Category: Latest

Do you have a caution or conviction that can never be filtered?

The filtering rules set up following Supreme Court’s judgment in R (On the application of T and another) [2014] UKSC 35 mean some cautions and convictions can be filtered from standard and enhanced DBS checks after a period of time. Convictions for specified offences, custodial or suspended sentences and multiple convictions could not be filtered.

In R (On the application of P, G and W) [2019] UKSC 3, it was argued that the rules didn’t go far enough. The court ruled that multiple convictions ought to be filterable, and we’re gathering evidence to show how important it is that these changes are made quickly.

We’d like to hear from you if:

you’ve only been to court once, but you were charged for two ‘counts’.
you have two separate convictions.

We still don’t think these changes go far enough to help people move on positively with their lives. The court did not rule that the list of offences that can never be filtered should be changed. None of the cases addressed the question of whether custodial or suspended sentences should be filtered. We are gathering evidence to show why this should change. We want to hear from you if you:

served a short prison sentence, or suspended sentence, for an offence that could be filtered
have a caution or conviction for an offence that currently cannot be filtered – such as
- Assault occasioning ABH (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
- Robbery (s.8 Theft Act 1981)
- Loitering for purposes of prostitution (s.27 Sexual Offences Act 1992)

What we need from you

If you are affected by the filtering rules, contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: DBS filtering’. Please include:

Your name
Your date of birth
Contact details (email and telephone) and how you’d be happy for us to contact you
Which example above you think your case fits into
Details of your cautions/convictions including the 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 being filtered.
Whether 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 DBS filtering

Unlock on BBC Radio West Midlands talking about second chances and employers

Last night we contributed to a discussion on BBC Radio West Midlands, which looked at the case of Natalie Atkinson, and looked at the role of employers in giving people with convictions a second chance.

You can listen to the programme below:

‘Impact report’ published by Unlock on access to banking for people in prison

Unlock has now come to the end of a landmark 9-year project in developing access to basic bank accounts for people in prison before release. We are pleased to publish a report on this work. It reflects on the progress that we have made, and sets out a number of recommendations to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), prisons and the banking industry, so that the progress is sustained and developed even further.

Back in 2005, we first identified the issue of people coming out of prison who had managed to secure employment, but were losing these opportunities because they didn’t have a bank account to get paid their wages into. The personal testimony below demonstrates the importance of this. It seemed like a simple problem to resolve, to open an account before release, but there were a number of complex underlying issues that stood in the way, not least the lack of engagement from many banks, and the lack of awareness of the issue across prisons.

During the 9 years that followed, we worked at various levels; piloting a process in a small number of prisons; rolling this out into further prisons; working with the banking industry to develop a fair and sustainable process; working with specific banks to develop their operating processes; and providing training/support to prisons. The work took much longer than we had expected. What began as a small charitably-funded pilot project ultimately ended up in a national campaign involving significant political and media attention.

And we are immensely proud of the progress we’ve made. In 2013-14 alone, 5,936 basic bank accounts were opened for people in prison, ready for them to use once they were released. In total, we have helped to set up 74 prison/banking programmes, and overall 114 prisons have links with a high-street bank. Ultimately, all prisons that want and need a basic bank account opening programme now have one in place, which was the principal aim of the project.

This work shows the value of being responsive to the issues that people are facing. Unlock’s independence, and “ear to the ground, voice at the top” approach has enabled us to achieve systemic change to a long-standing problem.

Unlock are now handing over day-to-day responsibility to NOMS for sustaining and developing the project. We look forward to seeing this work continue, so that all people near to release are able to apply for a basic bank account which is set up and ready for them to use when they are released so that they are better able to lead law-abiding lives in the future.

For more information about this work, visit the bank accounts policy section.

The importance of this work – A personal testimony

“I was in an open prison a couple of years ago. Having gone into prison with the loss of everything, I had no bank account, no ID, no anything. I was approached by staff one day and told about this wonderful scheme which would allow me to get started again. Very simply, the bank was Barclays and they had the most amazing very straightforward system for getting a bank account open. I would highly praise them, and Unlock for organising it, and for the way that is done. The account is opened, you have the bank card and details a couple of weeks later, and they are kept in your private property until you are released from prison. So you are actually ready to go the day you get out.

But to me the biggest things are the personal things. Self-esteem is a big thing and the bank account helped a great deal with that. Can you imagine what it is like not to have a bank account? Just for a moment. Not so much the practicalities but what it says about you. Why haven’t you got one? People give you funny looks, or you suspect they do. Getting a bank account in prison made me feel a great deal better about myself; that I belonged, and that reintegration was possible. Prison, for all the wrongs you have done to get you there, is a very lonely place, and that’s one of the problems when it comes to reintegrating when you get out. Anything that can be done to improve things there will help people.

Confidentiality is another thing: the way the accounts are set up. When you go to your branch when you get out, the staff don’t know you are an ex-offender. There is nothing on the system to say: this man is a former criminal; this account was set up in prison. That’s a fantastic feeling: to walk in to a branch as a normal citizen. One of the things that really hit me when I came out of prison, when I got onto the Jubilee line to head home, I was absolutely paranoid, that I had ‘prisoner’ stamped across my forehead. I kept looking round the carriage thinking ’they know’. And I’m not normally a paranoid person. A lot of people go through that. But when you walk into a bank branch and know they will treat you as a normal customer, and that rubber stamp on your forehead is no longer there, that is a fantastic feeling.

There are too many things, emotionally, that drag people back into prison. I know it sounds strange but I think bank accounts and having them set up for you, can help reduce re-offending. It’s one thing out of the way. You’ve got your benefits when you come out, you get paid when you find employment, it’s just one less box you have to tick. I think it’s a fantastic scheme and long may it continue, and be rolled out across the estate.”

Person with convictions, released from prison

Employers’ access to ‘subject access’ records will become a criminal offence from December 2014

We’ve learnt today that the Ministry of Justice are planning to bring section 56 of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 into force on the 1^st December 2014.

There’s more information about this in an update on our Information Hub.

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

1. Press/media

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.

Unlock article on TheJusticeGap about ‘filtering’

We’ve written an article for The Justice Gap, arguing that the ‘filtering’ process doesn’t go far enough.

You can read the article here.

Dealing with criminal convictions – embedding a positive process of disclosure

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director, Unlock comments on the issues discussed in a recent Ban the Box webinar.

Quite rightly, the Ban the Box campaign is focused on a specific issue, that being the tick-box that appears on many job application forms, frightening the life out of somebody who has a criminal record.

Many people with convictions see “the box” and immediately de-select themselves out of the job opportunity, usually because their experiences to date have been ones of rejection whenever they’ve ticked that dreaded box. The obvious result to employers is that you’re missing out on a huge pool of talent, which is why this issue is so important.

But ‘banning the box’ is only one part of the puzzle. What this simple concept allows organisations to do is have a much considered recruitment process that firstly focuses on finding the best person for the job, while also recognising that, as an organisation, you might still need to look at criminal convictions once you have a preferred candidate.

This is something that I know from experience. Having worked with employers for many years, I know that some employers can see the benefit of this issue in principle, but when you begin to try and ‘implement’ this, it’s then that it can feel like it’s getting more complicated. What do we do if somebody discloses a conviction? Are we allowed to employ them? Who do we have to tell?

These are all genuine questions that you have to think about, and often this means looking in the round as to what your policy and process are. If you don’t have either of these, you’ll need to seriously consider getting them.

It’s all about building on the principle of ‘banning the box’ and establishing something that works for your organisation. Ultimately, there’s no one-size-fits-all model. As we heard from Interserve in the a recent Ban the Box webinar, they have developed a policy and process that’s unique to them. We have developed a policy at Unlock which we think sends the kind of message that we want to applicants to hear.

However, no matter how good your policy, if this isn’t embedded within your organisation, it probably won’t work. Policies are only as good as the people that use them. Senior managers, HR colleagues and recruiting managers in particular need to feel equipped to make positive decisions about employing somebody with a conviction. That’s one reason why we provide support to employers, because lots of recruiters have myths about criminal records. They don’t understand what they can and can’t ask for, and don’t understand how to deal on an individual case-by-case basis with people with have convictions.

Ultimately, ‘banning the box’ could easily be meaningless to an organisation, even if they’ve signed up to it. It’s perfectly possible (and a genuine risk for the campaign) for the ‘banning of the box’ to end up simply delaying the rejection of applicants with convictions. In many organisations, this requires a cultural shift away from seeing convictions as a ‘negative’ part of the process, and rather looking at how you can deal with them in a positive, informed way. ‘Banning the box’ is a simple but effective first step on a journey which enables employers to see beyond the label of ‘criminal record’ and see the person for the fantastic employee that they could potentially become.

This blog was originally published on the 10th June 2014 at www.bitc.org.uk . The direct link [accessed 13th June 2014] is http://www.bitc.org.uk/blog/post/dealing-criminal-convictions-embedding-positive-process-disclosure

An update on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

It’s been just over 3 months since the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 came into force in England & Wales. At that time, we published an updatewhich featured new materials that we’d produced, as well as our updated detailed guidance.

Since that point, we’ve learnt quite a bit about how these changes are working in practice, mainly through cases that have come through our helpline. So we thought it was about time we produced another update, highlighting a couple of important practical areas.

Read this update in full on our Information Hub.

Summary of the update

The importance of getting a copy of your basic disclosure
The way that ‘court orders’ such as restraining orders and SOPO’s can impact on when a conviction becomes spent
The way that ‘compensation orders’ work with Disclosure Scotland and basic checks
The confusion that surrounds motoring convictions
New ‘Easy Read’ guide on the ROA published
Updated ‘ROA FAQ’s’
Send us your examples/evidence

Find out more about all of these in the full update on our Information Hub.

Google’s ‘right to be forgotten’

Information Hub Update

Read this update in full on our Information Hub.

You might have seen in the news recently that Google has launched a system where people can request information be removed from Google’s search results. This has come about because of a ruling on the 13th May by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google’s search results infringed his privacy. The court found in his favour, and this has potentially wide-reaching consequences for search engines like Google.

The ruling only covers the removing of the search results – the information will still exist on the website that published the original article but Google won’t be able to deliver matches to some enquiries that are entered. Deletion of the original information would still be the responsibility of the website owner, and in our experience, it’s very rare that websites agree to remove details relating to convictions (see more in reporting of criminal records in the media).

Information will only disappear from searches made in Europe. Queries piped through its sites outside the EU will still show the relevant search results.

However, many people are still seeing the ruling as a potential way of dealing with the ‘google-effect’ that often haunts people for lots of different reasons, and our Helpline and Forum have already seen this being raised by quite a few people when it comes to past convictions that have been reported online. So the important question for us is whether it will actually help people with convictions?

We’ve published a new section on our Information Hub looking at this, and written a ‘latest update‘ post for our Information Hub. We expect that this information will be regularly updated as we learn more about how the system works in practice.

We’re keen to see how Google are dealing with applications from people with convictions.

To do this, we’re encouraging people with spent convictions to complete Google’s online form, and get a decision from them. Bear in mind that they’re dealing with a lot of applications at the moment, so there might be quite a wait before you get a decision.

Once you receive a decision, please forward it to us to let us know what their decision is and why. You can forward their reply to us by sending it to policy@unlock.org.uk (we won’t share your personal details externally). This will help us to collect evidence of how Google are dealing with requests from people with convictions, and help us to improve the information and advice we’re giving on this issue.

Latest voluntary vacancies @ Unlock

We’re recruiting for a number of voluntary positions to work as part of our Helpline.

Roles include Helpline Advisors, Helpline Administrators, and Information Hub Researchers.

More information, including role descriptions and application details, can be found here.