I’ll start my story back in 2017, when I was working as a police officer – a job I enjoyed and took great pride in.
That year, while on holiday in Germany with my then partner, she reported me to the local police after a domestic incident.
It took around 18 months for the German authorities to review the case. Eventually, I was given a choice: attend a court hearing in Germany or pay a fine. After such a long process, I agreed to pay the fine, hoping I could put the matter behind me and move on.
My employer became aware of the incident, and I was told that a Misconduct Hearing would take place at some point. I knew that as a police officer, any kind of assault allegation could be viewed as a breach of professional standards, so I made the decision to resign before the hearing took place. I assumed that, since I was no longer employed, the matter wouldn’t go any further and the hearing would be stopped.
In early 2020, I was offered a job with Google and felt excited about starting a new career with a large international technology company.
After three months in the role, I was asked to attend a meeting with my line manager and someone from HR. They told me they had received an anonymous phone call claiming that a Gross Misconduct Hearing had been held about me in March 2020. The caller had also shared the alleged outcome: that, if I had still been a serving police officer, I would have been dismissed.
Google asked why I had not disclosed this at any stage. I explained that I had never been invited to the hearing, nor had I received any written records. Following this explanation, I was told by Google that no action would be taken.
However, a month later the police published details of the hearing online which stated:
All allegations were proven as misconduct and therefore the former officer would have been dismissed if he had still been serving.
They also made reference to the conviction I had received in Germany.
Google called me to another meeting with senior managers, and this time I was dismissed. They said that not disclosing the conviction and the misconduct hearing had undermined the trust in our working relationship.
Throughout the recruitment process, Google had never asked whether:
- I had a criminal record
- I’d ever been dismissed from a job
- I had attended any misconduct hearings
I didn’t feel able to accept the dismissal, so I submitted an appeal. I requested my own basic DBS check and a German conviction certificate. Both came back clear, and I included them in my appeal.
My appeal was rejected.
I am now trying to get several online news articles about me removed. I’ve had mixed success, but I’m continuing to challenge the ones that have refused.
I am also considering bringing a case against Google for breach of statutory duty, as I believe they relied on information relating to a spent conviction, which may breach the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
By George (name changed to protect identity)
A comment from Unlock
“George’s experience is a powerful reminder of why fair chance hiring matters. Spent convictions are legally protected for a reason – people deserve the opportunity to move forward without past mistakes being held against them. When employers rely on outdated or irrelevant information, it not only undermines the law but also denies people the chance to rebuild their lives, support their families, and contribute positively to their communities.
No one should lose their job because of a spent conviction. We urge all employers, including large tech companies, to make sure their recruitment and HR processes respect the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and uphold the principles of fairness and equality.”
Useful links
- Comment – Let us know your thoughts on this post by commenting below.
- Information – We have practical self-help information on spent and unspent convictions and employment law.
- Discuss this issue – There are some interesting discussions on this issue on our online forum.
