In 2017 Cheryl’s son was convicted of a sexual offence. He received a suspended sentence and was put on the Sex Offenders Register.

Immediately the result of the case was known Cheryl, who was working as a primary school teacher, went to see the head teacher of her school to explain the situation. Although the school were extremely understanding, Cheryl discovered that in order to continue teaching she would need to apply immediately to Ofsted for a waiver. Until she’d received this she would be ‘Disqualified by Association’ (DbA) and would be unable to continue in her current role.

As the school didn’t believe it was necessary to suspend Cheryl, they found her work that she could do from home, for example helping with the school accounts and website management. However, Ofsted informed the school that this arrangement was unacceptable and Cheryl was asked to return anything that belonged to the school to them.

As part of the waiver process, Cheryl was ‘interviewed’ at home by two members of Ofsted staff.

Cheryl said:

“The Ofsted staff grilled me about my son’s conviction. I had to tell them everything – it was horrific. They asked me about safeguarding, giving me details of different scenarios and asking me how I would deal with it. I felt as though they blamed me for my son’s offending behaviour.”

Ofsted told Cheryl they were concerned that she’d not informed the school as soon as her son was arrested which they believed reflected the fact that she did not appreciate how serious her son’s offence was. Cheryl explained that at the time he was arrested, there was every chance that her son would be found not guilty and she therefore would have had nothing to tell the school.

Cheryl heard nothing more from Ofsted for six months. As the waiver process for anybody ‘Disqualified by Association’ was very new, her Union had little understanding of how they could help her or how long the process would take.

The worry and anxiety for both Cheryl and her family has had a detrimental effect on their health and well-being and Cheryl is now considering appointing a solicitor to take on her case.

Cheryl stated:

“I appreciate that Ofsted want me to have a waiver but the least they can do is to deal with the matter quickly or keep in contact so that I know what timescales I’m going to be working to.”

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

“The regulations were originally intended to be used in childcare settings where partners and others living in the household may have contact with the individuals being cared for, for example childminders looking after children in their own homes.

 

Trade unions have been inundated with cases of individuals being asked to apply for waivers and this has clearly been apparent in the length of time it is taking Ofsted to deal with applications.”

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.

In 1995 Marcus was convicted of 6 offences although he appeared in court only once. The six offences were committed between 1992 and 1994 when Marcus was aged between 14 and 16. He was arrested and charged when he was 17 years old but by the time he appeared at the magistrate’s court for sentencing he was 18.

In 2013 with the help of a solicitor, Marcus applied to the courts for ‘leave to appeal out of time’. Unfortunately this was refused. He took his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission but again, was unsuccessful.

In the same year, after applying for an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, Marcus was told by the DBS that they would not be including him on either the children or adults barred list as they didn’t believe that it was appropriate to do so. However. as Marcus says:

“Not being on the barred list means nothing because the convictions will show up regardless of the list. Some companies implement a risk assessment for you to pass, so even if the DBS themselves say you’re not on their barred list, the company can override this with a risk assessment and you don’t get the job.”

Although on the face of it, Marcus’ case may seem complicated, the background to the offences are important and the circumstances surrounding the case are paramount. However, these don’t show on a DBS certificate so don’t offer an employer a true reflection of the context of the offences.

Marcus was convicted of taking indecent photographs and an indecent assault on a female. He is the first to admit that the offences look terrible but explains that they were committed when he was very young and influenced by a man, 50 years older than him who was already a convicted paedophile who’d served a prison sentence for a sexual offence. This man groomed Marcus at a vulnerable time in his life, sexually abused him and manipulated Marcus into believing that he cared for him, loved him and understood him.

At the time, Marcus was a lonely child, bullied, outcast and struggling terribly with his gender identity (which at that time was a completely taboo subject). He was struggling with mental health problems and isolation. So when he was shown some attention he was drawn to the older man. Over time this man convinced Marcus to film children on the beach for him suggesting that if he didn’t he would no longer offer Marcus his support and friendship.

Marcus received a community order following conviction and the older man a long prison sentence. However, Marcus believes that his punishment has been greater as he continues to be punished 22 years after the event, whereas the older man was retired and the conviction had no impact on his employment opportunities.

Marcus believes that the convictions and subsequent DBS checks have had an extremely damaging effect on him. It has influenced the direction of his life in a negative way, has prevented him from pursuing an interesting career, both in paid work and voluntary work. It has lost him jobs after successful interviews, prevented him from joining a mental health charity and has been a constant source of punishment, humiliation and the biggest hurdle in his struggle with mental health problems. It has prevented him from applying to go on holidays which required a visa and stopped him from engaging in any job or action that required disclosure. It continues to punish him and has left him financially poor and vulnerable.

Marcus stated:

“No matter how hard you work, how much time and energy you give to make amends, how may people believe in you enough to give you a character reference, how much good you do to try to compensate for any wrongdoing, this time-bomb continues to blow up in your face. It depletes you of any sense of control over your life, drags you down and places you in a negative place mentally.

 

No good can come of a system that does not allow forgiveness through good deeds and what do you do if you can never work off a conviction? Where do you go?”

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

“This case shows the importance of recognising how all “types” of offence can have context which mean they should be considered for potentially being removed from DBS checks”.

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.

At the onset of puberty Wesley had a lot of mixed feelings about his sexuality. Although he can remember attending sex education classes, he says there was very little information about being gay and this made him feel ‘lost and alone’.

For a while, he explored his sexuality with a friend of his brothers who was five years younger than him. However, a few years later and long after the abuse had stopped, he confessed both his sexuality and the abuse that had taken place to a church minister. The church minister subsequently informed the police.

Wesley co-operated fully with the police investigation and when the case went to court, he was convicted of several counts of indecent assault and received a 12 month community order.

Sometime later whilst working for a company running events for youths, Wesley was asked to apply for a personal licence. Not knowing what would appear on his criminal record certificate, he explained to his employers about his conviction and the circumstances surrounding it. His employers agreed that they would make no decision about his future until they’d seen the certificate. However, once they’d had sight of it, Wesley was forced to resign as his employers believed that he posed a risk to their clients.

As part of his pre-sentencing report, Wesley had been assessed by a well-respected child protection charity who had stated that:

“He would not appear to be a risk to any vulnerable group in any ordinary social or work setting.”

Despite sharing the report with his employers it did nothing to allay their fears.

The actions of his employers was a devastating blow to Wesley. He’d had his career path mapped out and now had to face the fact that if he wanted to continue to pursue this type of work, he’d have to face the fear of future criminal record checks. Wesley decided to change direction as he didn’t feel that he could face what had happened when he was 13 constantly coming back to haunt him.

Wesley stated:

“I was a gay teenager in a world with little support. I did do something wrong but I was honest, open and worked hard to do everything asked of me by the judiciary service. I am now very nervous about the ordeal of dealing with a disclosure for seemingly disconnected events. I am really worried about getting a visa for travel (although I haven’t tried) and I have avoided promotions when a DBS check might be required.

 

As a law-abiding adult I’m baffled that something I did at age 13 would create complications so far into my adult live.”

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

“This case shows the ongoing impact of receiving a criminal record in your youth. Sadly there is currently no way of having convictions removed from DBS certificates where there is more than one and people like Wesley will continue to be punished as a man for something they did as a boy”.

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.

In 2005, aged 17, Lynn was convicted of racial assault, an offence she was deeply ashamed of. Due to her age, immaturity and the way she’d been brought up, Lynn didn’t fully understand the impact that her behaviour had on others although years later she had time to reflect on her actions.

At the time of her conviction, Lynn had been homeless and sleeping rough and now recognises that she’d made some bad decisions. Since then however she has made some positive changes to her life and done everything she can do to become a hardworking member of society.

After spending some time volunteering with a charity who helped young people avoid criminal lifestyles by providing them with knowledge and skills to live differently, Lynn realised that she wanted to develop her career in the criminal justice system. More specifically, she wanted to work with young people before they started offending.

Lynn didn’t have the necessary entry requirements to apply directly to university and so applied for an HNC course. It took Lynn about 2 years to be accepted onto the course, having to sit various panels to prove herself worthy of a place and to demonstrate that she did not present a risk to other students.

As part of the course, Lynn had to complete a 200-hour work placement. Not wishing to give the college any further reason to refuse her application to study, Lynn successfully found her own placement, being totally upfront and honest about her conviction.

Lynn’s college applied for enhanced checks for all students and on receipt of her certificate Lynn was told by the college that they would be unable to allow her to attend the placement. This meant that she would be unable to complete the course module and would ultimately fail the course.

Lynn said:

“I feel I am being forced out by the college. I haven’t been given a valid reason only told that they were following a college policy. However, when I challenged this, it turned out they didn’t have one in place for dealing with ex-offenders.

 

I’m facing prejudice and decisions are being made by people who don’t know me they just look at a piece of paper and see the crime not the person. They have me as high risk in the college scoring system but none of them have met me. I feel I’m being discriminated against and all I want to do is finish my education.”

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

“This case shows the importance of education providers, such as colleges and universities to have clear policies in place that deal fairly with applicants with a criminal record. There was no good reason for Lynn to be refused a place – the college’s approach to her past shows a need to revisit their approach because they’re missing out on great students like Lynn.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on promoting fair admission policies and practices by universities and colleges.
2. We have practical guidance on applying to university.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

At the age of 16, Saeed had fallen in with a ‘bad crowd’ which ultimately led to him being arrested and pleading guilty to involvement in a local burglary.

He received a four-month referral order. The order involved him meeting with a panel of local community volunteers, his victim and their representative and other relevant individuals. The panel discussed the circumstances surrounding his offence and together they agreed a plan of action to remedy the situation.

Saeed was told that providing he completed the order satisfactorily, then his conviction would be spent immediately under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and shouldn’t cause him any further problems. A year later, Saeed had got his life back on track. He committed himself to his studies and volunteered for a charity working with disabled children and adults.

The hard work paid off and Saeed defied all expectations and gained the best A-level results his school had ever seen. These results led to the offer of a place to study medicine at a top university.

Having been told that his conviction was spent immediately, Saeed did not disclose it on his UCAS form. However, immediately he realised that the university would be carrying out an enhanced criminal record check which would disclose his conviction, Saeed contacted the university and disclosed his conviction.

As a result of this new information, the university told him that he needed to attend a ‘Fitness to Practice’ interview to assess his suitability to train as a doctor. After listening to the evidence presented to them, the Panel agreed that the only option open to them was to withdraw its offer of a place. Saeed appealed the Panel’s decision but, this was also refused, and the university did not reinstate his place.

Saeed stated:

“I’m a kid who has grown up surrounded by violence and drugs. I always seem to meet bad people and I’ve realised that this is because I come from a bad place. Give me a chance and I’ll show the universities that I’m not a bad guy. I won’t risk their reputation.”

The university have said:

“In general, the university requests information on a candidate’s ‘unspent’ convictions only. This means that a spent conviction would not preclude a student from being accepted onto the vast majority of its courses.

 

Medicine, however is focused on preparing students for a specific professional career that has particularly demanding requirements. Medical practitioners hold a position of responsibility in society, and must deal with vulnerable people and sensitive situations. The public must have confidence in the integrity and probity of its doctors.”

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

“I’m delighted that Saeed has gone on to study medicine at another university, one which can clearly see the potential he has. That goes to show that his past was not a barrier – but the university was seeing it as that. They need to look again at their approach towards dealing with applicants with a criminal record.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on promoting fair admission policies and practices by universities and colleges.
2. We have practical guidance on applying to university.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

At the time of applying to study for a nursing degree, Isabel didn’t have a criminal record. However, several months later she was charged with a driving offence and was due to appear in court two months later. During her admissions interview with the university, she explained that she had a court case pending and was asked by the university to inform them immediately she knew the outcome of the case. They provided her with a copy of their admissions policy which stated:

“Certain courses within the university, including the commissioned courses with HLS and a number of courses within the faculties of Engineering and Computing and Art and Design require a DBS check to be carried out and a decision to be made based on the criminal record as to suitability to be on the course. If an applicant is deemed to be unsuitable the university may reject their offer and this decision is final.”

In court, Isabel was given a fine and banned from driving for seven months. She immediately contacted the university to update them and was told that her case would need to go to a Faculty Review Panel for a decision.

The Panel considered Isabel’s case and decided that as a result of her conviction, they were unable to offer her a place on the nursing course. Isabel contacted a solicitor to assist her in appealing the university’s decision.

In her letter to the university, Isabel’s solicitor set out how the offence was not relevant to the course and that as a result of the time it had taken the university to make a decision, Isabel had missed the opportunity to study at another university. In response the university stated:

“We note that your client is now seeking to appeal the decision of the Panel. However, as set out in the University Admissions Policy and Personal Statement Form, it is for the Panel to make a decision about a student’s suitability to enrol onto a course which leads to a professional qualification. The Panel’s decision is final and there is no right of appeal.”

They confirmed that when considering Isabel’s suitability, the Panel felt that as she would be entering a profession where she would be working with distressed adults and children, it was important that she was able to demonstrate a level of reflection about the affect her actions had on the victim of her crime. The Panel did not believe that Isabel had adequately shown this.

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

“It’s staggering to see a university act as judge and jury by revoking an offer and not give Isabel any opportunity for a right of appeal. This is clearly a university-wide policy and we have raised our concerns with them about the lack of an independent appeal mechanism. This is something that we’ll be raising in our work with the Department of Education, UCAS and others in promoting fair admissions policies.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on promoting fair admission policies and practices by universities and colleges.
2. We have practical guidance on applying to university.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

Adam had been studying for a PhD; he’d completed his oral examination (subject to some minor corrections) and a submission date for the completed thesis had been set.

During the course of his study Adam was arrested and charged with three offences. His trial started before the submission date of his thesis and the anxiety and stress arising from this meant that he was unable to submit his thesis at the appropriate time. Adam was later convicted and sent to prison.

During his time in prison, Adam set about completing the corrections to his thesis and updating it to reflect changes to legislation.

Given the amount of time that had passed, it was necessary for Adam to reapply to the university for readmission. At this time, he had to disclose his criminal convictions and, as a result of this disclosure he was told that his application needed to go before the Student Conduct Council who would consider the relevance of his criminal record.

Adam was prepared for some reluctance on the part of the university and felt that they may wish to put conditions upon him. However, when it arrived, the university’s decision was as follows:

“To expel him from the university with immediate effect meaning that he would no longer be eligible to be registered for a programme of study, or to be awarded a degree or to reside in university accommodation”

The decision seemed particularly harsh and permanent. Although his convictions would become spent at some point in the future, Adam felt that the university were not just punishing him for his past mistakes, but fixing this punishment for life.

Adam decided to appeal the university’s decision and sent a letter to the Student Conduct Panel. This highlighted the value of education and the very unlikely publicity which would result from awarding the PhD.

In their written reply, the Student Conduct Committee said:

“Having considered all of the additional evidence presented to this Committee of Appeal that the original Committee were not able to consider, this Committee has not been able to find any additional evidence of mitigating factors that would allow the Committee, within its limited powers, to reduce the penalty. The Committee recognises the positive steps that you have taken with your rehabilitation and the trust that you have earned since the start of your custodial sentence, however, this provided no further evidence in terms of mitigating factors for consideration in relation to an appropriate penalty to reflect your actions that led to the conviction, which in turn led to the breach of regulation. It is very unfortunate that there has been an additional consequence of this penalty for you but the Committee can see no evidence that the University should change its view that your actions and the level of criminal activity undertaken were sufficiently serious to terminate your membership of the University, whatever the consequences may be of that decision. The Committee takes the view that the penalty of expulsion from the University remains an appropriate penalty.”

Adam had studied for five years for his PhD prior to going into prison and had completed the majority of his study and the award of his PhD was, in this instance, more of a bureaucratic process.

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

“This is a shocking example of where a university believes it’s appropriate to apply a “penalty” of this kind. Adam had worked hard for 5 years towards a PhD and the university didn’t need to make the decision it has. It underlines the need for universities to change the way they deal with criminal records of students.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on promoting fair admission policies and practices by universities and colleges.
2. We have practical guidance on applying to university.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

Whilst she was still at school, Diana was convicted of seven counts of theft from the school changing room and was sentenced to a 12 months conditional discharge and fines ranging from £1 to £14. Up until then, her childhood had been very chaotic having been taken into local authority care following regular abuse and neglect at the hands of her father. Desperate to make friends and fit in at school, Diana had committed her offences as a result of bullying and peer pressure.

She was told by her solicitor that, as she was a juvenile at the time of her convictions, she wouldn’t need to disclose them to anybody providing she did not re-offend. She was never made aware of any exceptions and for that reason, hadn’t declared it for 25 years.

Diana was eventually fostered by a wonderful couple and began to turn her life around. She gained two degrees and worked very successfully with elderly people in the care industry and schools. The only time she was asked to disclose her criminal record was when applying for a personal licence to manage a nightclub – although the police later told her that as her convictions were spent, she hadn’t need to tell them.

Now married with two children, Diana recently applied to do some voluntary work at her children’s school. She agreed to an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check but was devastated to see that all seven of her convictions had been disclosed on it. Worried about how this would be viewed by the school, Diana withdrew her application.

At around the same time Diana and her husband had started the process of fostering and although they knew that the fostering agency would need to do a criminal record check, Diana had been unaware of the information that would be disclosed about her. She started to research the filtering legislation that had come into force in May 2013 and realised that although a theft offence would be eligible for filtering, the fact that she had seven convictions (one for each of the seven items she had stolen) meant that hers would not be.

Diana now believes that the presence of these convictions on her criminal record check is likely to close the door to any chance of her being a foster carer.

Diana stated:

“The current system does not take into account a person’s past or circumstances which led to their offending as a child – as a child we are all guilty of making mistakes, it’s part of the learning curve. Why make a definition between a juvenile and an adult in law if we are making a juvenile criminally responsible and liable for the whole of their lives. I can’t sleep, I feel so sick. I wake up crying and thinking about it, I’m totally ashamed and embarrassed about my past and having to relive something I thought I’d buried 25 years ago”.

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

“This shows how the current DBS filtering system, which only applies to single convictions, is a blunt instrument. The very fact that Diana’s minor theft offences are now more than 25 years old show that they are clearly no longer relevant for any kind of employment, volunteering or fostering. It provides a striking example of why the filtering regime needs to change”.

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 fostering.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

When she was 19, Hilary was found guilty of possession of a prohibited weapon and prohibited ammunition after her then boyfriend forced her to hide them in her handbag as they travelled in a car together and were pulled over by the police. When the case went to court, she received a 2 year conditional discharge.

At the time of going to court, Hilary had been studying for a law degree but believed that as a result of her criminal record she would find it difficult to convince the Law Society that she would be a suitable candidate to enter the legal profession.

After eight years of moving from one mediocre job to another, Hilary took a short course in counselling skills and realised that she wanted to undertake further study in this field. However, she was worried that she could potentially be wasting time, effort and money if her conditional discharge meant that she would never be allowed to practise.

Another ten years passed before the filtering provisions were introduced in May 2013. Hilary believed that her conditional discharge would be eligible for filtering and contacted the Disclosure and Barring Service to find out whether she needed to make a request in writing. The DBS explained that although her offence was likely to be eligible for filtering, and although it resulted in a conditional discharge and not a conviction, this would be treated as multiple offences. They also confirmed that conditional discharges were treated as convictions for the purposes of filtering, so they wouldn’t be filtered.

Hilary stated:

“I continue to study but I do worry that I may just be wasting my time and will be left disappointed again. There are job opportunities that I just allow to pass me by without even trying because of my belief that I will be judged and discriminated against. I hate having to relive my conviction every time I attend a job interview. I really wish the filtering system could be reformed to allow people like me the chance to move on from their past and not be haunted by it every time the opportunity to pursue a dream job comes up”.

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

“This incident was nearly 20 years ago now. That she was charged with two offences for one set of behaviour should not stop it from being filtered. A conditional discharge is not a criminal conviction, and so it should be treated differently. The fact that these offences still appear on her enhanced DBS shows the filtering system is in desperate need for reform”.

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 disclosing criminal records to an employer.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

At the age of 16, Kate took the decision to move out of her family home and began renting a room from somebody she’d met through a friend. After she’d been there for three months and, without any warning, she returned home from college to find that her landlady had thrown the majority of her possessions out of the house and onto the street.

Realising that not all of her possessions had been returned, Kate went back to the house to pick them up. This resulted in an argument with her former landlady and Kate leaving empty handed after the landlady started to physically attack her. Several days later her parents received a phone call from the police asking Kate to report to the police station as soon as possible.

Kate said:

“My father accompanied me but was not allowed in the interview room. We asked if I needed legal representation and was advised by the policeman that I would get home a lot quicker without it and that it wasn’t necessary. I gave the police a detailed and honest account of events but it was apparent that the woman whose room I had rented had not and I was subsequently arrested for common assault”.

In court Kate was found guilty of using violence to enter the premises and battery and had to pay compensation of £100.

That was over 10 years ago now. Since then, Kate has successfully completed a degree in social work at university. She has applied for several social work positions and been invited to interviews where she has been told that she was an outstanding candidate and been offered the job. However, as her convictions do not meet the eligibility for filtering (she has two) every job offer has been revoked as soon as she has disclosed her convictions.

Kate stated:

“I have two offences as part of one conviction which would be eligible for filtering if the system wasn’t limited to one conviction/offence. I want to work, I’m able to work, I miss working”.

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

“The fact that someone has two offences on their record should not be an automatic bar to them being filtered by the DBS. The ‘one conviction’ rule is a blunt instrument and it needs to be scrapped”.

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 disclosing criminal records to an employer.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.