bar to getting security clearance for government jobs. Although Wayne’s conviction was spent and he had no reason to disclose it to his employer, for jobs that require security vetting, it’s usually best to have a discussion with your employer.

Links

• There’s information on working in government/security vetting/security clearance on our self-help information site.

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.

Alice had been employed as a care support worker for 15 years during which time she’d worked for several different companies who were responsible for running a care home contract. They’d all been aware of her historic (over 30 years old) convictions and had always risk assessed her as ‘posing no threat to clients’.

However, following the take-over of the care home contract by another company, Alice was called to a meeting with HR where she was informed that following receipt of her enhanced DBS certificate, they considered her to be a threat when working alone with clients. The organisation circulated the results of the risk assessment to all care home managers working for the company informing them that Alice should not be allowed to work alone with any clients.

Alice was devastated by the new assessment as she didn’t believe that her old convictions were relevant to the work she was doing and that she didn’t pose any risk to the clients she worked with. She felt that as she was unable to work unsupervised then the majority of home managers wouldn’t want to use her which would significantly affect her earnings and her ability to support herself. Alice contacted our helpline for advice.

We suggested to Alice that she appeal the organisation’s decision and ask them to review their risk assessment. We advised her to highlight her unblemished work record, length of service, the fact that her convictions were over 30 years old, were for minor offences (shoplifting) and were not relevant to the work that she was doing. It was also important that she state that no other company had deemed her to be a risk and that she had worked unsupervised in the care sector for 15 years.

Alice contacted us several weeks later confirming that she had successfully appealed her company’s decision and was now back to lone work. She said:

Being deemed a risk and a threat was an awful experience and took me back to a very bad time in my life. It was so good to be able to get some practical advice from Unlock about how to deal with the situation when I was finding it hard to think straight.

Lessons

This case demonstrates the different assessment procedures operated by organisations which can lead to people with convictions being negatively assessed when previously they had not been deemed to pose any type of risk. This not only leads to upset and anxiety but can also have financial implications. However, by setting out a reasoned argument you can successfully get an assessment overturned.

Despite her convictions being very old, Alice had more than one, which meant they would not be eligible for filtering from her enhanced DBS check even though on their own, they would be.

Links

• There’s information on how employers should handle certificate information and filtering on our self-help information site.

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.

As part of his sentence in 2012, Joseph was put on the Sex Offenders Register for five years and given an indefinite SOPO. Whilst he’d always been concerned that there were some fundamental flaws with the SOPO, he’d been advised to ‘live with it’.

As 6 years had passed since the conviction, Joseph was considering applying to have his SOPO discharged and contacted our helpline for some advice on how he should go about this.

We advised him to initially try to get the support from his PPU officer. If the police had no reason to contest his application then it was likely that his case could be dealt with administratively without the need to attend court. If he did need to attend, then it was possible that he could represent himself without the need for legal assistance if he couldn’t afford it.

Joseph contacted us a couple of months later to confirm that he’d had his case heard at court. Initially he’d been concerned that his application would be unsuccessful as the Crown Prosecution Service’s barrister had asked for an adjournment, due to the police wishing to attend the hearing.

However, after reviewing all the evidence presented, the judge made the following comments:

• He praised Joseph for the thoroughness of his application
• Although both the CPS and the police had been given ample opportunity to respond to the application, nothing had been forthcoming
• Had the police and the CPS been more diligent in the original composition of the SOPO, there would have been no need for the application to have been made
• He commented on the effort Joseph had put in over the previous six years in complying with a dubiously worded order
• Joseph had made the effort to appear at the hearing.

The judge concluded that he could see no justifiable reason why the application shouldn’t be granted and the SOPO was discharged.

Ultimately, this meant that not only was the SOPO discharged but Joseph’s time on the SOR also came to an end and his conviction was spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Joseph stated:

I can’t thank Unlock enough for their help and advice which has enabled me to finally remove this huge weight from my shoulders.

Lessons

This case demonstrates how by submitting a well thought out, well worded application with supplementary evidence, you can successfully get a SOPO discharged. Whilst people can be cynical about the criminal justice system, this case highlights how judges will look at the facts before them and base their decisions on this.

Links

• There’s information on Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, Sexual Harm Prevention Orders and sex offence notification requirements on our self-help information site.

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.