Skip to main content

Category: News & Media

The Law Society Gazette – White paper promises ‘smarter’ sentencing to cut crime

In this article regarding  the Government’s newly announced sentencing white paper, Christopher Stacey welcomed the proposals to reduce disclosure periods but highlighted the fact that  around two-thirds of the 8,000 people every year who receive sentences of over four years would be excluded from the proposals.

Christopher said: ‘The risk of reoffending is consistently lower for those who have served longer sentences, and data on reoffending by index offence shows sexual and violent offences have lower rates of reoffending than many other categories. Exclusions by offence type risk creating unfairness and anomalies at the margins, further entrenching racial injustice and embedding the idea that some people are inherently incapable of rehabilitation. To genuinely support people striving to turn their lives around through work, all sentences of over four years should be capable of becoming ‘spent’ at some point.’

You can read the full article here.

‘Anchoring, everlasting, uncertainty, resilience’: Researching the impact of criminal records acquired in youth

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. Here she blogs about some of her findings so far.

Almost three years into my PhD I am spending much of my time surrounded by scribbles, highlights and post-it-it-notes as I continue to draw together the key ‘themes’ and ideas which came out from the interviews I conducted. In a recent research update I shared that I had been to Ghent to present preliminary findings and ideas which this blog will discuss in more detail. The four themes I highlighted in this presentation are: ‘anchoring’, ‘everlasting’, ‘uncertainty’ and ‘resilience’. Whilst the thesis is still a work in progress I hope this blog will help give some indication of the experiences captured in this research. Thank you again to those who took part and placed their trust in me.

 

Anchoring

“…it was a really traumatic erm period of time in my life so when I have to disclose it or talk about it not only I’ve got the actions of the things I’ve done wrong…I’ve got the erm context of it all as well…which for me feels worse it’s like…I don’t know a little bit re-tr- re-traumatising”

Megan

 

“…this caution had an effect on me for…years. Literally for years. You know…it caused me a lot of grief in the sense that I had to re-live that situation over and over again”

Yasmeen

Throughout our lives we take part in interviews and assessments, fill in various different forms and go through an array of sorting processes designed to filtering people as they try to access different opportunities. This occurs in variety of life domains from employment and volunteering to insurance and travel. This has become a common often taken for granted feature of our lives. However, for several of my participants these processes can be emotionally harmful as they require not only the disclosure of a criminal record but further explanation of the context of their offending. This is the anchoring affect whereby individuals are emotionally drawn back to a time in their lives where they may have faced victimisation, trauma, addictions and other significant difficulties. It was explained to me that this experience of disclosure could be humiliating, embarrassing and felt to be deeply invasive.

Everlasting

“…it’s had an impact on my life when I thought it was done you know? I thought I’d I’d reinvented myself I’d left that life behind. I’ve I’ve done everythin’ since I’ve done volunteerin’ I’ve worked […] I came from nothin’ […] all I’ve done is jump through hurdles…for like ten years […] I’ve had a clean slate throughout uni nothin’s gone wrong but still…this is apparently the pinnacle of my life that should dictate where I can go”

Paul

The long-term enduring nature of a criminal record has been discussed by Unlock  and other criminal record scholars and campaigners. Indeed, the everlasting effect of having interacted with the criminal justice system at a young age was something the majority of my participants discussed. Those in early adulthood shared how they felt nervous and lived with a degree of anxiety at the potential for their criminal record to resurface later in life. In contrast, those later in adulthood reflected back on how they had personally experienced the criminal record as everlasting, resurfacing after many years of it not being disclosed. There was a real sense of not being able to fully move on despite having developed maturity and grown older with more life experience.

Uncertainty

“I think it’s always that thought I think it’s always there I think it’s always that… that thing in the back of ya mind… that it will stop ya from from future opportunities from travelling erm from future job prospects”

Ben

Linking very closely to the everlasting potential of having a historical youth record disclosed later in life is the third theme uncertainty. Due to the knowledge that their criminal record may resurface almost all my participants, even those who felt they had been successful thus far, acknowledged a degree of uncertainty over their future plans. Indeed, whilst individuals felt they had a degree of control over their lives and have found ways to access opportunities, there was an awareness of their vulnerability to external changes in law and policy. For some this uncertainty was only a slight concern whilst for others it was a significant issue causing them to worry about future romantic relationships, travel post-Brexit and the ability to attain and advance in employment. At the time of writing we are all living through increased uncertainty due to the global pandemic, and I am wondering how this might be affecting those with criminal records who may need to seek new employment. Life is truly unpredictable and the added layer of precariousness given by having a criminal record further complicates things.

Resilience

“…the thing that I um you know I rate myself for is that fact that I I stood strong…and I persevered do you know what I mean?…I never I never like let it get me down”

Yasmeen

Whilst much of this blog post has captured the negatives and difficulties associated with living with a criminal record, my interviews with participants covered a range of different emotions. Through the tears and the anger was laughter and strength. As such, I am keen to ensure I acknowledge the positivity and ‘can do’ attitude some of my participants had. Whilst largely experiences were negative, many of those I spoke to discussed their motivation and drive to succeed despite the potential obstacles living with a criminal record creates. This resilience was shown by many and it was something people spoke proudly of.

NOTE: names have been changed

Read Nicola’s previous updates about her research

Unlock’s response to Ministry of Justice plans to make reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Commenting on today’s announcement (16 September) by the Ministry of Justice on plans to make changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the disclosure of criminal records, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said: 

Unlock very much welcomes and supports today’s announcement by the Justice Secretary that disclosure periods for criminal records will be reduced. If these proposals proceed to statute, it will mean more people with criminal records being able to get jobs and make a positive contribution to society. The current criminal records disclosure system does little to promote rehabilitation or serve public protection, but it does result in people being locked out of jobs and opportunities, often for the rest of their life, because of a criminal record that serves as a second sentence. 

England and Wales has one of the most punitive criminal record disclosure regimes in Europe – and there’s no evidence that it’s reducing crime. Getting people with convictions into work, supporting their families and contributing to the economy is one of the best ways of making communities safer. Evidence shows that more than half of men, and three quarters of women who receive a conviction, will never be convicted again.  

Today’s announcement that some sentences of over four years in prison will no longer have to be disclosed when applying for most jobs if people are conviction-free seven years after completing their sentence is a positive step forward. We have long campaigned for a system that enables all convictions to become ‘spent’ at some point. For those that these proposals apply to, once they have completed their rehabilitation period they will no longer be required to disclose their conviction for most jobs or education courses, nor for housing or insurance. 

However, more than 8,000 people every year receive sentences of over four years and today’s proposals have wide-ranging exclusions which we understand will mean that around two-thirds of people sentenced to more than four years in prison will continue to have a lifelong ‘never spent’ conviction 

The risk of reoffending is consistently lower for those who have served longer sentences, and data on reoffending by index offence shows sexual and violent offences have lower rates of reoffending than many other categories. Exclusions by offence type risk creating unfairness and anomalies at the margins, further entrenching racial injustice and embedding the idea that some people are inherently incapable of rehabilitation. We do not believe that to be the case.  

We have long-supported Lord Ramsbotham’s Criminal Records Bill, and the proposals in that Bill are a pragmatic attempt to see positive change, given the rehabilitation periods for adults were recommended in the Breaking the Circle report in 2003, and accepted by the government of the time. The proposals today fall short by comparison 

Making changes so that more people have their convictions become spent sooner is a positive change. However, there is little point in having more people reach this stage if employers can continue to discriminate. There are fundamental questions as to how effective the legislation is in a society where information remains online and employers regularly ask about spent convictions even if they are not entitled to know about them. 

The government needs to make sure that the legislation does what it is intended to do – give people a chance to live free from the stigma of their past. Today’s proposals do nothing to address these issues, which is why we continue to call for a root-and-branch review of the criminal records regime.  

Everyone should have the opportunity to unleash their potential and make a positive contribution to society. Everyone should have the opportunity of a fresh start. We hope the government will listen and make sure that law-abiding people with convictions have a real chance to move on with their lives without their criminal record hanging over them. 

 

ENDS 

For media enquiries, please contact Ruth Davies, Digital and Communications Manager. Email ruth.davies@unlock.org.uk or call 07458 393 194 

Notes to editors 

  • Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence.   
  • High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account. 
  • Spent convictions can still be disclosed for jobs working with children or vulnerable adults, or in some trusted professions. What shows up on standard and enhanced DBS checks is determined by the filtering rules. 

 

Case studies  

Below are case studies of individuals where their conviction will remain a lifelong ‘never spent’ conviction because their offences are excluded under the proposals by the Ministry of Justice. 

Case study – Ian 

Ian joined his well-known firm in the early 1990s when few employers asked about criminal records. Over the years he developed his skills and now managed the office, earning a good salary. 

In 2019, the firm introduced new HR systems and retrospectively carried out basic DBS checks on all staff. Ian had been sentenced to 7.5 years in prison in the 1980s for his involvement in an armed robbery. Ian explained this to his employer, hopeful that his 25 years of service and exemplary work record would stand him in good stead. Despite this, the firm let Ian go – they said they couldn’t risk anyone finding out that one of their employees had an unspent conviction. Ian is claiming JSA while he looks for work.  

Case study – Amir 

At 17 Amir was convicted, under joint enterprise, for a serious assault on a man. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison. On release, he moved with his family to a new area and completed qualifications in business and IT. Amir eventually started a small business from home doing computer repairs and providing training.  

Now 29, Amir applied for a job in the training department of one of the big four accounting firms. After a telephone interview, assessment centre and face-to-face interview Amir was selected over the 18 other candidates. On receiving the offer, Amir disclosed his unspent conviction. The HR manager told him someone would be in touch. After three months of waiting, Amir contacted the UK Director of HR who said the company had a policy of not employing anyone with an unspent conviction. 

Case study – Anne 

Anne was convicted of the manslaughter of her husband and sentenced to 7 years. At her trial it was accepted that she was suffering from a psychiatric condition resulting from her husband’s abusive behaviour over two decades. Anne is out of prison now and volunteers as a speaker for a charity that supports victims of domestic abuse. 

Anne has applied for part-time work at a supermarket and a high street retailer but has been turned down both times because of her unspent conviction. She felt the interviewers were sympathetic when she disclosed but afterwards was told it was ‘company policy’ not to employ anyone with an unspent conviction. 

Better advice and information could increase employers’ confidence in hiring people convicted of sexual offences

Over half of employers would feel more confident hiring people with sexual convictions if they had access to management advice, or if they believed that the applicant wouldn’t reoffend, a joint report by the Prison Reform Trust and Unlock reveals.

Almost half of employers surveyed would be reassured by knowing the person would be under strict probation supervision, and over a third if they believed that other workers would accept them.

Thinking Differently, written by Dr Mia Harris, Dr Rachel Tynan and Dr Kimmett Edgar, explores employers’ attitudes towards hiring people convicted of sexual offences. Its findings are based on a survey of employers and interviews with prison resettlement officers, employers, charities and other professionals.

Sexual offences cover a wide range of very different behaviours, from some of the most serious crime on the statute book to, for example, 17-year-olds sending sexual images of themselves to their partners. In the year ending March 2020, police recorded 154,113 sexual offences. However, given the lack of reporting, this figure is likely to underestimate the true extent of sexual offending.

Reoffending rates for people convicted of sex offences are low compared to other offence types. On average, between 10 and 15% of people convicted of sex offences are charged for another sexual offence within five years.

Research evidence suggests that having a stable job can help reduce reoffending, including by those convicted of sexual offences, by providing structure, a sense of belonging, personal fulfilment, and a perception of something to lose. However, employers tend to discriminate against people with convictions in general, and people convicted of sexual offences are the most stigmatised within that group.

There are some jobs, for instance those involving contact with children or vulnerable adults, where a sexual conviction may be a legitimate reason for not employing an individual due to safeguarding concerns.

However, there are many jobs for which a sexual conviction should not be a bar to employment and in which any risk presented by the individual could be safely managed. But too often discriminatory employment practices and attitudes prevent people with sexual convictions from entering the workplace. Understanding employers’ views about hiring people convicted of sexual offences is therefore an important part of any strategy to increase opportunities for employment, in pursuit of reintegration and safer communities.

As well as exploring the attitudes of employers to hiring people with sexual convictions, the report sought to assess whether better-informed employers might be more open to hiring people from this group. In order to do so, two versions of the survey were used. The long version of the survey provided information about sexual offending, supervision and support in the community and reoffending rates.

Employers who were given additional information about sexual offending were found to be three times less likely to list reoffending as a reason not to employ people with sexual convictions than those employers who were not sent the longer survey. These findings must be treated with caution, because employers taking the long version of the survey were more likely to report from the outset that they were open to hiring people with convictions, and actively promoting the recruitment of people with criminal records.

Among the report’s recommendations are for employers to be provided with factual information about all offending, but particularly sexual and violent offending. This should include detail on risk factors and assessment and supervision and safeguards.

Commenting in the Foreword of the report, Dr Lynn Saunders OBE, governor at HMP Whatton and Chair and co-founder of the Safer Living Foundation, a charity established to prevent sexual (re)offending, said:

“People with sexual convictions find it difficult to obtain work even though they are often well motivated, skilled, and have a good work ethic—desirable characteristics for any employer. Although the impact of a sexual offence on an individual victim should not be underestimated, neither should the importance of reducing the likelihood of the creation of future victims. Providing a person with the opportunity to obtain stable employment has a significant impact on the prevention of sexual crime. Given advice about how they can be safely managed in the workplace, employers can assist their successful rehabilitation.”

Peter Dawson, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

“This detailed and thorough report tackles a subject that it would be all too easy to ignore. But stigma thrives on ignorance, and ultimately harms public safety. Balanced, accurate information about the huge range of behaviour that is categorised as sexual offending, and about the supervision of people convicted of those crimes, can build employers’ confidence. Just as people need safe places to live when they leave prison, so they also need a way to earn a living – our communities will be safer when we remove the barriers that stop that from happening.”

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, said:

“People with convictions face stigma and obstacles many years after their sentence is complete. For people convicted of sexual offences that is amplified and we regularly hear from skilled and motivated people who cannot find a job as a result. Employment enables people to give back – to their family, community and by contributing to the economy – and it makes society safer too. This report shows that employers can, with the right information and support, start to see people with convictions for sexual offences as potential employees.”

Notes

Employer case study: Goodwill Solutions CIC

As well as being a logistics business, Goodwill Solutions CIC also runs programmes of training and support to help those with additional challenges become more employable.

A question we are asked many times by organisations like Probation and the Police is, “Is there anyone you won’t work with”? At first I wondered ‘why that question?’ Surely when you say you want to try and help people to turn their lives around and become fully functioning members of their local communities you don’t say ‘no’ to anyone. However, it turns out that even in a sector which pushes an agenda of inclusivity, significant prejudice remains amongst those organisations and businesses who support ex-offenders.

At Goodwill we have supported, and where we’ve been able also employed, offenders of all kinds including those convicted of sexual offences. It’s not easy because we have to be mindful of their restrictions and make sure we aren’t putting them or others in danger.

There are very few jobs which cannot be done safely by people convicted of a sexual offence. In most instances it is a mindset challenge for employers and other employees but one that we believe is key to the whole community. Many have families, parents, children who depend on them for support. If we ostracise that person we condemn not just them but their families too.

The key is open and honest communication both about their convictions and their restrictions. We believe that a person able to turn their life around is far less likely to reoffend than someone abandoned and left feeling that society wants him to fail.

Overall, our experience has been a positive one. Most are older with a good work ethic and record of stable employment in the past but in some cases unable to go back into the sector they worked within. In many cases they are just looking for a way to try and move on with their lives, earn a salary, find a stable home, and move away from their offending past like so many other ex-offenders.

Methodology

We emailed the surveys to approximately 250 employers – half received one survey, and half received the other. The employers varied in size, and covered a range of industries, including retail, food, construction, hospitality and the charity sector. We also shared the surveys via Prison Reform Trust’s Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn accounts. Given that both surveys were posted several times across all three platforms, participants should effectively have been randomly allocated to each version. In total, 43 people took the surveys – 18 took the standard version, and 25 took the survey with additional information. Not all survey responses were complete.

Key findings

  • Almost all employers surveyed would consider hiring people with convictions and almost half said they actively promoted hiring them. For most, the nature of the offence was an important deciding factor.
  • Most employers asked applicants to disclose criminal convictions, and used DBS checks. Some did not have a written policy on recruiting people with convictions, meaning they were not fully complying with the DBS Code of Practice. Most employers (56%) did not know that it is illegal to carry out DBS checks at a higher level than required.
  • Most employers knew that people convicted of serious sexual offences are strictly supervised; sexual offences cover a broad range of behaviours; and employment reduces the risk of re-offending for any type of offence.
  • The majority of employers said that their main concerns about hiring people with sexual convictions were other employees’ reactions (65%), customer safety (62%), and workplace safety (54%). Fewer than half said they would be concerned about reoffending, managing them, or public opinion. Only 11% were concerned about reliability.
  • Employers were much more likely to be concerned about reliability for non-sexual offences than for sexual offences. Only 35% of employers were concerned about public opinion if they hired people convicted of sex offences, but this was much higher than non-sexual offences (13%).
  • Employers were also much more likely to express concerns about employee reactions (65% compared to 39%) and customer safety (62% compared to 32%) when considering hiring people with sexual compared to non-sexual convictions. Employers were more concerned about workplace safety when considering hiring someone convicted of a violent (68%) than a sexual offence (54%).
  • More than half of employers would feel more confident hiring people with sexual convictions if they had access to management advice, or if they believed that the applicant wouldn’t reoffend. Almost half would be reassured by knowing the person would be under strict probation supervision, and over a third if they believed that other workers would accept them. For 30% of employers, knowing the offence was not ‘too serious’ would boost their confidence.

To assess whether better-informed employers might be more open to hiring people with sexual convictions, two versions of the survey were used. The long version of the survey provided information about sexual offending, supervision and support in the community and reoffending rates.

Employers who received additional information were less concerned, in some ways, about hiring people with sexual convictions. They were substantially less likely to be concerned about reoffending (21% compared to 61%), workplace safety (42% compared to 67%), and customer safety (47% compared to 78%). They were more likely to be reassured by a sexual offence not being too serious (44% compared to 13%).

These findings must be treated with caution, because employers taking the long version were more likely to report from the outset that they were open to hiring people with convictions, and actively promoting the recruitment of people with criminal records.

Report recommendations

Government should:

  1. Reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so that rehabilitation periods are fair and proportionate and nearly all convictions are capable of becoming spent.
  2. Review the punitive effect of Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPOs) and Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) in preventing convictions from becoming spent.
  3. Provide a legal remedy when potential employers discriminate against people on the grounds of a conviction which is spent.
  4. Consult on amendments to the Police Act to ensure that the DBS shoulder the responsibility for preventing ineligible checks.
  5. Provide comprehensive, clear and consistent information to employers about recruiting people with convictions.
  6. Ensure that schemes to promote the employment of people with convictions in the public sector are evidence-led and do not place blanket exclusions on applications from people with sexual convictions.
  7. Adequately fund projects that support people with sexual convictions to reintegrate into the community, such as Circles of Support and Accountability, and Lincolnshire Action Trust.

The New Futures Network (NFN) should:

  1. Create a workstream for employment opportunities for people convicted of sexual offences, recognising the challenges the group and employers face.
  2. Provide specific training for employment brokers about sexual offending. This should include information about what constitutes a sexual offence, reoffending rates, and supervision and support in the community, as well as how to communicate effectively with employers regarding this group, and how to counteract inaccurate perceptions of people with sexual convictions.
  3. When brokering employment opportunities, take into account the varying ages, fitness levels, work backgrounds, and skills of people with sexual convictions.
  4. Provide employers with factual information about all offending, but particularly sexual and violent offending. This should include detail on risk factors and assessment and supervision and safeguards.
  5. Promote the business and social benefits of hiring people with sexual convictions, facilitating employers meeting people from this group.
  6. Ensure that partner employers providing prison industries workshops, working with the New Futures Network and on the Ministry of Justice’s preferred supplier list have a fair approach to applicants in the community with criminal convictions.

Others:

  1. The DBS should establish a review process whereby an employer found to be requesting ineligible checks is required to provide more detailed information for future standard and enhanced checks.
  2. Organisations involved in employer engagement or employment support (for example: the Department for Work and Pensions; Information, Advice and Guidance providers in prisons; and members of the Employment Support Retraining Agency and Recruitment and Employment Confederation) should have an evidence-based approach to people convicted of sexual offences.
  3. Organisations such as the Employers Forum for Reducing Reoffending and Business in the Community should encourage businesses to share their experiences of hiring people with sexual convictions, including examples of best practice.
  4. Employer networks should work with probation to improve employers’ understanding of supervision and support for people with sexual convictions in the community.
  5. The National Probation Service and the College of Policing should develop guidance for probation and police to increase their awareness of the impact of disclosure of a sexual conviction on employment prospects. This would help practitioners make proportionate decisions about disclosing information to employers, balancing the risk of harm with the rehabilitation needs of those they are supervising.

This report was part of a joint project between Unlock and Prison Reform Trust

Introducing two new team members

We’re pleased to welcome two new colleagues to the team at Unlock: Sam Doohan – our first Policy Officer – and Ruth Davies – our first Digital and Communications Manager.  

We’re a small team with big ambitions, and these two new roles will help us to broaden our reach and increase our impact through digital, policy and influencing.  

Sam will build on Unlock’s recent success – including successful legal intervention in the Supreme Court, the #FairChecks movement and work on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 – to influence policy makers and key stakeholders to secure changes to legislation and government policy.    

Sam said: 

Criminal records unfairly impact the lives of millions of people. Everyone deserves the chance to move on with their life without facing stigma or discrimination. Unlock have had some major successes in the past few years, and it’s my job make sure that they keep happening.’ 

As the charity’s first Digital and Communications Manager, Ruth will co-ordinate Unlock’s digital presence to ensure that we reach as many people as possible, optimising our digital tools – websites, video, communications, email and social media. She will also work with the team to increase awareness of Unlock’s work, and support our policy and influencing work to challenge the stigma and discrimination that people face.   

Ruth said:

It’s really exciting to be joining a charity with such a proven track record of making a real difference to people’s lives. I’m looking forward to helping raise the voices of people with criminal records, and supporting the team to drive real change for people who are so often unheard by those in power.’

Monthly update – August 2020

We’ve just published our update for August 2020.

This months update includes:

  1. New information to address some of the issues people face in telling a partner, family member or friend about their criminal record.
  2. A personal story from an individual who, as a victim of domestic violence, received a conviction but, has gone on to fulfil their dream of becoming a nurse.
  3. A link to a discussion on theForum around home insurance and the changes recently made by some insurers who have refused to renew the policies of people with unspent convictions, despite their previously being disclosed.
  4. Details of a criminal records webinar being held on 16th September 2020 for anybody who deals with criminal records in the course of their work.

 

The full update provides a summary of:

  1. the latest updates to our self-help information site for people with convictions
  2. recent posts to our online magazine, theRecord
  3. discussions on our online forum
  4. other news and developments that might be of interest to individuals with a criminal record.

Read the August 2020 update in full.

Best wishes,

Unlock

Notes

Taxi! New guidance for licensing authorities recommends exclusions for even minor convictions

In July 2020 the Department for Transport published new guidance for statutory taxi and private hire vehicles licensing authorities. This followed a consultation in April 2019 to gather views on the recommendations and draft statutory guidance. Recommendations included that licensees undergo enhanced DBS and barring list checks and minimum exclusion periods by offence category and our response focused on those exclusions.

Passengers getting into a taxi or PHV are placing themselves in the hands of the driver and it’s right that licensing decisions take into account all relevant information. The problem is, the draft guidance didn’t advise taking into account all relevant information. Instead, it proposed a blanket approach based on broad offence categories.  The guidance was based on the Institute of Licensing’s 2018 recommendations which emphasised the need to consider individual circumstances but then went on to propose blanket exclusions based on broad offence categories, along with lengthy exclusion periods.

Unfortunately, the final version of the guidance includes the same offence categories and exclusion periods recommended in 2018. The long exclusion periods are not scaled to the circumstances or gravity of an offence – a person convicted of possession of a firearm will be refused a licence for seven years, the same as a person who over-claimed benefits. An applicant with a conviction for common assault where the victim sustained no injuries would be treated the same as a serious assault in which a victim required surgery and refused a licence for at least 10 years.

Department for Transport has published a summary of responses to the consultation and acknowledged that

The proportionality of some of the baseline exclusion periods was questioned by some respondents, as was the range of offences that would fall under a particular heading.

However, they went on to say that:

The final version provides additional clarity and reinforces that the decision as to whether a person who has convictions should be licensed is and will remain dependent on the individual circumstance of each case.

Licensing authorities are not bound by the guidance but it would be a brave authority that would strike out on its own. Indeed, the president of the Institute of Licensing, James Button, is keen for the guidance to become law. In a comment to the Daily Mirror, he said:

In most authorities, when someone has previous convictions which fall outside that council’s policy, the decision is made by councillors. They can be swayed by sob stories. It has always surprised me why there is acceptance of a level of criminality among a significant minority of the taxi trade.

We can’t be sure what Mr Button would consider ‘a sob story’ but the proposed exclusions would mean a woman with childhood convictions for soliciting, as a result of child sexual exploitation would be treated the same as a man with a recent conviction for rape, and prevented from ever obtaining a licence. That same woman, if she had convictions for possession of a weapon or affray, would be refused a licence for a minimum of 7 to 10 years after the conviction, regardless of the circumstances. One such woman, Sammy Woodhouse, bravely waived her right to anonymity and spoke out on behalf of others still having to disclose criminal records acquired as a result of their abuse. Ironically, the guidance also recommends that drivers are trained in safeguarding and spotting signs of criminal or sexual exploitation.

In principle, a national framework can help with consistency – and let applicants know what to expect. We support clear guidelines to assist licensing authorities. This guidance, if taken up by local authorities, means law abiding people with convictions are likely to be unnecessarily excluded from the trade for years, or indefinitely. That has a ripple effect, reinforcing the idea that everyone with a conviction is a danger to the public. Thankfully this is not true – there 11 million people in the UK with a criminal record – about 1 in 6 of the population. Most want to move on positively with their lives, and they deserve a fair chance to do that.

Written by Rachel Tynan, Policy and practice lead at Unlock

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.

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