The problem
The government introduced a statutory pardon for men with historic convictions for consensual gay sex offences. The pardon only applies to men who have successfully applied to the Home Office to have their conviction disregarded.
We are concerned about the accessibility of the disregard scheme and the appeal process, which does not appear to be meeting its intended aim of allowing the men in this situation get convictions removed from their records. The number of men who have applied under the scheme since it was introduced in 2012 is extremely low: according to information obtained by the Public Law Project (PLP) under the Freedom of Information Act, as at 7 June 2016 there had only been 320 applications, 83 of which have been successful. None of the unsuccessful applicants has exercised their right of appeal to the High Court.
We have concerns about the application process. Chris Bryant MP summed up the problem in his contribution to the Second Reading of Sexual Offences (Pardons) Bill in October 2016:
“There is a real problem about trying to force people to go through another process. For someone now in their 70s or 80s, the conviction might have been like a brand on them for their entire life. It might have caused terrible problems in their family life. It might have meant that they were never able to do the job that they wanted to do, such as a teacher not being able to go back to teaching. Friends and relatives might have shunned them. It might have made them feel terribly ashamed. Why on earth would they want to write to the Home Secretary, asking, ‘Please may I be pardoned?’ Why on earth would they want to go through that process all over again? Why on earth would they want someone to analyse whether they were guilty of something way back when?”
We are also concerned that not all repealed gay sex offences have been included under the disregard scheme. For example, at the moment men convicted or cautioned for an offence under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (solicitation by men), cannot have their crime deleted because it was missed off the list of offences that could be disregarded in 2012. The government has acknowledged that it was used in a discriminatory way against gay men. Section 32 was used as recently as the 1990s to arrest men for simply trying to chat up another man in a public place, often in stings by plain-clothes police officers outside gay pubs. It was repealed in 2003 along with the gross indecency, buggery and other laws used against gay and bi men.
Clearly, people unjustly convicted or cautioned in this way should be able to delete that unfair conviction. The offence is categorised as a sex offence, and so a conviction or caution for this offence can be disclosed on a DBS check to employers indefinitely.
The Turing Bill sought a blanket pardon for all gay and bi men – living or deceased – in recognition of this injustice; the government’s response did not. It instead offered only an automatic posthumous pardon, leaving out thousands of gay and bi men who are still living. We agree with Stonewall that a pardon should be automatic for all those affected, including the 15,000 men still alive. This would exclude anyone convicted of offences that would still be illegal today, including non-consensual sex and sex with someone under 16, but would go some way to righting a significant wrong for many thousands of people.
Our position
The incredibly low numbers of people applying for their (now decriminalised) consensual gay sex convictions to be disregarded are sadly not surprising. The fact that people have to apply is a clear barrier to accessing justice. It causes people understandable anguish when faced with a Home Office form which forces them to show why their application should be granted for something that they might have felt branded and ashamed of for much of their life. It was therefore inevitable that few people would apply and the result is that the policy does not appear to be meeting its intended aim of allowing the men in this situation to get the convictions removed from their records. The disregard and pardoning schemes could easily be done proactively by the Home Office, and this would show the government to be committed to righting the wrongs of the past.
We believe the UK government should issue a general pardon to all gay and bi men who were prosecuted under these unjust laws.
This is a clear opportunity for the government to unequivocally make amends for the actions of past governments who instituted these laws. It is time for the government to apologise to all those affected, those convicted, and their loved ones.
The Police and Crime Act 2017, referred to at the time as ‘Turnings Law”, had the impact of posthumously pardoning thousands of gay and bisexual men. However, although it applies to those still alive, a pardon only applies to those who have successfully applied through the Home Office disregard process to have historic offences removed, and we know that the numbers of people that apply through this process is very low and the application process itself often acts as an unnecessary obstacle.
We are supporting the work other organisations that are looking to challenge the accessibility of the disregard scheme and the appeal process.
Share your evidence
We want to hear from all men who could benefit from a disregard or a pardon, to hear about their challenges and experience of the criminal justice system. However, we are particularly keen to hear from men who have held off from seeking a pardon because of concerns about their privacy and their past being dredged up again.
- You could be any age today, but are likely between 40 and 80.
- You must have been convicted of an s.12 or s.13 offence before 2003.
- You must be eligible for a disregard or pardon, so your conviction can only be for activity that is legal today and with a partner who was over 16 at the time.
- You must have not yet applied for a disregard or pardon, because either you are afraid the process will involve your convictions becoming public, or because you are concerned the process will be insensitive and accusatory.
Click here to share your story. We want to hear about all experiences and points of view about pardons and disregards, both positive and negative. We understand that these kind of convictions can be difficult to talk about, but your input are critical to our efforts to improve the system and ensure as many people as possible benefit from it.
Your experiences will only be shared with your consent, and Unlock will never reveal your name or any other identifying details.
