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

Category: Latest

New report highlights potentially hundreds of unlawful criminal record checks by employers each year

Unlock, a national advocacy charity for people with criminal records, has today published Checked out?, a report on so-called ‘ineligible’ criminal record checks, submitted by employers and processed by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 allows some criminal records to become spent after a crime-free period. This means they are no longer disclosable – for example to employers – enabling people to move on and positively and contribute to society. For jobs working with children and vulnerable adults, spent criminal records must still be disclosed.

In 2019/20, the DBS carried out more than 4 million checks at the higher levels of enhanced or standard. Unlike basic checks, these disclose cautions and spent convictions and are legally permitted only for specified jobs and professions such as teaching, social work, accountancy or law. Carrying out a check at a higher level than permitted can be a criminal offence and a breach of data protection laws – exposing employers to financial and reputational risk. It unnecessarily prevents people with spent criminal records from gaining employment.

Despite the introduction of basic checks in 2018, Unlock’s helpline has seen a 25% increase in calls about ineligible checks. The report highlights the significant impact ineligible checks have on the lives of law-abiding people with criminal records – it estimates that over 2,000 people a year have to deal with the consequences of a caution or conviction unlawfully disclosed to an employer.

Responsibility for ensuring eligibility rests with the employer and the DBS trusts employers to request the right checks. The law is complicated, employers are rarely trained, and many show a blatant disregard for selecting the appropriate level of check. There is almost no chance of accountability and law-abiding people with criminal records are needlessly kept out of the workplace.

The report makes recommendations for government, the DBS and employers to prevent ineligible checks. These include amendments to the Police Act so employers and the DBS share liability for ineligible checks, legal protection for spent convictions and an urgent review of DBS processes for preventing ineligible checks.

Commenting on the report, Rachel Tynan, Unlock’s policy and practice lead and co-author of the report, said:

“Law abiding people with criminal records are struggling to find work as some employers are breaking the law to find out whether potential employees have ever broken the law. Ineligible checks are usually only carried out after offer, meaning the candidate has been chosen as the best person for the job, only to be rejected for an old or minor criminal record they are entitled to withhold.

“That’s bad news for them, their families and the economy – it’s got to change. This report sets out a number of recommendations to government, the DBS and employers that would turn the tide, prevent ineligible checks and improve compliance.”

For more information about the report, please contact Rachel Tynan. Email rachel.tynan@unlock.org.uk.

Notes

  1. Unlock is an independent national advocacy charity for people who are facing obstacles, stigma and discrimination because of their criminal record
  2. There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
  3. Unlock’s main website is unlock.devchd.com.
  4. Download the report here: Checked out?
  5. The report has been published as part of Unlock’s fair access to employment project.

Background

  • In 2019/20, the DBS carried out 5.9 million criminal record checks – 3.86 million enhanced and 326,000 standard checks, along with more than 1.7 million basic checks. Basic checks are available to any employer (provided they set out their lawful basis for checking). Standard and enhanced checks are only available for professions or roles exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  • A basic criminal record check reveals convictions and cautions that are unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. A conviction or caution is unspent for a period of time, determined by the sentence. Once a conviction or caution is spent, it no longer appears on a basic check. However, higher levels of checks (standard and enhanced checks) continue to disclose spent convictions and spent cautions. Only when a conviction or caution meets an additional set of strict technical rules can a conviction or caution be removed from a higher level of check, in line with the ‘filtering rules’.
  • The term ‘ineligible check’ refers to checks carried out at a higher level than permitted in law. This could mean an enhanced check where only standard is permitted, but the more common problem is requesting a standard or enhanced check where only a basic is permitted.

Case studies

Darren

Darren’s minor convictions were from 30 years ago and long spent but, as there was more than one conviction, they were not eligible to be removed (or ‘filtered’) from his enhanced check. He contacted us for advice when a job offer from his local council was withdrawn following what he believed to be an ineligible enhanced DBS check.

During our correspondence with the council it became clear that there was a misunderstanding of the type of work that would be eligible for an enhanced check. They said:

“Although the DBS is saying we only need a basic check, there may be opportunities that the team may have contact with children or vulnerable adults in their work and the fact that the majority of the team currently have enhanced DBS checks, then it may be a good idea to stay at this level. For example, a car parking officer may have to approach a car where a young child has been left alone”.

We went back to the council to confirm that approaching a car which has young children in wouldn’t make this type of role eligible for an enhanced check and explained the purpose of these checks. The council reviewed the role and agreed that a basic check was more appropriate but by the time the review was complete, Darren had taken another job.

Darren said: “Had the correct level of check been done in the first place, I would have been able to start the job. It took so long for them to acknowledge their mistake and I couldn’t keep waiting without a job. It’s disappointing that a big organisation like the council didn’t understand what type of checks they could do.”

Dennis

Dennis was a driver for an out of hours doctor’s service, driving doctors to appointments and waiting whilst they attended to a patient. Rarely, he chaperoned whilst the doctor carried out a procedure on the patient – this had only happened twice in the previous year.

After several months in the job, the employer decided to carry out an enhanced DBS check for his job. Dennis did not believe the job was eligible but felt he had no choice but to agree. Before the check was submitted, Dennis disclosed details of his criminal record and was suspended by his employer.

On reading the job description, we agreed that his job would not appear be eligible for an enhanced DBS check. To be eligible, he would need to be performing chaperone duties once a week or more, or at least four days in a 30 day period. In any event, Dennis was always accompanied by a medical professional who had been DBS checked and had overall responsibility for the patient. We provided Dennis with information and advice on challenging the check and offered to speak with his employer.

The employer carried out an investigation into Dennis’s concerns and confirmed that the job was not eligible for an enhanced check and they would update their policy to reflect this.

Dennis said: “I knew the job didn’t require an enhanced check and I’m pleased that [his employer] recognised that. I wanted to share my story so other people might feel they can challenge bad practice at work too.”

Danny

Danny contacted us for advice when his employer, a company selling disability aids, requested an enhanced DBS check for his role as a driver/technician, stating that he would be required to instruct and train ‘vulnerable’ adults in the use of the equipment he was delivering. Danny hadn’t received training in using equipment and, in the few weeks he had been working there, had only delivered pillows, walking sticks and wheelchairs. He felt the job would probably only require a basic DBS check and wanted to know how he could challenge the company. He had a spent conviction which he had not disclosed when applying for the job, as he was led to believe that it was a delivery driver job which would not be eligible for an enhanced check.

Danny had no choice but to agree to the enhanced check and then raise it with the DBS. He told them other drivers doing the same job were also undergoing enhanced checks. The DBS confirmed that they had put his application on hold whilst they investigated the eligibility of the check but could not do the same for the other drivers.

The DBS told Danny that his employer had given his job title as an Outreach Support Worker. This did not match his job description, qualifications or experience. He was told that the DBS did not question job titles with requesters and, on the job description provided, the role was eligible for an enhanced check. Danny decided that the only option open to him would be to arrange to speak to his employer about his conviction – who immediately terminated his contract.

Danny said: “I wouldn’t have applied for a job as a support worker – I’ve got no experience or interest in that type of work. As far as I was concerned, it was a driving job, dropping things off at the front door. None of the other drivers trained anyone either.”

The DBS would not investigate why Danny’s employers provided a different job description to the one being performed. Had they investigated the other drivers’ roles and found all of them raising the same objections, they might have reached a different decision.

Reforming the criminal records disclosure regime – Have you a sentence of over 4 years in prison?

We’ve published an updated briefing on reforming the criminal records disclosure regime and we want to hear from you if you have a conviction that can never become spent.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) means that most convictions can become spent after a period of years. Changes implemented in 2014 (through focused mainly on reducing rehabilitation periods. However, the current law means more than 8000 people every year receive sentences that mean they can never be legally rehabilitated and will have to declare them for the rest of their life – on job applications, for housing or insurance.

A never spent 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.

What is the rationale behind the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?

In a week where the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, said that he was preparing a policy that looked at making changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), we’re pleased to publish a paper by Dr Andrew Henley (Assistant Professor of Criminology at the University of Nottingham) on the rationale behind that piece of legislation.

The paper draws on the research conducted for Dr Henley’s doctoral thesis which examined the conception, passage and contestation of the ROA. Sections of this thesis were based on original archival research and Hansard records which were used to understand the rationale behind the ROA and the motivations of its sponsors.  It is revealed that whilst the architects of the ROA were mindful of the need for exemptions to its provisions, their motives were primarily compassionate and humanitarian, and concerned with the welfare of those who had successfully ‘lived down’ their convictions. They were also concerned with the fact that, in the early 1970s, the UK was out of step with international norms in not having a rehabilitation law.

The paper concludes that the principle of ‘spent convictions’ is now well-established and has been for nearly half a century. Any Government seeking to expanding arrangements so that more people with convictions can benefit from their record becoming ‘spent’ should face an easier task than the original proposers of the ROA given that exemptions to its effect are also well-established on safeguarding ground.  However, it would be quite wrong to reframe the original rationale of the ROA as being about ‘striking a balance’ between protecting the public or businesses from recidivist crime versus the rights of people with convictions to ‘live down’ their past offending.  Concerns with public protection played only a relatively small part in the debates which circulated around the legislation during its passage, given that there was always an intention to include exemptions to the effect of the law for these purposes.  The ROA is, therefore, better understood as motivated by humanitarian concerns and with the need for legislation in the UK to keep pace with that in other countries.

Download the paper here.

Unlock cautiously welcomes incentives for employers who take on young adults

Unlock welcomes the Chancellor’s summer statement, in particular, incentivising employers to create training placements and apprenticeships for young adults. This age group has been significantly affected by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic – by mid-June, around a third of 18-24 year olds had been furloughed or made redundant.

The ‘Kickstart’ scheme means 16-24 year olds will be able to apply for Government grants to subsidise six-month work placements. In addition, firms taking on new apprentices aged 16 to 24 will receive £2,000, and those hiring new apprentices aged 25 and over will be paid £1,500.

Unlock’s co-director Christopher Stacey said:

These incentives have the potential to set young people on the path to employment. However, government backed schemes must offer opportunities to the most vulnerable young people – care leavers, people of minoritised ethnicity and those in areas hardest hit by the economic downturn. We know from evidence and experience that these young people are more likely to be criminalised and that a criminal record acquired in adolescence can be a life sentence.

 

With that in mind, we hope the scheme will ensure that a criminal record is not a barrier and that employers who benefit from Government subsidy have in place fair recruitment practices.

 

Too often, a criminal record is a barrier to moving on. As we move towards a ‘new normal’ let’s give all young people the chance to make a contribution.

Read about our priorities for government, which includes incentivising employers to recruit people with convictions.

 

Government responds to Supreme Court ruling with plans to change criminal records disclosure regime

Responding to government plans to change the criminal records disclosure regime to address the Supreme Court judgment in the case of P and Others v SSHD & SSJ (the ruling on the filtering system and the disclosure of criminal records), Christopher Stacey said:

“We welcome the government’s intention to fully comply with the Supreme Court ruling on filtering. Unlock intervened in that vital case because we know thousands of people are unnecessarily anchored to their past due to an arbitrary regime which forces the disclosure of old and irrelevant information. The changes announced today are a crucial first step towards achieving a fair system that takes a more balanced approach towards disclosing criminal records.

 

“However, we are still left with a criminal records system where many people with old and minor criminal records are shut out of jobs that they are qualified to do. Reviews by the Law Commission, Justice Select Committee, Charlie Taylor and David Lammy MP have all stressed the need to look at the wider disclosure system. The government’s plan for jobs should include a wider review of the criminal records disclosure system to ensure all law-abiding people with criminal records are able to move on into employment and contribute to our economic recovery.”

 

Background

On 30 January 2019, the Supreme Court directed the Government to fix the broken Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) system. Four claimants had challenged the blunt and punitive rules, that require them to disclose multiple offences, no matter how historic or minor, and to disclose cautions received in childhood. Every year about 25,000 youth cautions are disclosed in criminal record checks, around 75% of those cautions were for incidents that happened over 5 years ago.

The Court, agreeing with two lower courts whose judgments the Government had challenged, said the Government needed to fix the rules to allow people to move on from past mistakes.

Planned changes 

This change affects spent convictions that may continue to be disclosed on standard and enhanced checks. It does not affect unspent convictions which will continue to be disclosed.  

A Statutory Instrument is a way of amending existing law. It means changes can be made in a shorter timeframe than passing new primary legislation. The planned changes to the filtering rules are set out in Statutory Instruments relating to the Police Act 1997 and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. 

The Statutory Instrument’s remove the automatic disclosure of: 

  • youth cautions, reprimands and warnings (an out of court disposal issued to young offenders that were replaced by youth cautions in 2013); and 
  • all spent convictions where the individual has more than one conviction (except where disclosed under the other rules) 

What will not change 

Convictions resulting in a custodial or suspended sentence will still be disclosed.

Convictions or adult cautions for an offence that can ‘never be filtered’ will still be disclosed. 

The time that must pass before filtering applies remains the same – 11 years for a conviction (5.5 years for convictions under the age of 18) and 6 years for adult cautions (youth cautions will no longer be disclosed). 

In addition, enhanced criminal records certificates may also include any information which a chief officer of police reasonably believes to be relevant and in the chief officer’s opinion ought to be included in the certificate.

What does this mean for you? 

It’s important to note that these changes are not yet law.

You will no longer have to disclose reprimands, final warnings or cautions received under the age of 18 on application forms for regulated jobs or university courses. These will no longer be disclosed on a standard or enhanced DBS certificate. 

Multiple childhood convictions will be filtered after 5.5 years unless they are for a specified offence and did not result in a custodial or suspended sentence. 

Multiple convictions acquired after the age of 18 will be filtered after 11 years, unless they are for a specified offence or resulted in a custodial or suspended sentence. Adult cautions have not changed. 

Find out more about the impact of these planned changes.

Useful links

  1. The government announcement can be found here.
  2. The letter to Unlock from Victoria Atkins explaining the changes
  3. Unlock’s response to the judgment on 30th January 2019, including case studies and a background to the case, is available here.
  4. More information about our policy work on the DBS filtering system is available here
  5. #FairChecks movement – calling for a fresh start for the criminal records system

Notes

  • Press & media
  • Unlock is an independent national charity that provides a voice and support for people who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence.

MP puts #FairChecks on Boris Johnson’s radar

Boris Johnson was called out this week for “dithering” in sorting out our “damaging and discriminatory” criminal records system.

At Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions, John Spellar MP, who represents Warley constituency, called for Boris Johnson to “sort out this scandal now”.

The Prime Minister conceded there are issues with the system that need looking at urgently, adding “I think that every MP will have had representations from people who feel they’ve been unfairly treated by it.” Watch the clip here.

It’s thanks to those of you that have written to your MP through the #FairChecks site that MPs like John Spellar feel compelled to bring it to the government’s attention. Your support is making all the difference!

The bigger the movement the bigger the change. Help us grow in numbers by signing up if you’ve not already done so, and encouraging your friends, family and networks to write to their own MP about #FairChecks.

May 2020 update on research understanding the influence of an early life criminal record on adult life courses

Nicola Collett, a PhD student at Keele University, is currently researching the potential influence of a criminal record acquired between the ages of 10-25, later on in adulthood. Following on from her last update in September 2019, Nicola writes here about how her research is progressing.

I am delighted to be sharing another update on my PhD research exploring the potential influence of an early life criminal record later on in adulthood.

Since my last update in 2019 I have been incredibly busy thinking about the information shared with me in the interviews and drawing together the key ideas and arguments I wish to make in my thesis. I have been busy writing draft chapters and getting essential feedback from supervisors – a very long and reflective process. I would like to again thank those who took part for sharing so many personal experiences and thoughts with me. I look forward to sharing some more detailed thesis ideas with you at a later date.

Nicola presenting at the conference in Ghent

In September 2019 I presented some preliminary findings and reflections at the European Society of Criminology conference in Ghent. I highlighted four themes emerging from my work that highlight the complexities of living with a criminal record from youth – anchoring, everlasting, uncertainty and resilience. You can read more about these by downloading these slides.  

At the event I also drew on the interviews I had conducted, emphasising the diverse range of experiences shared with me. I shared some powerful quotes* taken from my transcripts  and explained to the audience that each person I spoke to shared something unique and personal to them. No two individuals experienced the same challenges in the same way. People were surprised to hear that in England and Wales a historical youth record can be disclosed later in adulthood in such a wide range of instances. They were keen to ask further questions about the experiences of those I had spoken to and it was a real privilege to be able to share this with them.

A third important update to share is that I successfully encouraged Keele University to sign up to the Fair Chance for Students with Convictions pledge designed to improve access and participation to UK universities. Given the research I am conducting I felt it was important to ensure my institution was engaging with this and challenging their admissions policy. Keele is now one of 16 universities which have signed up to this pledge.

What’s next?

Despite the disruption caused by the coronavirus I have been fortunate enough to continue working from home, albeit at a slower pace. I am pressing on with my writing whilst continually reflecting upon the work I have produced so far having video calls with supervisors where possible. As circumstances continue to change it is unclear when this project will be finished but I will continue to provide updates along the way. 

I hope everyone is keeping safe and well in these challenging times.

Written by Nicola Collett

* Direct quotes have only been used where permission has been granted via a signed consent form. Where participants did not want direct quotes used, paraphrasing has been used instead.

 

 

Northern Ireland makes changes to the disclosure of convictions and cautions in response to Supreme Court ruling

Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DoJ) in Northern Ireland announced it was making changes to what is disclosed on standard and enhanced criminal record checks, in response to the Supreme Court ruling in January 2019.

The criminal record checking process in Northern Ireland (administered by AccessNI) is separate to that in England and Wales (administered by the Disclosure and Barring Service) so these changes will only affect those applying for jobs and volunteer roles in Northern Ireland.

Announcing the changes in Northern Ireland, Justice Minister Naomi Long MLA, said:

“As the result of a ruling made by the Supreme Court in January 2019, I have removed a restriction in the AccessNI scheme whereby if a person had more than a single conviction on their criminal record, all convictions held on their criminal record were disclosed on a standard or enhanced AccessNI check. This change ensures that the scheme is more proportionate in terms of the information released and that individuals will not find obtaining employment more difficult because of old and minor convictions in their past.

 

“In addition, any information about offences committed by persons under 18 which were adjudicated outside a court process (non-court disposals), such as informed warnings, cautions or youth conference plans will be scrutinised by the Department’s Independent Reviewer of criminal record certificates and will only be disclosed where she determines that the offence could undermine the safeguarding or protection of children and vulnerable adults or the protection of the public.”

This important announcement by the DoJ deals directly with the two aspects of the current rules that the Supreme Court found were not in accordance with the law. The changes will be introduced on an administrative basis until legislation has been passed meaning that certificates issued by Access NI will now comply with the law. Unlock has called on Westminster to implement a remedial order as soon as practical so that the DBS can comply with the ruling when issuing certificates in England and Wales. A remedial order should ensure that youth cautions, reprimands and warnings were filtered out, and the multiple conviction rule no longer applied. This is, in effect, what the Department of Justice has announced for Northern Ireland.

It is disappointing that the Department for Justice fell short of committing to a process for considering wider reforms. The Supreme Court is not the only critic of the current regime – the Law Commission, the Justice Select Committee and David Lammy MP have all made recommendations for reform. The changes announced in Northern Ireland have not looked at the list of offences that cannot be removed from standard or enhanced checks (so-called “specified offences”) nor has it changed the fact that any length of prison sentence (including suspended sentences) can never be removed, even by way of some form of review. In addition, in Northern Ireland in particular, the time it takes for convictions to become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 remain far too long and are not evidence-based. Unlock continues to call for a root-and-branch review of the criminal records disclosure regime.

That said, we very much welcome the changes announced – they will have a significantly positive impact on people with old and minor criminal records in Northern Ireland. It is deeply disappointing that the UK government has yet to properly respond to the Supreme Court judgment as it applies in England & Wales.

Together with the charity Transform Justice, Unlock launched the #FairChecks movement to help push for a fresh start for the criminal records system. Our outdated criminal records regime is holding hundreds of thousands of people back from participating fully in society. Even a minor criminal history can produce lifelong barriers to employment, volunteering, housing and even travelling abroad, many years after people have moved on from their past. This must change. The #FairChecks movement is calling for the government to launch a major review of the disclosure of criminal records to reduce the length of time a record is revealed.

 

 

Notes

  1. Sign up and support the #FairChecks movement
  2. The announcement from the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
  3. Find out more about our work on challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process as it doesn’t go far enough

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