Skip to main content

Category: Way ROA works

Do you have a conviction that will never be spent?

Unlock has long campaigned for fundamental changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), 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 every 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.

What we need from you

If you have a conviction that can never become spent (i.e. a prison sentence of over 4 years), please contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: ROA reform’. Please include:

  • Your name
  • Your date of birth
  • Contact details (email and/or telephone) and how you’d like us to contact you
  • The details of all your cautions/convictions including dates and a DBS certificate if you have one
  • The difficulties you’ve faced, recently or in the past, as a result of your criminal record not becoming spent
  • If you would be willing to contribute to any media coverage on this issue in future (this is for our reference, we won’t share your details without consent)

Any information you provide will be kept in line with our confidentiality policy. Any personal information provided to us will not be shared externally without your consent.

Find out more about how we handle your data

Find out more about our work on ROA reform.

 

Second Reading in House of Lords for Bill to amend Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Lord Ramsbotham’s Private Members’ Bill on amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has today had its Second 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.

You can read the debate or watch online (from 12:55).

Despite widespread support in the House, the Government responding by saying that they “do not consider that the proposals in the Bill are appropriate”.

Private Members’ Bills are rarely successful without support from Government.

The Bill will now move to Committee stage.

In closing the debate, Lord Ramsbotham said:

“I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. When I represented the Bill as having been in close contact with a number of organisations—particularly Unlock, of which I am president, which is the national association of ex-offenders and therefore in touch with the difficulties that they are experiencing day after day—they did not put their concerns about the Bill lightly.”

 

“What I am suggesting is that in the context of the White Paper, it would be sensible for the Government to look at all aspects of resettlement, including this one. My offer to the Minister is that all those who have raised problems on the outside are more than willing to take part in that process.”

 

“I intend to table amendments in Committee. In the interim, I hope that the Minister will reconsider his rejection of what is on offer, because the issue is far too serious to be let go with the prospect of annual Bills and annual making progress on small points.”

 

Extracts from the debate

Lord Ramsbotham

“I believe that it should be that no one released from prison should face a lifetime of disclosure, without the prospect of review”

 

“The 48-month spent limit should be removed, with determinate sentences of over four years becoming spent four years from the end of the sentence, as proposed by the Government in their 2003 response to Breaking the Circle. Those serving an indeterminate sentence should be given the opportunity to achieve rehabilitated status through a process of evidence submission to a criminal records tribunal administered by members of the judiciary. As an incentive to desist from crime, anyone recalled to prison would automatically have their disclosure period reset.”

 

“The Government should establish an effective system for identifying and stopping ineligible checks, which too many of the 4 million checks each year currently are.

 

“Any rehabilitation programme worth its salt should include a disclosure scheme devised specifically to assist the employment process. The ineffectiveness of the existing Act has been compounded by the many changes since 1974, including sentence inflation, that have shifted the way in which offenders are treated by the criminal justice system in both sentencing and rehabilitation, rendering it unfit for purpose.”

 

Lord McNally

“One of the things I am most proud of is Section 139 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Unlock described it as positive but not perfect, and of course that is perfectly true. The fact is, though, that the reforms were as much as we could get our coalition partners to agree to.”

 

“The Taylor review is clear that we should develop a distinct approach to treating childhood offending. “Children first, offenders second”, is the mantra that Charlie Taylor advocated.”

 

“There is a strong case for following the logic of the Taylor report and the Government accepting the Carlile recommendation for the expungement of criminal records at attaining the age of 18, excluding homicide, serial sexual offences and other violent crime.”

 

Lord Carlile of Berriew

“If I have a slightly adverse comment about the Bill it is that, for my taste, it goes nothing like far enough. I do not believe that there is any really convincing evidence that using criminal records to prevent people obtaining perfectly ordinary jobs after a conviction that comes somewhere in the middle of the criminal calendar does anything other than send them back to prison. My view is that we should be very radical about these matters.”

 

“The Bill makes proportionate provisions that would make a significant, if not complete, contribution to people whose lives have started badly but whose potential can be unlocked.”

 

The Earl of Listowel

“The Bill is timely, at a time when the Prime Minister has recognised that so many people and families in this country have been left behind.”

 

Lord Dholakia

“More than 7,000 people a year are given sentences of over four years. At present they can never be rehabilitated for the purposes of the Act, however much they do to change their ways and over however long a period.”

 

“Unfair discrimination against ex-offenders is wrong in principle, because it imposes an additional illegitimate penalty of refusal of employment on people who have already served the judicially ordered punishment for their crime. It also reduces public safety, because an ex-offender’s risk of reoffending is reduced by between a third and a half if he or she gets and keeps a job.”

 

Lord Berkeley of Knighton

“Hope can be achieved in a number of ways, but certainly the ability to feel that a debt to society has been paid, to wipe clean a slate and to be rewarded by having an offence and sentence regarded as spent is a vital part of rehabilitation, especially in the young, whose youthful indiscretions might otherwise permanently blight adulthood.”

 

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

“The existing Rehabilitation of Offenders Act provides no opportunity for an ex-offender’s sentence to be spent if a custodial sentence of four years or more is imposed. Although it is widely accepted that custodial sentences are reserved for more serious crimes, it must be said that many offenders in this category are left with little option when any hope of gaining employment is taken away from them.”

 

“Experience shows that the existing Act will not prevent the dishonest from lying to gain employment. However, it impedes the progress of those who could otherwise lead progressive and law-abiding lives, contributing to the economy through gainful employment.”

 

“We must also recognise that the entire notion of modern, balanced, restorative justice is built on the belief that an individual has the capacity to rehabilitate, to learn to make positive life choices and to become a productive, contributing member of society.”

 

“That Act is now completely inconsistent with contemporary sentencing practice. The result is that, far from allowing reformed individuals the second chance that is promised in the Act, its shortcomings leave many excluded from any prospect of rehabilitation and meaningful employment after they have completed their sentences.”

 

“For those serving sentences of over four years, convictions can never be spent. Individuals are therefore forced to live with the shadow of their convictions, through a lifetime of disclosure and without the prospect of review.”

 

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie)

“The noble Lord’s Bill seeks to allow determinate custodial sentences of any length to become spent. I recognise that he would like the current legislation to go further by enabling determinate custodial sentences of any length to become spent, but the Government consider that the present amendments to the Act that came into force in 2014 achieve the correct balance between rehabilitation of offenders and public protection. This is a two-sided coin and these issues have to be balanced. We do not feel there is a case for the law to go further at this stage.”

 

“The Government understand the noble Lord’s concerns and we are, of course, committed to helping ex-offenders who wish to make a fresh start and put their criminal history behind them. We are desperately anxious to ensure that people do not simply leave the prison gate one day and return another. Despite this, we do not support the noble Lord’s Bill, given the reasons I have already outlined. I note the noble Lord’s views, I understand them and I would welcome the opportunity to engage further with him about how we can increase the support that is available to ex-offenders.”

 

“Since 2016, we have been running a campaign to encourage more businesses to provide training and work opportunities for offenders and ex-offenders. This has been carried out in close collaboration with the Department for Work and Pensions’ See Potential campaign. The present campaign emphasises the general advantage to society of securing employment for ex-offenders and thereby reducing reoffending and unemployment.”

 

Lord Ramsbotham

“I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. When I represented the Bill as having been in close contact with a number of organisations—particularly Unlock, of which I am president, which is the national association of ex-offenders and therefore in touch with the difficulties that they are experiencing day after day—they did not put their concerns about the Bill lightly.”

 

“What I am suggesting is that in the context of the White Paper, it would be sensible for the Government to look at all aspects of resettlement, including this one. My offer to the Minister is that all those who have raised problems on the outside are more than willing to take part in that process.”

 

“I intend to table amendments in Committee. In the interim, I hope that the Minister will reconsider his rejection of what is on offer, because the issue is far too serious to be let go with the prospect of annual Bills and annual making progress on small points.”

 

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.

Youth justice review recommends reformed criminal records system for children

“A reformed criminal records system for children”

That’s the recommendation of Charlie Taylor, whose review into youth justice was published today.

In a wide-ranging review, there’s a specific section on criminal records (pages 25 and 26).

 

He proposes that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office should:

“Develop a distinct approach to how childhood offending is treated by the criminal records system. (Paragraph 85)

This should include:

  • consideration of distinguishing between under-15s and 15-17 year olds in terms of the retention and disclosure implications of offending; (Paragraph 86)

  • further reductions in the periods before which childhood convictions become spent; (Paragraph 87)

  • all childhood offending (with the exception of the most serious offences)

  • becoming non-disclosable after a period of time; (Paragraph 88) and

  • the circumstances in which police intelligence on childhood conduct can be disclosed being further restricted. The Home Office should consider the introduction of a presumption that police intelligence dating from childhood should not be disclosed except in exceptional circumstances. (Paragraph 89)”

 

In its response, the government said:

“We recognise that criminal records in childhood can impact on future life chances. However, there are a number of cases before the courts in relation to disclosure policy as it currently stands. We also look forward to the findings of the current inquiry being carried out by the Justice Select Committee in this area. We intend to work with the Home Office to consider these and the Taylor Review’s recommendations more fully following the Court’s judgement.”

 

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock,  said:

“We very much welcome the proposals for reform to childhood criminal records that Charlie Taylor has set out in his report. We encourage the government to undertake proactive work in making these recommendations a reality. The ongoing legal cases challenge a narrow aspect of the system and could be settled if the government withdrew its appeal against the January 2016 ruling in the High Court. Regardless of this, there is a pressing need for work to be undertaken in the meantime, ready for when the Court of Appeal makes it judgement in 2017, and we stand ready to work positively with government on this important issue.”

 

Useful links

  1. We submitted evidence to the review in May 2016
  2. The review, alongside the government’s response, can be downloaded from Gov.uk.

 

Our evidence to the Justice Committee inquiry into Youth Criminal Records published

Our written evidence to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records has been published on the Parliament website.

Alongside a number of recommendations, we’ve included five anonymous personal experiences. Next week, we’re taking a small group of people to Westminster to share their personal stories with MP’s on the Committee.

 

The specific details of the inquiry are here

There are more general details about the work of the Justice Committee here

 

Justice Committee inquiry into youth criminal records – have your say!

We’re pleased that, after joint efforts by Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ), the Justice Committee has launched a short inquiry into the system governing the disclosure of criminal records in relation to offences committed by people when under 18 years old. Given the Committee’s recent inquiry into young adults in the criminal justice system, the Committee also welcomes views on whether the regime governing disclosure of such criminal records should be extended to apply to records of offences committed by older people, for example up to the ages of 21 or 25.

The inquiry is an opportunity to build on the work we’ve been doing with the SCYJ as part of the ‘Growing up, moving on’ campaign, which was launched in April 2016.

It’s also a good opportunity to explain the disproportionate impact that criminal records have on people that obtain them in early adulthood, and to make the case for this to be reflected in the way disclosure laws operate.

In particular, the Committee welcomes written submissions on:

  • The appropriateness and effectiveness of the statutory framework applying to the disclosure to employers and others of criminal records relating to offences committed by people when under 18 years old
  • whether that framework and the way in which it is operated in practice strike an appropriate balance between protection of employers and the public, on the one hand, and the rehabilitation of people committing offences when young, on the other hand
  • the effects in respect of the disclosure of such records of changes made in 2013 to the filtering of offences from criminal records checks and in 2014 to rehabilitation periods.

The deadline is Friday 11th November 2016.

What can you do?

It’s important that as many individuals and organisations put forward their evidence, comments and experiences on the disclosure of youth criminal records. This is the best way to help the Committee to understand the extent of the issue.

In particular, we think it’s extremely important that the inquiry receives evidence from those people with personal experience of having a criminal record from when they were young. For those who find that it continues to hold them back, or created a significant barrier to them moving on, these personal stories can help MP’s on the Committee to understand the problem and identify what needs to change.

We’re in the process of putting together a response, so if you’re planning to submit evidence to the Committee, please let us know and send us copies of the evidence you submit. Email policy@unlock.org.uk.

 

Further information

Details about the Justice Committee inquiry are on the Parliament website.

Details about our policy work on rehabilitation periods.

Details about our policy work on filtering.

Lord Ramsbotham introduces Private Members Bill to shorten rehabilitation periods

Lord Ramsbotham, Unlock’s President, has introduced a Private Members Bill into the House of Lords which would shorten the rehabilitation periods that apply under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA).

The Bill, which had it’s first reading yesterday, proposes a number of changes. One of most significant elements is that sentences of over 4 years in prison would become spent 4 years after the end of the full sentence.

Although the Bill is a long way from becoming law, it’s a welcome step forward in getting further reform to the ROA back on the agenda.

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.

New research into impact of childhood criminal records and launch of campaign

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A child who has offended in England and Wales is shackled to the mistakes of their past by a criminal record system which is punitive, and holds them back from reaching their full potential, according to a report released today by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ).

The report, which reviews criminal record systems in over a dozen countries, finds England and Wales to be an outlier in the extent to which it ties children to past offending.

“A child in England and Wales is not only more likely to acquire a criminal record, but this record will affect them for longer, and more profoundly, than in any of the countries reviewed”

said Penelope Gibbs, Chair of the SCYJ.

“A child who has shoplifted a couple of times will suffer the disproportionate penalty of not only having the offences recorded for life, but also having to disclose it at key points – such as entering university or applying for certain jobs, such as a teacher, or a police officer. No other country reviewed inflicts such tough penalties on a child who offends.”

The far reaching effects on a child go well beyond their sentence. Children with a criminal record face stigma and discrimination in accessing education, training, employment, travel and housing and these obstacles can follow a child into adulthood impacting adversely on their life chances and their ability to reintegrate positively in to society.

In 2013/14 over 60,000 cautions and convictions – all with criminal record implications – were handed out to children in England and Wales. These records will have to be disclosed for many years, and some forever.

The SCYJ is launching a campaign today calling for radical reform of the law on childhood criminal records. Its recommendations include shorter rehabilitation periods, expanding the current filtering system, and wiping the slate clean after ten years.

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, in supporting SCYJ’s campaign for reform, said:

“There are over 10.5 million people in the UK with a criminal record, with the vast majority of these being obtained when people are young. Every day we’re contacted by people who are facing stigma and discrimination because of offences they committed when they were under 18. This directly impacts on children’s chances long into adulthood, often for the rest of their lives.”

 

“Children that commit crime need to be rehabilitated and our youth justice system is supposed to be specifically designed to not impose retributions. However, when it comes to criminal records, the system treats children in a very similar way to adults.”

 

“There are many parts to the criminal record disclosure system that are disproportionate and unnecessary. A specific attempt to ensure that criminal records do not blight the lives of children is long-overdue. That’s why we’re actively supporting the campaign launched today. The recommended changes would result in a fairer and more calibrated system.”

 

More information

  1. More information about the report and campaign can be found on the SCYJ website.
  2. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) is a membership body, representing over fifty organisations, campaigning for a better youth justice system. They pool the expertise of their members to work on issues surrounding children in trouble with the law. Their work focuses on policy and legislation affecting all aspects of the youth justice system and young people caught up in it – from policing to resettlement.
  3. Unlock is supporting this campaign as part of our policy and campaign work.
  4. More information about Unlock’s policy work on the DBS filtering process.
  5. Unlock press/media enquiries.

Response to Scottish Government Consultation

We’ve submitted our written response to the Scottish Governments’ consultation on proposals to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Broadly, we support the proposals, but urge the Scottish Government to go further, in the same way that we continue to urge the UK Government to build on the reforms that came into force in 2014.

The number of people with unspent convictions

We regularly get asked how many people have unspent convictions.

Since the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was amended in March 2014, the number of people whose conviction is unspent is expected to have reduced significantly, but nobody really knows by how much.

So, as a first attempt, we’ve pulled together some data which tries to do this, and the key findings are below.

 

 

Key findings

  1. Before the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 reforms, which came into force on the 10th March 2014, there were approximately 2,514,987 individuals with unspent convictions in England & Wales.
  2. Following the reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which came into force on the 10th March 2014, there were approximately 735,652 individuals with unspent convictions in England & Wales.
  3. 7,232 individuals receive a conviction each year that can never become spent.

 

Additional findings

  • 2.03% of people that apply for a basic disclosure in England & Wales have unspent convictions disclosed.
  • 6.94% of people that apply for a basic disclosure in Scotland have unspent convictions.
  • 89% of the basic disclosures that Disclosure Scotland carry out are for people in England & Wales.

 

Got a different way of working this out?

We are interested in hearing about the efforts of others to better define the number of people with  unspent convictions. Please send your thoughts to policy@unlock.org.uk or comment on this post below.

Supreme Court rules that minor cautions and convictions shouldn’t be disclosed on criminal record checks, and the filtering process remains

The Supreme Court has today ruled on a landmark case, referred to as T. The full judgement can be downloaded here: [2014] UKSC 35.The two individuals involved in the case had originally appealed against the decision to disclose details of their criminal records in job applications. The individuals had been issued warnings and cautions several years ago, and while one of them had been a child. They argued that the disclosure of these warnings and cautions on their enhanced criminal record certificates, which preventing them from getting certain employment, violated their ECHR, Article 8 rights for respect for private life.The Court of Appeal had previously held that the criminal record check process as part of the Police Act 1997 was incompatible with Article 8. This led to theGovernment introducing a filtering process in May 2013. Despite this, the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court today unanimously dismissed the appeals against the declaration of incompatibility in relation to the 1997 Act. Although the court did allow the appeal against the declaration by the Court of Appeal that the 1975 Exceptions Order was ultra vires, this is unlikely to have any practical impact, as it’s the first aspect of the appeal, which was dismissed, which has more practical relevance.

The Court said the disclosures in the two cases “were not necessary in a democratic society” and “were not based on any rational assessment of risk”.

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director at Unlock, today said “We welcome today’s decision. The way that criminal record checks have worked in the past were disproportionate and not based on any rational assessment of risk. We were pleased that the Government tried to resolve this by introducing a filtering system in May 2013, and we’re glad that this system will remain in force following this judgement.”

“However, the filtering system doesn’t go far enough. We know from our Helpline that many people with minor cautions and convictions continue to be excluded from the filtering system that the Government set up, simply because they were charged with more than one offence. As a result, in the first 3 months that the filtering system operated, only 15% of people with convictions had a conviction filtered from their record. This means that 85% will continue to have convictions disclosed on standard and enhanced checks for the rest of their lives.”

“We believe that the filtering process must go further. We will be looking at this judgement carefully to look at what can be done to widen the scope of the filtering process to better enable people with convictions to move on positively with their lives once they’ve become law-abiding citizens.”

For a useful legal summary of this case, click here to visit the UKSC Blog.

For more information on the current filtering process that applies to standard and enhanced criminal record checks, click here.

– END – 
 

Notes to editors
2. Unlock is an independent award-winning charity, providing trusted information, advice and supportfor people with criminal convictions. Our staff and volunteers combine professional training with personal experience to help others overcome the long-term problems that having a conviction can bring. Our knowledge and insight helps us to work with government, employers and others, to change policies and practices to create a fairer and more inclusive society so that people with convictions can move on in their lives.
3. Our website is unlock.devchd.com.

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