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

Category: Latest

Progress is made on the Charities Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the 26th January, the Charities Bill was discussed again in Parliament. Sir Edward Garnier MP, a patron of Unlock and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, raised a number of the concerns that we’ve been highlighting. He also discussed an amendment that he put forward.

There are some key extracts of what was said below, but in terms of progress, we’re pleased to see that:

  1. The Government has delayed the introduction of the changes to a minimum of 12 months (which is up from potentially only 6 months) which gives charities and people affected by the changes a chance to understand them and prepare accordingly
  2. The Government has responded to our concern about how offences from overseas were going to be treated by, instead, applying the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act as it applies in this country
  3. The Charity Commission has set up a working group and will consult with charities on the review of the waiver process
  4. The Government is going to lay a report on the impact of the bill on people with criminal records

We’re very grateful to the support of Edward Garnier for helping us in this work, and we’re now focusing our efforts on working with the Charity Commission to ensure that:

  1. The review of the waiver process results in a fairer and more inclusive approach towards dealing with people who have convictions that want to become trustees of charities.
  2. There is clear guidance available to both charities and individuals on the impact of these changes and how they can work with the waiver process

We will continue to keep the trustee section of our website up to date with news and developments as they arise.

 

Some key extracts from the discussion in Parliament

“A number of the provisions of clause 9 represent a direct threat to charities that work to rehabilitate people with criminal records, many of which employ former offenders either as trustees or in senior management positions…”

 

“Unlock’s direct experience and the support it has provided to other organisations have shown the waiver process to be inadequate and not workable in a way that allows charities such as Unlock to fulfil their charitable purposes. To ensure the process is fair and transparent, much greater clarity is needed regarding the criteria adopted by the commission in assessing waiver applications and the weight given to the views of the trustees of the charity or charities concerned.” Sir Edward Garnier

 

“Charities and the voluntary sector play a significant role in the support and rehabilitation of ex-offenders, and we should recognise and encourage their important contribution to reducing reoffending and helping former offenders to reintegrate into society. I want to ensure that the Bill’s provisions do not have an undue impact on that very important work…

 

“For the record, I can confirm that we will not commence the automatic disqualification provisions in clause 9 for 12 months following enactment…

 

“I have asked the Charity Commission to engage closely with rehabilitation charities, such as Unlock, as it develops new guidance on the waivers ahead of the commencement of the provisions. It has agreed to do so and has started to set up a working group to consider how the changes will be implemented. For example, it has invited several rehabilitation charities to a workshop in February to discuss the Bill and the implementation of these provisions” Rob Wilson MP, Minister for Civil Society

 

“I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) that, in extending disqualification, we must take extra care not to undermine the vital work done by charities involved in the rehabilitation of offenders. I am confident that the waiver process will allow those who have changed their ways a route back into charity trusteeship or senior management.” Matthew Hancock, Minister for the Cabinet Office

 

Useful links

Breakthrough or cosmetic? Prime Minister supports ‘banning the box’

Quite understandably, David Cameron’s speech on Monday was applauded for being the first one dedicated to prison reform by a Prime Minister in over 20 years. Interestingly though, as he set out his ‘agenda for a revolution in the prison system’, one of the things that caught Unlock’s attention appeared towards the end of his speech and was not, strictly speaking, about prisons.

It was about people with criminal records applying for jobs, and the difficulties they face because of the stigma of their record.

“There’s a simple problem: today, ex-offenders are often rejected for jobs out right because of their past. I want us to build a country where the shame of prior convictions doesn’t necessarily hold them back from working and providing for their families.”
David Cameron

The Prime Minister was addressing a major social problem that affects more than the 85,000 people in prison. There are over 10 million people in the UK with a criminal record.

When you last applied for a job, can you remember whether there were boxes on the application form that you quickly ticked ‘No’ to? Well, what happens if you happen to have to tick ‘Yes’ to one? This is a concern that millions of people with criminal convictions have because many employers still continue to ask about criminal records, and ticking that box often leads to your application being put in the bin.

That’s why I welcome David Cameron’s announcement that he supports the Ban the Box campaign, with the commitment that all of the civil service would be ‘banning the box’ from their initial recruitment process.

The Ban the Box campaign, led by Business in the Community and supported by Unlock, started in America. In the two years since it was launched in the UK, 58 employers with a combined workforce of 425,000 have banned the box. This helps employers to access a huge talent pool of people that are often put off from applying due to the tick-box. It also gives people with convictions a chance to enter work – significantly reducing their likelihood of re-offending.

The civil service is one of the country’s biggest employers, so this news is a welcome boost to the employment prospects of the millions of people with a criminal record. However, in a blog post on the GOV website, Robert McNeil, the chief people officer of the Civil Service, set out some details to their approach which raises a couple of questions.

First, what jobs will it apply to? Mr McNeill says: “We recognise there may be some roles with specific security requirements and these will be exempt from this approach: for example roles in law enforcement such as prison officers.” This is unnecessary. There’s no reason why any role should be closed off to banning the box.

To suggest otherwise misunderstands the concept. It’s not about not asking about convictions; instead, it’s about when. Take the example of prison officers. Yes, they require security clearance, but this doesn’t take place at the initial application process. For regulated activity roles working with children, it might be appropriate to check that the person isn’t barred, given that those that are barred would not be legally able to be employed in the role, but that doesn’t mean asking a broad question about criminal records. Only around 0.5% of people with convictions are barred from working with children, so this wouldn’t act as a barrier for the vast majority.

Second, instead of asking on the application form, when will they ask? In his speech, David Cameron gave two potential options: ‘Might this be done a bit later, at interview stage or before an actual offer of work is made?’ he said. Mr McNeill says: ‘The Civil Service will still ask about criminal convictions during the recruitment process, but we will do this after the initial application form stage.’

Unlock suggests that employers ask after a conditional job offer is made. Employers only need to consider the criminal record of the person they decide is the best person the job.

Change of culture
These questions are important to the integrity of the ‘ban the box’ movement. Employers that have signed up so far have genuinely changed their recruitment process, and it’s been more than just about banning the box. If it’s not done right, there’s a risk that people simply get rejected further down the line.

There has to be a change of culture. Banning the box is an important practical change to a recruitment process, but it needs to be alongside a package of changes. In our work with employers, we work on a number of principles that together set employers up for a fairer and more inclusive recruitment policy and practice.

The announcement is, we hope, just the start of a process that moves the Civil Service towards being an employer that recruits people with convictions and treats criminal records fairly. With the Government’s endorsement, we hope many more employers will join the campaign and develop recruitment policies that consider whether an applicant is the best person for the job before looking at their criminal record.

Useful links

  1. This article was originally published on The Justice Gap.
  2. For more information on Ban the Box, click here.
  3. For more information on Unlock’s Fair Access to Employment project, click here.

Civil service to “ban the box” to help rehabilitate people with convictions

This week David Cameron unveiled a raft of prison reform measures.  One of these will be  to scrap the declaration of criminal convictions in the initial application stage for civil service jobs.

Responding to this announcement, Unlock’s  Christopher Stacey said:

“We welcome David Camerons’ commitment to the Ban the Box campaign and in changing the recruitment practice of the Civil Service towards people with convictions.

 

The Civil Service represents a significant employer and this news is a welcome boost to the employment prospects of the millions of people with a criminal record.

 

There’s no reason why any role should be closed off to banning the box and we look forward to ensuring that the Civil Service implement the Prime Ministers’ commitment alongside a number of other measures to make it a fairer and more inclusive employer towards people with convictions.

 

We work closely with employers to encourage them to recruit people with convictions and deal with criminal records fairly. We look forward to working with Government, alongside BITC and others, to encourage more employers to take this proactive approach in removing the barriers people with convictions face when looking for work.”

Our quote was featured in an article in Civil Service World.

 

Notes to editors

  • Press/media
  • Unlock is an independent, award-winning charity for people with convictions which exists for two simple reasons. Firstly, we assist people to move on positively with their lives by empowering them with information, advice and support to overcome the stigma of their previous convictions. Secondly, we seek to promote a fairer and more inclusive society by challenging discriminatory practices and promoting socially just alternatives.
  • Our website is unlock.devchd.com.
  • David Camerons’ full speech can be read here.
  • More information about Ban the Box here.

Disproportionate criminal records disclosure scheme declared unlawful by the High Court

Press Release – 22nd January 2016

The High Court has today declared the Government’s criminal records disclosure scheme incompatible with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The judgment relates to the rule that anyone who has more than one conviction on their criminal record – regardless of the minor nature of the offences, how long ago they were committed and the person’s circumstances at the time – is required to disclose them forever when applying for certain types of work that involve standard or enhanced checks.

Lord Justice McCombe and Mrs Justice Carr declared this rule unlawful under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life.

The case was brought by Liberty and Stephensons, supported by Unlock.

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director of Unlock, a charity for people with criminal records, said:

“Unlock is delighted with the court’s decision in this important case which stands to affect many thousands of people with convictions. Since the filtering scheme was introduced in 2013, it’s helped many people with old and minor criminal records to be free of the stigma and discrimination that so many face when they have something on their criminal record.

 

“However, the current system doesn’t go far enough: it is blunt, restrictive and disproportionate. These shortcomings have today been recognised by the High Court and we are excited about the improvements which will follow. They will not only benefit those with convictions to move on positively with their lives but it will also contribute towards building a fairer and more inclusive society.”

The argument put forward in the case was that the current system breached rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, that the system is arbitrary and disproportionate, and requires urgent reform to allow for greater consideration of individual circumstances.

Unlock has long argued that a more flexible system, which considers individual circumstances in cases of old and minor convictions, should be introduced. The defendants in this case argued that such a review scheme would be unworkable – but Lord Justice McCombe said he was “far from convinced” by this argument.

The Court has yet to decide on remedies.

James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said:

“This ruling will bring reassurance for the very many people who have had their ambitions dashed because of very small mistakes they made years, or even decades, in the past.

 

“The Government must urgently fix this broken system, which rightly allows people with a single minor offence to move on with their lives, while those with two – no matter the nature or circumstances of their crimes – cannot.

 

“We are delighted the High Court has recognised the importance of the human right to privacy in allowing people to rebuild their lives.”

Mike Pemberton, head of public law and civil liberties at Stephensons, said:

“The judgment of the High Court recognises that it cannot be necessary or justifiable for an individual to have minor offences disclosed indefinitely from many years ago; merely because there is more than one minor offence.

 

The court heard that a more serious offence of the same type would be filtered and accepted that there could not be any rationale for the disclosure of the minor offences. I welcome the fact that the court has effectively applied what is common sense to the issue of criminal records”.

END

Notes to editors

  1. Press/media 
  2. Unlock is an independent, award-winning charity for people with convictions which exists for two simple reasons. Firstly, we assist people to move on positively with their lives by empowering them with information, advice and support to overcome the stigma of their previous convictions. Secondly, we seek to promote a fairer and more inclusive society by challenging discriminatory practices and promoting socially just alternatives.
  3. Our website is unlock.devchd.com.
  4. The judgement is available online.
  5. This judgement does not have any immediate impact on the current DBS filtering scheme.
  6. A press release from Liberty is available on their website.
  7. A press release from Stephensons is available on their website.
  8. We have practical self-help information on how the current filtering system works on our information hub.
  9. Find out more information about our policy work on the DBS filtering process here.
  10. The current system is explained below:

One of the cases was referred to as P. In August 1999, P was charged with shoplifting a 99p book. She was bailed to appear before a Magistrates’ Court 18 days later, but failed to attend and was therefore convicted of a second offence under the Bail Act 1976. In November 1990, she was given a conditional discharge in respect of both offences. P’s two convictions relate to a very specific and short period of her life, and she has no subsequent criminal history of any kind. At the time, she had untreated schizophrenia – a condition which was later diagnosed and treated. P now wishes to work as a teaching assistant and has sought voluntary positions in schools. However with each application she is required to disclose her two convictions, which has the effect of leading to the disclosure of her medical history.

The other case was referred to as A. A was convicted of two minor crimes in 1981 and 1982 and was concerned that he would be forced to disclose his convictions as part of his current employment. The Police Act 1997 created the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS – formerly the Criminal Records Bureau), which provides details of a job applicant’s previous convictions to prospective employers.

For certain types of work, particularly work with children or vulnerable adults, the standard or enhanced certificates issued by the DBS used to list all the job applicant’s previous convictions. However, in 2013, the Government amended this scheme following a Court of Appeal ruling (T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester) to introduce a “filtering” process. Single convictions for non-violent, non-sexual offences that did not lead to a custodial sentence (including a suspended one) will be “filtered” (i.e. not disclosed) after 11 years (five-and-a-half years if the person was under 18 at the time of the offence).

The new filtering process does not apply if a person has more than one conviction – regardless of the minor nature of the offences or the person’s circumstances at the time.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which governs the circumstances in which a person has to admit to a previous conviction if asked, operates in a similar way. A person applying to work with children or vulnerable adults does not have to disclose a conviction which is “filtered”.

Parliament Committee agrees to further restrictions on people with convictions becoming trustees and senior managers of charities

 

On the 6th January, the House of Commons Public Bill Committee discussed the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill.

This was when the Committee got to look at Clause 10 of the Bill, which relates to the issues we’ve raised that will have an impact on people with convictions.

It was positive to see a number of the concerns we raised with the Committee brought up in the session. For example, Anna Turley MP said:

“Some issues remain to be ironed out, not least further understanding and mitigation of its impact on charities working in the criminal justice sector which help to support and promote the rehabilitation of offenders and which employ ex-offenders or—as with the excellent charity Unlock, for example—aim to have at least 50% of trustees with some experience of living with a criminal record. While these provisions pertain to unspent convictions, we have some questions that we hope the Minister will answer.

 

How many people employed in the charitable sector does the Minister expect to be affected by the extension of the disqualification framework to senior management positions? What assessment has been made of the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders employed in the charitable sector, including on their career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement? What assessment has been made of the impact of the legislation on charities that work with former offenders who are employed by community rehabilitation companies as part of the Government’s transforming rehabilitation reforms?”

We welcome the clear commitment from the Government to work with us. Rob Wilson, Minister of State for Civil Society, said:

“The commission has set up a working group to review its current staff guidance and the process of issuing waivers, as well as how information about waivers is communicated to those disqualified, so as to make it as clear and simple as possible. That has already involved rehabilitation charities, such as Unlock, and will continue to do so. The working group will also review the commission’s published information on this subject to ensure that it is consistent with its conclusions.”

We remain in opposition to the Bill and its proposals. However, we also recognise the need to take a pragmatic stance towards the changes on the horizon.

We have written to the Minister for Civil Society to seek further clarity about the numbers of people likely to be affected, and to seek assurances about the waiver process. We will also be working with the Charity Commission to improve this process.

Whatever happens, we plan to closely monitor the impact of the legislation.

We will continue to keep the trustee section of our website up to date with news and developments as they arise.

 

Useful links

Why employers need to change! Three short digital stories from people with convictions

As part of our employment project, we’ve produced some short stories based on the experiences of people with convictions finding work.

Each of the stories show something different, as we explain below. However, although every situation is unique, we think that the stories serve as a helpful way or showing the importance of supporting employers to recruit people with convictions and in challenging employment discrimination.

We’ve uploaded all three videos onto our YouTube account, but you should be able to watch each of them below. We’ll also be using them as part of our work to support and challenge employers.

We’re grateful to the three individuals who took part, as well as all of those who got in touch after we put a call out for volunteers. We’d also like to thank Carlotta Allum for her help us in producing the digital stories.

 

Steve’s story

Steve’s experience shows how, since a minor incident when he was 19, he forged a successful career in the City for the next 16 years, but then it caught up on him. When he applied for his ‘dream job’, he disclosed his minor conviction as the employer had suggested he needed to. Their response was that they could no longer offer him the job.

He believed honesty was the best policy and that he wouldn’t be judged on that one moment, instead that he would be credited for the last 14 years.

His experience shows the importance of employers being clear to applicants what they do and don’t need to disclose; Steve didn’t need to disclose because of his conviction is now legally ‘protected’. Legally, his employer had a legal duty to disregard it and they’ve left themselves open to potential legal issues.

Finally, it shows the importance of employers looking beyond what they see on paper. Steve’s minor conviction from 16 years ago was no longer relevant to his job role. His potential employer should have been able to work this out. Given they didn’t, they clearly have to work to do to improve their recruitment practice.

 

Ricky’s story

Ricky’s experience of applying for work with a criminal record shows the benefit of employers that ‘ban the box’ from application forms and deals with criminal records at the job offer stage, giving people a chance to be interviewed on their merits.

His story also shows the importance of looking behind what you might see on paper – the circumstances surrounding a particular drugs offence on his record causes him particular problems as employers rarely give him a chance to explain the circumstances.

 

Sean’s story

Sean’s experience shows how important it is for people with convictions to be supported by mainstream employment support agencies to help them into employment.

He was rejected from jobs because he was overqualified. He found it frustrating that probation didn’t have the means to help him back into work and didn’t have links with local employers and recruitment agencies.

He feels that employers should find out more from applicants – those that are willing to open up about their past will enable the employer to get a better understanding and take a more balanced approach.

 

Useful links

 

Unlock supports legal challenge to disproportionate criminal records disclosure scheme

The High Court will tomorrow hear a legal challenge, with the support of Unlock, to the Government’s criminal records disclosure scheme.

There are two cases being heard on Tuesday 8th December, both focusing on how the system forces people with more than one conviction to disclose them forever when applying for areas of work that involve standard or enhanced DBS checks – regardless of specific circumstances.

One case is being brought by Liberty. Their client – referred to in this case as P – committed two extremely minor offences in 1999 while suffering from a then undiagnosed mental illness. P has committed no crimes since and – more than 16 years later – is seeking voluntary positions in schools with a view to achieving her aim of working as a teaching assistant. However, under current rules, she is forced to disclose her two convictions when applying and – in explaining the circumstances of the offences – to reveal details of her medical history. Liberty will argue that this represents a breach of P’s rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life. Liberty will also argue that the system is too arbitrary and disproportionate, and requires urgent reform to allow for greater consideration of individual circumstances.

Unlock is supporting this case by providing a witness statement for the High Court.

The second case is being brought by Stephensons. Their client – referred to in this case as A – was convicted of two minor crimes in 1981 and 1982 when aged 17 and 18. He has since worked as an accountant, a company finance director and now project manager – work that often requires due diligence and criminal record checks – and is concerned that he may be forced to disclose his convictions.

The current system

The Police Act 1997 created the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS – formerly the Criminal Records Bureau), which provides details of a job applicant’s previous convictions. For certain types of work, particularly work with children or vulnerable adults, standard or enhanced certificates issued by the DBS used to list all the job applicant’s previous convictions.

However, in 2013, the Government amended this scheme following a Court of Appeal ruling to introduce a “filtering” process. Single convictions for non-violent, non-sexual offences that did not lead to a suspended or custodial sentence will be “filtered” (i.e. not disclosed) after 11 years (five-and-a-half years if the person was under 18 at the time of the offence).

The new filtering process does not apply if a person has more than one conviction – regardless of the minor nature of the offences or the person’s circumstances at the time.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which governs the circumstances in which a person has to admit to a previous conviction if asked, operates in a similar way. A person applying to work with children or vulnerable adults does not have to disclose a conviction which is “filtered”.

James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said:

“Too many people find their work prospects blighted because of minor offences committed in their distant pasts.

 

“The Government accepted the logic of letting people move on when it introduced “filtering” two years ago. But, in restricting this to those with only one conviction, it has created a scheme which is deeply unfair to people like my client, with two very minor – and, in this case, connected – convictions.

 

“We need a system that’s flexible enough to consider individual circumstances – and we hope the High Court will agree that the DBS scheme still needs reform.”

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director of Unlock, a charity for people with criminal records, said:

“Since the filtering scheme was introduced in 2013, we know it’s helped many people with old and minor criminal records to be free of the stigma and discrimination that so many face when they have something on their criminal record. However, it simply doesn’t go far enough. We’ve had thousands of people contact us who continue to have old and minor records disclosed to employers when they have no relevance to the role they’re applying for. That’s why we’re supporting this legal challenge.  The current system is blunt, too restrictive and disproportionate.”

More information

Google ordered to remove search results about a spent conviction

In an interesting development to the issue of the ‘google-effect’ and spent convictions, the Guardian has reported that Google has been ordered by the Information Commissioner’s Office to remove nine links to current news stories about older reports which themselves were removed from search results under the ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling.

The search engine had previously removed links relating to a 10 year-old criminal offence by an individual after requests were made as the offence is now spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Removal of the original links from Google’s search results led to new news posts detailing the removals, which were then indexed by Google’s search engine. Google refused to remove these further links, which included details of the original criminal offence, despite them forming part of search results for the individual’s name, arguing that they are an essential part of a recent news story and in the public interest.

Google now has 35 days from the 18 August to remove the links from its search results for the individual’s name.

We will be keeping a close eye on how this case develops, and hope that Google will take the sensible steps of removing the links and upholding the privacy of the individual concerned.

 

Useful links

  • Have you managed to get details of your convictions removed from search results? Let us know – send us your experience
  • More information on issue of the ‘google-effect’ and spent convictions can be found on our policy page here.
  • We also have practical information for people dealing with the google-effect on our information site.

Has your criminal record had an impact on social housing?

The Localism Act 2011 gave local authorities and social housing providers some discretion to exclude people on the grounds of “unacceptable behaviour”. We’ve seen examples of local authorities excluding people with convictions for a range of offences.

As part of our work on housing policy, we want to understand more about if, and how, criminal records are having an impact on peoples’ ability to get, or indeed keep, social housing.

We’re gathering information and experiences to help us to better understand how a criminal record affects people when applying for social housing.

 

 

  • Has your housing situation been affected by a criminal record?
  • Have you been refused a tenancy or been evicted as a result of a criminal record?
  • Have you come across any blanket policies being used by local authorities or housing associations?

What we need from you

If you have been excluded from housing due to your criminal record, contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: housing’. Please include:

  • Your name
  • Contact details (email and telephone) and how you’d like us to contact you
  • Details of your criminal record
  • Details of your experience (please include the name of the housing provider and of any staff you spoke to, include emails/screenshots etc if possible)
  • What you think should change
  • Whether you’d be willing to take part in media coverage on this issue in future (this is for our reference only, we won’t share your details with others)

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.

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