Skip to main content

Our mission is to support & advocate for people with criminal records to be able to move on positively in their lives. Find out more

Internet searches on job applicants add to double discrimination for people with non-anglicised names

You may find criminal records information you aren't entitled to know - especially harmful for people with a distinctive name

One of the issues we are discussing as part of our campaign to celebrate the 50th anniversary for the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) is how society has changed and what that means for the rights set out in the ROA.

In particular, the rise of the internet as a depository of huge swathes of information about everyone, which can be accessed by anyone at any time.

One of the consequences of this is that employers commonly carry out internet searches on applicants during recruitment processes. When they do this, they find out all sorts of personal, sensitive information – which can include someone’s criminal history.

The ROA introduced a right to be rehabilitated, which means that once a caution or conviction becomes “spent”, you don’t have to disclose it to employers (unless you are applying for certain regulated roles). Information about a spent caution or conviction therefore does not generally have to be disclosed to an employer, and they are not allowed to take into account when deciding an applicant’s suitability.

So if an employer accidentally finds out an old conviction that is now spent via an internet search, this not only risk that individual being unfairly excluded but risks the employer failing to comply with protecting the right set out in the ROA.

Although it is tempting to get as much information you can before hiring someone – with the mass of information available on the internet today, there is a big risk that you are going to find information that is not only irrelevant, but information you don’t have a right to use.

Double discrimination

There is also an issue around potential disproportionality. When carrying out any online search, it is obviously easier to find information about someone with a more unique sounding name. Someone with a very common name will be hard to identify, as there is so much information available, it is impossible to sift to focus on one person. There can therefore be a discriminatory angle to this – with names that are not anglicised or less common in the UK being easier to find.

The most popular baby names are constantly changing, with names such as Freya and Arthur becoming much more common over the last 30 years. And over the same period, ONS data shows that the increase in babies born to women not themselves born in the UK has introduced new names to the list – such as Ayaan, Bodhi, Inaaya and Aizah. However, the most common names overall have remained pretty consistent. Smith, Jones and Brown continuing to be the most common surnames in the UK. In 2017, the most common name was David Smith. Having a more unique name means you are much more likely to be identifiable via an internet search.

We also know that people with less anglicised names already face discrimination in respect of employment in the UK – with research showing they are more likely to be excluded by employers.

This means that when you add together the risk that you are more likely to be identified via an internet search due to a more unique, less anglicised name, and are more likely to be excluded because of that name – it means that people with a criminal record who have less common names face double discrimination.

Sometimes, people have been encouraged to use nicknames or anglicised versions of their names to try and avoid this prejudice but there is also a positive movement where people are reclaiming their name. This short programme shows discussions about how important this can be for a sense of identity – BBC News – 5 Minutes On, Why I want to reclaim my name.

Stop carrying out internet searches about applicants

The solution is for employers to stop carrying out internet searches to find out more about applicants. In addition to reducing the chance of discrimination, it is very hard to know whether the information you find via an internet search relates to a spent caution or conviction, or whether you can be confident that the information is accurate.

The complexity of the criminal record system means it can be difficult to work out whether a caution or conviction is spent or not. Unlock has a great online disclosure tool that can help, but often people need detailed and specific advice to be sure something is spent and therefore not disclosable. It is therefore really hard for employers to know whether information they find via an internet search is information they have a right to take into account.

Just because details of a case are on the internet, it does not mean it is information you can rely on. As well as the issue of whether something is spent, there is a further issue as to whether it is accurate or reliable information. Often searches will flag newspaper reports about old cases, which might not get all the details right, or provide a balanced viewpoint. Similarly, internet searches will increasingly flag social media posts, and where a third party is talking about a case, it can be impossible to know how true their account is.

 

Written by:

Jo leads Unlock’s policy and influencing work with a focus on reforming legislation and government policy, as well as advocating for better practice in key sectors in relation to the disclosure of criminal records.

Comments

Add Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Photo of Head of Advice, Debbie Sadler
Debbie Sadler
Head of Advice

Do you need help & support with an issue you’re facing?

We provide support and advice for people in England and Wales who need guidance with either their own, or someone else’s, criminal record.

Please use the search box to start typing your issue. If you cannot find an answer to your problem then you’ll be given options to contact us directly.

Find out more about the helpline

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