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.

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.

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.

Monica didn’t have a great start in life. She was in care from the age of 2 and she didn’t go to a great school, leaving with no qualifications. Fighting was part of her language – she used violence to settle disputes and disagreements. This worked for Monica amongst her peers, but not when she tried to use the same strategy outside in the real world soon after she turned 18; people immediately called the police and Monica ended up with a conviction for ‘Threats to kill’ under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for which she received a conditional discharge.

Later on Monica managed to find employment in the public sector. Her professional body wasn’t informed of her conviction and she was not asked about it. The years passed and she became more and more successful. She’d learned to slow down her speech, she was careful not to swear and she learnt not to use her eye gaze to challenge people.

For 30 years Monica worked hard and did extremely well, until the rules changed and people in her sector were required to undergo regular criminal record checks (every three years). Monica handed in her notice. She couldn’t run the risk of being found out.

She then set up her own company to enable her to continue working in the sector. As she was self-employed Monica didn’t have to be DBS-checked so her past never came to light. However, after about 7 years the rules changed again and when she started to tender for contracts, she would often be told that she would need a criminal record check.

That’s when Monica turned to Unlock. We advised Monica that if she wanted to go back into a paid role in the profession she loved, she would have to be honest and open about her past; legally it would then be up to each organisation to decide if they thought a past mistake, 35 years before, was relevant today.

Monica couldn’t do it. She was not confident to disclose her conviction so she went into retirement. She said:

“I felt cornered. The decision was made for me, I left the world of work, a move I would never have made on my own. I would have worked until I dropped, work defined me but I’m just not brave enough to put myself in a position where I have to be judged again

 

Although I’m now effectively retired, I did get away with not disclosing my conviction … I’m just paying for it now.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process.
2. We have practical guidance on filtering of spent cautions/convictions – a simple guide.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

Dennis has two minor convictions. The first was in 2004 when he was 17 years old – for criminal damage to a phone box for which he received a fine and community service. The second was in 2012 when he was 25 years old – for common assault after an altercation one evening with another young man.

Dennis is studying hard for exams that will lead him to be qualified to take up regulated positions in the finance industry which will require him to undergo standard DBS checks. He is terrified that his past will block his career for which he is working incredibly hard.

Dennis said:

“I regret both instances. I wish I could turn back the hands of time to change the situation but unfortunately I can’t. I’ve done my absolute best to move forward and build a career but truthfully it’s not myself holding back my progress but these two minor convictions. When is the law going to change so that I can apply for a job without having the stigma of disclosing a criminal record? These convictions are not relevant to the jobs that I want to do but an employer will obviously choose the candidate without the conviction and justify it by saying that the other candidate was stronger for the role.

 

When will this nonsense stop! Even if the law changes for minor convictions, having to wait for over 11 years for it to be filtered is ridiculous. Justice has been done. I’ve paid the fine and more than suffered for my mistake. I plead that the law does not destroy my future as it has many others who simply want to just get on with life.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process.
2. Dennis’ story was originally published on our online magazine, theRecord.
3. We have practical guidance on filtering of spent cautions/convictions – a simple guide.
4. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
5. Other policy cases are listed here.

In 2008, after enduring more than a year of emotional abuse from her partner, the police came knocking on Teresa’s door. She had never had any dealings with the police before and she had no idea why they were there. They informed her that her partner had accused her of assault; she had pushed him out of the bedroom door the night before.

The police asked Teresa whether she was suffering from any mental health issues and she admitted that she’d recently had a number of suicide attempts that required hospitalisation. She doesn’t remember much after that apart from tears and complete detachment, but ultimately she was cautioned for ABH.

Skip forward 8 years and, having completed a degree in psychology, Teresa applied for her first job. She had a great interview and couldn’t believe her luck when she was offered the job. As she needed to have a DBS check and knew that the caution wouldn’t be eligible for filtering, she arranged a meeting with the HR manager to discuss her criminal record. Teresa hadn’t thought about what had happened for many years; she’d moved on, she’d completed her therapy and done well. But as she started to explain the situation, it all came flooding back to her. She spent the next week in a state of anxiety, having flashbacks and regrets, reliving memories. It was a totally overwhelming experience. Then at the end of the week she got a call from the employer, informing her that they’d decided to revoke the job offer, as they felt they could not trust her to be alone with vulnerable clients. Thankfully Teresa battled on and she is now working in the NHS but it has not been an easy road.

Teresa said:

“I recently applied to the police to have my caution deleted from the PNC as I don’t feel that the ongoing implication of accepting it was properly explained to me at the time. I was a victim of abuse and struggling with a mental health condition. Sadly the police have refused to delete it.

 

I’m no longer a victim and I no longer struggle with a mental health condition. But this caution will follow me for life. I might be very capable and good at my job but I’ll have to revisit this every time I have a DBS check. When does the past become the past?”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process.
2. Teresa’s story was originally published on our online magazine, theRecord.
3. We have practical guidance on filtering of spent cautions/convictions – a simple guide.
4. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
5. Other policy cases are listed here.

Aged 14 Helen was arrested and received a caution. It was around this time she started binge drinking which began a downwards spiral. Smoking ‘weed’ and drinking heavily at the weekends was pretty much the norm amongst the gang she hung around with and by the time she was 19 a deep depression had overtaken her. She sought help from her GP and received a prescription for anti-depressants, which initially helped. She then began getting as ‘high as a kite’, she became overconfident and argumentative and her weekend drink binges got completely out of control. The depression came and went: 6 months of highs followed by a dark depressive period.

Her first conviction was for drink driving and taking without consent – she ‘borrowed’ her parents’ car. Another drunken incident resulted in a criminal damage conviction when a friend wouldn’t answer the door to Helen. But then came the conviction with the greatest impact: assault on a police constable. She was on a night out, drunk again and angry. She admits that she was being a nuisance. Somebody called the police. When they arrived she resisted arrest and assaulted the police officer by spitting on his arm. Helen doesn’t try to excuse her behaviour but, she can help to explain it by the fact that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder the previous year. She was under the care of a mental health team at the time of her arrest.

Helen said:

“I’m repentant and ashamed about my past and although my criminal record isn’t extensive, it’s affected my self-esteem and mental health, thus impeding my whole life. So, why does my record bother me so much? It’s the conviction for assault that causes me the most problems especially if I’m applying for jobs which require an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. The word ‘assault’ is so ambiguous and it would be a huge benefit if the DBS could provide more details on my certificate so that employers had a better understanding of what I did. There’s various levels of ‘assault’ and when I explain to an employer that I spat on a PC (not something I’m proud of) I’m not sure that they always believe what I’m telling them, as assault means something very different to them. I’m sure that there are instances where this level of detail would work against some people but perhaps the DBS could make this an ‘optional extra’ on certificates.

 

My past has not been great but, finally, I’ve decided that I’m not going to allow the rest of my life to be dictated by mistakes made almost a decade ago. I’m a mum now and I’m in full time employment but I know that I want to go back into working with young people.

 

Let’s hope that the work that’s being done around changing the filtering process pays off and can start to benefit people like me who have more than one conviction. Fair do’s, if you commit an offence you need to be punished but do we really have to be punished for life?”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process.
2. Helen’s story was originally published on our online magazine, theRecord
3. We have practical guidance on filtering of spent cautions/convictions – a simple guide.
4. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
5. Other policy cases are listed here.

As a result of his conviction, Terence was required to notify his public protection officer of any new relationships that he started.

Shortly after meeting Lauren through friends, Terence disclosed his conviction to her and she agreed to go with him to the police station to meet his public protection officer. At that meeting, Lauren was asked where she worked and she confirmed that she was a receptionist at a local school.

When she arrived at work the next day, Lauren was told that she needed to see her line manager immediately at which time she was told that the school had been contacted by the local police station informing them that she was in a relationship with ‘somebody on the sex offenders register’. The school were of the opinion that as a result of the ‘disqualification by association’ (DbA) requirements, Lauren had a duty to inform the school of her new relationship and had acted dishonestly in not disclosing it to them. She was suspended until a full investigation had been undertaken.

Further reading around ‘disqualification by association’ made it clear to Terence that this did not apply to Lauren as she was employed in an administrative not a teaching role.

As the investigation continued Lauren became increasingly anxious about the time it was taking for the school to make a decision and also the impact that the investigation would have on her ability to secure work in the future. Realising that the stress and uncertainty were making her very ill, Lauren contacted the school and agreed to resign on the basis that the investigation was dropped and no record of it would be added to her employment history. The school agreed to these terms.

Lauren said:

“Although I knew that the DbA requirements did not apply to the job I was doing, I found it difficult to challenge a large organisation like the school who had the support of the Local Authority’s Designated Officer.”

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

“The disclosure of Terence’s criminal record by the police clearly provoked a knee jerk reaction from the school who didn’t fully consider whether the legislation applied in this situation. It’s highly likely that after fully investigating the case, the school and the Local Authority’s Designated Officer would have found in Lauren’s favour. However, the stress of having to go through this kind of investigation often means that individuals will chose to walk away rather than challenge.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare settings.
2. We have practical guidance on Childcare Disqualification Regulations – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

Sadie had been studying for a teaching qualification at university when details of her new partner’s conviction for a sexual offence were disclosed on the additional information section of her enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service certificate.

On receipt of the certificate, the university immediately contacted her to inform her that it was likely she would be ‘disqualified by association’ (DbA) requirements and would be unable to teach unless she applied for and was granted a waiver by Ofsted.

The university explained to Sadie that if Ofsted did not grant her a waiver then she would be unable to continue with her teaching qualification and her work placement in a local secondary school.

Having already been offered a full time job on completion of her teaching qualification, the prospect of not qualifying threw Sadie’s future career plans into question.

With Unlocks help, Sadie was able to highlight to the university that the ‘disqualification by association’ requirements only applied to those in education and supervised activity with children between the ages of 5 and 8 years. As her placement was in a secondary school, the DbA requirements did not apply to her and there was no reason why she shouldn’t finish the university course.

Despite accepting that Sadie would not be subject to the DbA requirements, the university still considered it necessary for her to sit a criminal records panel in order that they could assess any risk that she posed to her students as a result of her partner’s criminal record.

Sadie said:

“Although the university had policies in place to deal with students who have a criminal record they weren’t sure how to deal with somebody who is ‘associated’ to an individual with a criminal record.”

Commenting on Sadie experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“The lack of clarity about how the ‘disqualification by association’ requirements work has meant that many universities have assumed that anyone who discloses a partner’s criminal record is required to apply for a waiver without first considering whether the work placements they are attending would mean they’d need one or whether their partners record would prevent them teaching in the future.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare settings.
2. We have practical guidance on Childcare Disqualification Regulations – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

When she was 38 weeks pregnant, Louisa was told by her employer (a school) that as a result of her husband’s criminal record, she was ‘disqualified by association’ and would be suspended from her job as a teacher until she had applied for, and been granted a waiver, by Ofsted. The school provided her with very little guidance on how to apply or how long the process was likely to take.

At her next antenatal appointment it was noted that her blood glucose levels had spiked which Louisa felt was due to the stress she was under – the prospect of losing her job and quite possibly her house was difficult to deal with at the same time as being pregnant with her first child.

Louisa applied to Ofsted for the waiver but heard nothing until she received three telephone calls from Ofsted whilst she was in the early stages of labour. No message was left and when Louisa called them back, nobody she spoke to could provide her with any information or seemed to know who had been trying to get in touch with her.

The thought of being investigated because she could be deemed to be a danger to children caused Louisa a huge amount of anxiety and she didn’t feel able to discuss it with her doctor or midwife.

Eventually she was contacted by Ofsted and told that she would be required to have a face-to-face meeting with an Ofsted Inspector.

Louisa said:

“The Inspector went through such personal and traumatic details with me to make sure that I was safe to work with children. Having this dragged up four years after my husband’s conviction had a massive impact on our marriage and we separated for several months.”

After the meeting Louisa contacted Ofsted many times to find out whether her waiver had been granted but often found herself being passed from person to person without being given any help or information. Eventually, Louisa leant that there had been no need for her to apply for a waiver as she was not one of the teachers covered by the legislation.

Louisa stated:

“The lack of clarity in the guidelines meant that I needlessly went through the waiver application process during a particularly vulnerable time. The whole process has had a huge effect on mine and my families life”

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

“The DbA requirements have been around for a number of years, and apply to registered childcare provision outside of schools, but it’s only since October 2014 that the DoE has made it clear that these also apply to primary schools, and one aspect that’s received the most attention has been the ‘disqualification by association’ part. However, the lack of clarity about how the system works has meant that many teachers have been suspended from work and asked to apply for waivers when they don’t need them.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare settings.
2. We have practical guidance on Childcare Disqualification Regulations – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.