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

Category: Way ROA works

Blog – Westminster Hall debate on the disclosure of youth criminal records

The 28th March saw a Westminster Hall debate on the disclosure of youth criminal records (read here or watch here). This followed the publication of the Justice Select Committee’s report on the subject, back in 2017. The report itself was a result of the Committee’s inquiry into disclosure of youth criminal records, launched in 2016, and in some ways a follow-up to their inquiry on the treatment of young adults in the justice system.

Bob Neill MP, Chair of the Committee, introduced the debate and thanked Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice for the evidence we provided. As part of the inquiry, we had arranged a seminar for Committee members and people with convictions to meet and discuss the impact of disclosing criminal records from childhood.

The government had committed to considering the Committee’s recommendations following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the filtering rules.

The debate was well informed and MPs highlighted the effects of disclosure on employment, education, housing, travel and insurance. Key points included:

John Spellar: “Is not there also an overall, macroeconomic issue, particularly as a number of employers are expressing concerns about shortfalls in labour either leading up to or following Brexit? Artificially restricting people from working and, indeed, from advancing is not just bad for those individuals, shocking though that is, but very bad for society and the economy.”

Bob Neill: “Low-paid and unsatisfactory jobs create burdens at every level, so the point is entirely true”.

David Lammy: “Trident – They were the ones who said to me, “Could you put this [criminal records] into your review? We are aware of a group of offenders who reach about 25 or 26 years old and want to move away from their criminal past but continue to reoffend because, as they grow up, they cannot get a job due to the [disclosure] regime that we have.”

This, in particular, resonates at a time when serious youth violence is dominating the headlines. What hope is there of reducing violence if young people with even minor criminal records see that it is impossible for them to get into legitimate, sustainable employment? This has an impact on these young men, their communities and wider society. As Victoria Prentis said:

“Does ruining their lives serve any real, practical purpose for the rest of society?”

The fundamental issue is the purpose of ongoing disclosure, and whether the existing regime delivers on that purpose – or actually hampers other good work going on in the justice system.

As David Lammy said, the Supreme Court judgment provides an opportunity:

“The Supreme Court decision could be interpreted narrowly by the Government, but from reading the report, the Committee’s mood suggests that it is an opportunity, notwithstanding all that is going on in Parliament, for the Government to take a broader view and to review our criminal records regime.

“My view is that there should be a balance between a rules-based system, which is largely what we have, and which is clearly cheaper—that is effectively why we have it, because there is time and one makes a judgment about spent convictions and disclosure—and a system that is slightly more sophisticated and might cost slightly more. There is a question about who pays. In the Canadian jurisdiction, the individuals seeking to get their criminal records looked at again pay for the system. In my view, a parole board, a magistrate or a judge could make the assessment.”

David Hanson has recently published his review into prison education provision in Wales. In the debate, he said:

“We focus in the report on training, employment and through-the-gate services, including prison and youth offender institution training and community rehabilitation companies in adult prisons and elsewhere…but whatever the system does with that training, someone ultimately has to get a job with a public sector body or an employer.”

Ban the Box was supported by all contributors – it’s not a silver bullet, said Bob Neill, but a base on which to build.

The Civil Service has now rolled out Ban the Box across all departments, and Liz Savile Roberts MP asked how many people with criminal records were employed in the Ministry of Justice – more on this later.

David Hanson is a keen advocate for Ban the Box. As he put it:

“The simple idea…is that disclosure happens after the job interview and job offer. The right to refuse is still there, but the judgments are made on the merits of the application and the individual in front of the employer—not on a conviction that may have happened some years ago.”

This is exactly the approach Unlock advocates: ask about criminal records only after an offer has been made (although we know not all Ban the Box employers do it this way).

As David Lammy highlighted, it’s important to understand where Ban the Box sits within reform of criminal records disclosure:

“…the problem with that initiative is, first, that it is voluntary and, secondly, that it is about the recruitment stage? The fundamental point about the work by the Select Committee and others who have raised this issue is that, beyond recruitment, there are questions about whether things should be disclosed to employers in the first place. It would be important for the Government not to lose that principle.”

There were many other excellent points made but I want to turn now to the responses from Edward Argar, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, on behalf of the government. The government has yet to formally respond to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the cases of P and others. No formal response was forthcoming here either, instead the Minister said:

“We work closely with the Home Office to give these things proper consideration. Although that judgment has been handed down, the order behind it has not yet been sent over to us. We await that order. When it is received, it is important that we are speedy and timely in addressing it.”

The Minister agreed that employment is a crucial factor in reducing reoffending – which costs 15bn a year on some estimates.

“…employers should not regard the disclosure of a criminal record as an automatic barrier to employment. A balanced judgment should be exercised, having regard to factors such as a person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago it was, and the relevance to the application or post in question.”

Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that employers do regard a criminal record as a barrier to employment. This point was made several times during the debate, and also by Lord Kerr in the Supreme Court judgment. Given the government’s efforts to get prisoners into work on release, and their manifesto commitment to incentivising employers to recruit people with convictions, it seems odd to not acknowledge the real difficulties people face in gaining employment.

Perhaps the Minister’s perception is skewed by the apparently impressively inclusive approach of his own department. In response to Liz Savile Roberts’ question on the number of people with convictions employed at the Ministry of Justice, he said:

“My understanding is that of those people with a previous conviction who applied through the approach that has been taken in the civil service since 2016, 92% subsequently secured employment, which is a positive outcome.”

That certainly seems like a positive outcome. However, there doesn’t appear to be an official source for that figure, and we would welcome publication of the data because it’s important to understand this is context, such as the numbers it involves, what types of criminal records, how long ago, and why the 8% were refused.

I was pleased to see that the Minister agreed that the judgment – and the actions that must follow – creates an opportunity to consider the Committee’s recommendations for reform of the criminal records system. I hope this will mean that the Ministry of Justice (along with the Home Office) taken an holistic view of the current regime, its aims and the evidence, and look to make changes that benefit individuals with convictions, their communities and wider society.

 

Written by Christopher Stacey

Find out the latest on reform of the criminal records regime in our policy section on DBS filtering.

Unlock submission on proposals to amend disclosure rules in Scotland

Unlock has made a submission to the Scottish Government in response to their call for views on the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill. The focus of our response is on Part 2 of the Bill – Disclosure of convictions.

Download Unlock’s submission.

Unlock letter to Justice Committee on Government’s response to report on youth criminal records

Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) have written to the Justice Select Committee (JSC) regarding our concerns over the Government’s response to the JSC’s inquiry into the disclosure of childhood criminal records.

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, sets out our concerns that the Government is using the Supreme Court case on DBS check filtering, expected to be heard in June, as an excuse for not addressing the recommendations made by the JSC.

The letter also discusses specific concerns, for example that the proposed new guidance by the Government on criminal records disclosure will simply have to be reviewed once reform takes place. We ask the Government to publish the Civil Service’s Ban the Box implementation plan, and to commit to undertake research into the costs of unemployment among people with a criminal record, as recommended in the Lammy review. We also raise concerns around clarifications needed in housing allocation guidance.

The full letter is available here.

Blog – The answer to Oxfam’s safeguarding problems is not enhanced DBS checks

The latest blog by Christopher Stacey (published on the Huffington Post) questions the use of enhanced DBS checks as the answer to Oxfam’s safeguarding problems.

Read it here.

Criminal Records Bill to receive its second reading in House of Lords tomorrow

Lord Ramsbotham’s Private Members’ Bill on amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 will have its Second Reading in the House of Lords tomorrow, Friday 23rd February.

The Bill, which would shorten the rehabilitation periods that apply under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), proposes a number of changes. One of the most significant elements is that sentences of over 4 years in prison would become spent 4 years after the end of the full sentence. Currently, they can never become spent.

Private Members’ Bills rarely succeed unless they have the backing of government.

Lord Ramsbotham, who is Unlock’s President, had a similar Bill that reached Second Reading in January 2017 and despite widespread support in the House, the Government responded by saying that they “do not consider that the proposals in the Bill are appropriate”.

Watch it on Parliament TV – the session starts at 10am and we expect them to get to this Bill around midday.

We’ll be tweeting what happens during the Second Reading using the hashtag #CriminalRecordsBill

More information

  1. You can follow the progress of the Bill on the Parliament website.
  2. You can find out more information about our work to get further reform to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  3. There is practical information on how the law currently operates on our information site.

Press release – Criminal records regime is failing children and young people and anchoring them to their past for decades

Unlock responds to Justice Committee report into disclosure of youth criminal records

In response to today’s Justice Committee report into the disclosure of youth criminal records, Unlock, a leading independent charity for people with convictions, is calling on the government to drop its legal appeal and get on with reforming the criminal records regime.

Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, who gave evidence to the Committee, said:

“Today’s report from the Justice Committee shows how the current approach to disclosing criminal records is failing children and young people who get caught up in the criminal justice system. Their lives are being dogged by a minor criminal record for decades, often for life, and it anchors people to their past.

 

“Thousands of people contact us every year because of problems they’re facing as a result of minor criminal records acquired in childhood and early adulthood. There is now overwhelming evidence that the government’s approach to criminal records disclosure needs to change. In the last year alone, there have been three significant reports that together set out the case for reforming the regime while maintaining public protection and safeguarding.

 

“The government is the criminal one here. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the current criminal records regime is blunt, disproportionate and not in accordance with the law. The government is dragging its heels by appealing to the Supreme Court and it is clearly not listening to the compelling evidence that shows the significant and unnecessary barriers to rehabilitation that the current regime is creating. The fact that someone has disclose two shoplifting offences from when they were 15, 40 years ago shows that the government needs to take immediate steps to respond to this problem. We’re calling on the government to drop its legal appeal and instead immediately focus its resources towards reforming the criminal records regime.

 

“A fairer and more flexible system for disclosing records on standard and enhanced criminal record checks would be one with expanded automatic filtering rules and a discretionary filtering process with a review mechanism so that individual circumstances can be considered before cautions and convictions are disclosed. This would enable those with old and minor criminal records to move on positively with their lives and to more easily gain employment.

 

“For jobs not involving basic criminal record checks, the Criminal Records Bill, a Private Members’ Bill from Unlock’s President, Lord Ramsbotham, reflects a broad consensus for the need to reduce the rehabilitation periods for both adult and child custodial sentences. We urge the government to support this Bill when it reaches its second reading in the House of Lords.

 

“It is common sense that, while certain offences need to be disclosed to employers, we should not be unnecessarily blighting the lives of people who are trying to get on in life by disclosing old, minor or irrelevant information that holds them back and stops them from reaching their potential.

 

“We are committed to continuing our work with government, the DBS, employers and other key stakeholders to drive forward these much needed reforms.”

 

Chair of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, Ali Wigzell, said:

“The Committee’s findings should act as a rallying cry for reform: a system that creates barriers to children turning their lives around is destructive and not in the interests of society. It urgently needs to change.

 

“Young lives are being ruined by a ham-fisted and draconian criminal records regime that goes far beyond what is necessary to protect the public.

 

“This is the third expert body to urge reform of the childhood criminal records system in less than a year. The government should listen to its experts, stop wasting taxpayers’ money on fighting its unnecessary legal case – which has cost at least £160,000 so far – and take immediate action to reform the system instead.”

 

ENDS

Notes

  1. Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence.
  2. There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
  3. Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
  4. High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account.
  5. We asked the Justice Committee to look at this issue.
  6. As part of the Justice Committee’s short inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records we took a small group of people with convictions to a private session to give evidence.
  7. We submitted written evidence to the inquiry.
  8. A copy of the Justice Committee’s report into the disclosure of youth criminal records is available online at parliament.uk/justicecttee (from Friday 27th October).
  9. Names of case studies below have been changed to protect identities.

 

Background

  1. Over 240,000 standard and enhanced DBS checks every year disclose convictions or cautions. Since the filtering scheme was introduced in 2013, it’s helped some people with old and minor records to be free of the stigma and discrimination that so many face when they have something they have to disclose to an employer. However, the current system doesn’t go far enough. It operates with inflexible rules meaning that, for example, someone with more than one conviction on their record will have to disclose all of their convictions indefinitely, regardless of the nature or circumstances of the conviction or the length of time that has since passed. The system acts as an additional sentence that often runs for life. It desperately needs reform.
  2. In September 2015 Charlie Taylor was asked to lead a departmental review of the youth justice system for the Ministry of Justice. The Taylor Review, published in December 2016, recommended significant reform of the childhood criminal records system, including shortening rehabilitation periods and preventing many childhood cautions and convictions from being disclosed once they are “spent”. Mr Taylor’s report is available here, paragraphs 82-89 cover criminal records reform.
  3. In 2016 the then Prime Minister David Cameron asked David Lammy MP to conduct a review into bias against Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic minorities. In September 2017, he published the Lammy Review, which included recommendations to introduce a system of “sealing” criminal records, with a presumption “to look favourably on those who committed crimes either as children or young adults but can demonstrate that they have changed since their conviction”.
  4. In July 2016 the Law Commission were asked by the Home Office to review one specific aspect of the criminal records disclosure system, known as “filtering”. The Law Commission published its report in February 2017 and stated that “the present system raises significant concerns in relation to ECHR non-compliance and, what may be considered to be, the overly harsh outcomes stemming from a failure to incorporate either proportionality or relevance into disclosure decisions….This is an area of law in dire need of thorough and expert analysis. A mere technical fix is not sufficient to tackle such interwoven and large scale problems.”
  5. In May 2017, the Government lost the case R (P, G and W) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others [2017] EWCA Civ 321, in the Court of Appeal. The case was about the legality of the criminal records filtering system, particularly the “multiple conviction rule and the serious offence rule”, which the Court found to be incompatible with the human right to privacy and ruled that the current system was disproportionate. The Government has appealed the case to the Supreme Court and the hearing is listed to be heard in June 2018. A summary of the cases before the courts can be found here.

 

Case study – Anita

I am a 27 year old qualified English teacher. Since going into teaching, I have faced many hurdles because of the childhood mistakes I made. When I was 11 years old I set fire to some toilet roll in the school bathroom, there was a small amount of damage (my parents had to pay a fine of £200). I was given a reprimand for Arson and was told that it would come off my record after 5 years, or when I turned 19. Later, when I turned 15 years old I had a fight in the school playground with another pupil. In my defence, it was a result of bullying I had received for many years prior to this. The other girl’s mother called the police and I was, again, arrested, this time for ABH. The police convinced my parents to just accept the reprimand rather than take it to court and fight it, as it would come off in 5 years. Because of my chosen profession, I have had to declare these offences EVERY time I apply for a job in the UK. I was almost removed from my teaching course a year into my degree because they found out I had a criminal record when I had a DBS prior to my teaching placement. Needless to say, I got my degree and did extremely well, receiving excellent feedback for my teaching. When I realised that my records were not going to go away but would stay for life I decided I would leave the UK to teach for a few years, because I was so embarrassed by it.

Since returning to the UK, almost a year ago, I have had to deal with so much stigma. I have applied to many teaching positions, and have not heard anything back, despite attending a return to teaching course. I am now teaching adults on a part-time basis at a college and had to be vetted by a stranger on the reasons why I did the crimes. I was planning to get more experience within schools on the other days of the week by doing supply work. My supply agency has just informed me that many schools do not want someone with a criminal record working at their school.

This is something I feel is unfair. This piece of paper (the DBS) represents me. It’s the first thing my future employers see. Of course they judge me, I have TWO violent offences which brand me. Do I really need to leave the career I am so passionate about?

I have suffered with depression and anxiety issues as a result of my past, which I desperately want to forget. I am a good citizen now, and would not dream of doing the things I did as a child.

 

Case study – David

At 16 I dropped out of school and started hanging around the wrong people, shoplifting and being anti-social became the everyday thing. By the time I was 18 I ended up in court being sent to a young offender’s institute. When I had finished my sentence I struggled to find any work and found myself long term unemployed. By time I turned 24 I was in debt and got caught for handling stolen property where I ended up spending 3 months in prison.

The whole of my twenties I struggled to find employment, applying for hundreds of jobs only to be turned down because of my convictions. When I did find work it was often just short term or as and when. In my early thirties after my convictions became spent I started to find more opportunities and meeting people who were willing to give me a chance.

I am now in my forties, I have gained many different qualifications including two degrees, worked in positions of trust including working with ex-offenders and joined the military but despite all this I still find I am being judged when applying for certain job roles and even to this day have found myself discriminated against for having a criminal record.

 

Case study – Jane

Jane’s retaliation against a school bully had led to her receiving a police warning for actual bodily harm at the age of 15. As a result, her university place to study nursing was revoked. She appealed against the decision, which involved writing a disclosure statement explaining the circumstances of the warning to a risk assessment panel. After qualifying, she eventually obtained employment in nursing but has found career progression difficult because of her criminal record, which she is continually having to explain.

 

Case study – Kate

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.

 

Case study – James

I was convicted of ABH 37 years ago, 1979. It sounds really bad but it was in self-defence protecting a pregnant woman from assault. I was 18 years old.

The magistrate said it was commendable, however I took the law in to my own hands. It was not premeditated, I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, like most people. I received a 1 year conditional discharge and a fine of £75 in May 1979.

I note on the filtering list that this offence has to stay on. Why? It was 37 years ago and I have never been in trouble since. I got educated so I could get well paid and look after my loved ones, I feel so bad about this being disclosed as I work in private education and recently I had to do a self-certification for the school. They knew about my conviction because it came up on the DBS prior to appointment. You may think I am being over sensitive but it really does affect me privately. I cannot prove it, but it has also held me back on occasions when applying for jobs.

I know on at least five job applications I have applied for and met every detail of the job specification, qualifications and experience to do the job and because I was honest i.e. declared my conviction, I never even got an interview!

I understand the police wish to keep it on their PNC and oddly enough I agree with that, but surely after 37 years I shouldn’t have to declare the offence on a DBS, I am completely rehabilitated, happy family man who made one error when I was 18 years old.

 

Case study – Hilary

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 said: “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”.

Blog – Is ‘sealing’ criminal records the best way to help people turn their lives around?

The latest blog by Christopher Stacey looks at David Lammy’s recommendation to ‘seal’ criminal records and explains why it’s a good idea and how it could work.

Read it here.

Basic DBS checks are coming soon – find out more

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is introducing basic criminal record checks for people in England & Wales. This replaces the service previously provided by Disclosure Scotland.

This is a significant development for both people with criminal records and employers in England & Wales, so we’ve developed a new information page dedicated to basic DBS checks as a one-stop-shop for the latest information, advice and updates. It’s been written primarily for people with convictions, but with employers and others in mind too, covering things like:

  1. How to get a basic check
  2. Should the check be sent to the applicant or the employer?
  3. What are eCertificates & eResults?
  4. Our advice for individuals
  5. Our advice to employers

Basic checks are a type of criminal record check that can be used by employers and other organisations, for example when they are recruiting staff. They can also be used by insurance companies in validating claims. Basic checks show any ‘unspent’ criminal records (as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974). Once a conviction or caution is ‘spent’, it no longer shows on a basic check.

Why is this important?

  1. It’s been a long time coming – The introduction of basic checks has been in the business plan of the DBS since 2002 (back when it was the CRB, the Criminal Records Bureau).
  2. It’s highly likely to mean an overall increase in criminal record checks – The DBS is anticipating around 1.7 million basic checks in the first year. This compares to just under 1.2 million in 2015/16 when it was done by Disclosure Scotland.
  3. It means criminal record checks will be available online – The basic DBS check will be available in both paper form and online. The setting up of an online account (for both applicants and organisations) will allow access to what are referred to as “eCertificates”.
  4. It makes the type of DBS check being done even more important – Employers often refer to a role “involving a DBS check”. Up until now, reference to “a DBS check” could be taken as code for meaning a standard or enhanced check, which meant the disclosure of cautions and convictions, even once spent. Now, with the DBS doing a basic level check, it’s even more important that employers explain what type of check a specific role involves to make sure that applicants clearly understand what they need to disclose.
  5. It’ll hopefully reduce ineligible checks – We’ve been cautiously encouraging the introduction of basic checks as a key part of how to reduce the numbers of employers carrying out levels of checks (i.e. standard or enhanced checks) for roles that are not eligible for them.

What is happening and when?

From 1st September 2017, the DBS will begin processing basic criminal record check applications.

There will be a transition phase between 1st September and 31st December, where basic checks will still be available from Disclosure Scotland too. After the 31st December 2017, basic checks will no longer be available to applicants in England & Wales from Disclosure Scotland.

To start with, the basic check service from DBS will be open to a small number of large registered organisations. This will be followed by an online process for individuals, expected to be from 1st January 2018.

Disclosure Scotland will continue to process basic check applications for people in Scotland.

We’re waiting for more information from the DBS about the exact timescales, and once we have these, they’ll be on this page.

We’re expecting the DBS to publish its own online guidance on basic checks soon. Once it’s available, we’ll link to it from here.

For more information

The information in this post is likely to develop over time. For more information, and the latest details, visit our information page on basic DBS checks.

This was originally published as an update on our information site. 

Criminal Records Bill receives its first reading in House of Lords

Lord Ramsbotham’s Private Members’ Bill on amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has today had its First Reading in the House of Lords.

The Bill, which would shorten the rehabilitation periods that apply under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), proposes a number of changes. One of the most significant elements is that sentences of over 4 years in prison would become spent 4 years after the end of the full sentence.

Second reading – the general debate on all aspects of the Bill – is yet to be scheduled.

 

More information

  1. You can follow the progress of the Bill on the Parliament website.
  2. You can find out more information about our work to get further reform to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  3. There is practical information on how the law currently operates on our information site.

Watch our oral evidence to the Justice Committee inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records

Earlier today co-director, Christopher Stacey, gave evidence to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records.

You can watch the session here or below.

 

More information

  1. Posts about our work on youth criminal records can be found here.
  2. The specific details of the inquiry are here
  3. There are more general details about the work of the Justice Committee here

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