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

Story Type: Struggles & Stigma

If employers aren’t willing to give people with convictions a second chance how can we ever prove that we’ve changed

Source: Adobe Stock

Josh readily accepts that having been convicted of a serious offence he deserved to be punished. However, having worked hard to deal with the issues that led to his offending, Josh is struggling to come to terms with the fact that he’s going to be punished for life.

In 2016, I was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison for a violent and sexual offence. This means that as things stand, my conviction will never become spent.

I totally agree that when you commit a crime you should be punished and I admitted my guilt straight away. I spent almost 4 years in prison, lost my career in the Army, will remain on an extended licence until 2024 and have to sign the Sex Offenders Register for at least 15 years.

Whilst I was in prison I remained fully committed to my rehabilitation. I completed 19 different qualifications (including bricklaying, barbering, industrial cleaning and book-keeping) and three offender behaviour programmes until the parole board deemed me safe enough for release.

However, since my release I have found that regardless of my intentions to rehabilitate and my genuine desire to move on and make the best of my life, my efforts are falling flat on their face. Whenever you’re applying for a job or looking to buy insurance, you have to disclose any unspent convictions. This means that employers often don’t respond to you and insurers will either reject you or massively increase your premium. These are just a couple of obstacles that you’re likely to come up against, your application to university or going on holiday are also likely to be affected.

It very much feels that whilst probation and the prison service promote rehabilitation the actual boots on the ground experience of reintegration is practically impossible. It feels like there is no formal route to rehabilitation after you have received a sentence of over 4 years. Where’s the incentive to rehabilitate?

I understand that members of the public don’t want dangerous people working with children and vulnerable people and it’s right that these groups are protected. However, jobs that involve working with these groups will always involve an enhanced DBS check and a check of the barred list which sets out quite clearly those people who are deemed to be too high risk to do this type of work.

But what purpose is served by refusing to give somebody with a conviction a second chance – it’s like pulling up the ladder when you’re safe and not worrying about the people who are trying to get out of the way of danger. Everybody needs something to aspire to; why would you take that away from them.

I was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison but does that mean that I should live a life time of anxiety with increased insurance premiums and limited job opportunities until the day I die.

My offender manager would agree that I’ve taken every opportunity available to me to rehabilitate but there are brick walls everywhere. At the age of 27 I feel as though my life has already been concluded.

By Josh  (name changed to protect identity)

Useful links

Isn’t 45 years long enough to have to disclose a criminal record?

Image source: Adobe Stock

Laura has been able to work very successfully as a librarian despite her criminal record. However, she feels strongly that the current disclosure laws need to be changed so that there comes a time when people with very old convictions no longer have to reveal them to employers when they apply for standard or enhanced DBS checks.

I’m 65 years of age. Forty-five years ago, when I was about 20 years old, I was arrested and received a conviction for two counts of possession of cannabis and was given a community order and a fine. My record has been clean ever since then.

Following my conviction, I went to university and obtained a degree in librarianship. At this time my criminal record didn’t really cause me too many problems and there wasn’t really any such thing as criminal record checks.

Before I started applying for jobs I looked at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and from what I read it appeared that I wouldn’t be allowed to work with children or young adults, become a police or probation officer or work for social services. I also thought it meant I couldn’t serve as a magistrate or sit on a jury.

However, when I applied to work as a librarian in a school in 1981, I didn’t disclose my criminal record as I didn’t feel that it was relevant to the work that I’d be doing. I was offered the job and from then on, my career went from strength to strength.

I continued working in education until a school caretaker called Ian Huntley was found guilty of murdering 2 schoolgirls. From that date on, any job that involved working with children or vulnerable adults required you to have an enhanced criminal record check (known as CRB checks at that time).

The school I was working for at the time did as they were required to do and carried out the check on me. As soon as they were presented with the certificate I was called in for an interview. This was an awful experience and extremely embarrassing but ultimately, my employers felt that as I had an exemplary work record, they’d be happy for me to continue in my role.

However, whenever I applied for other jobs, I knew that enhanced checks would be carried out and I’d have to disclose my conviction. This happened for the 27 years that I worked as a librarian and although my applications were successful for the majority of the jobs that I applied for, I’m aware that I’ve also been refused jobs because of this conviction.

I’m currently working on a part-time basis as an examination invigilator and again had to disclose my 45 year old conviction.

I’ve recently booked a holiday to the USA and because I was honest and ticked the ‘Yes’ box on the Visa Waiver application, I was refused an ESTA and will now have to apply for a visa. This is going to cost me approximately £300 in total and will involve an interview at the US Embassy which I’m really not looking forward to at all.

I’m sure that if I were arrested for possession today it’s unlikely that I would receive a conviction which resulted in a 2-year community order, I’d probably get a caution as it was my first offence.

I feel very strongly that the law needs to change. Having to disclose my conviction at the age of 65 for something that I did 45 years ago makes me feel like I’m continually being judged and punished for something that happened a very long time ago.

By Laura  (name changed to protect identity)

A comment from Unlock

Unlock has campaigned for a long time for the current disclosure regime to be revised so that people like Laura who have more than one count under one conviction can benefit from having their conviction filtered from standard/enhanced DBS checks.

Last January, the Supreme Court ruled that two aspects of the filtering regime – as it applies to multiple convictions and childhood cautions – are disproportionate and a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The government has yet to properly respond to the Supreme Court judgment. As it stands, the filtering rules remain the same.

Useful links

  • Comment – Let us know your thoughts on this post by commenting below.
  • Information – We have practical self-help information on filtering on our information hub site.
  • Discuss this issue – Read and share your experiences on our online forum.

Do the police believe in rehabilitation?

Image source: Adobe Stock

After a visit from the police, Russell felt like the police didn’t believe in rehabilitation, as they took no account of how he’d moved forwards with his life over the 8 years since his last offence.

I have been on the Sex Offenders Register (SOR) for five years during which time I have complied with everything and have never caused my police officer any concerns regarding my behaviour. I hoped that I had shown how I had moved on with my life and rehabilitated.

Now this is not a “oh woe is me” story, as I was guilty of my offences. I fully admitted what I’d done in court and I will live with the regret of what I did for the rest of my life; in particular with regards to failing my daughter as a father. I’m lucky that I still have a relationship with her as I appreciate there are lots of people with sexual offences whose families will have nothing to do with them,

Following a recent visit from the police I had to tell them that my daughter had given birth to my second grandchild (they were already aware of the first one). After sharing this with them, the police officer calmly told me:

We’ll have to notify social service who will be in contact with your daughter.”

My initial feelings were shock, followed by anger. “Why?” I asked. “It’s procedure” came the reply.

During the rest of the visit I went through a whole range of emotions anger, sadness, confusion. Many questions crossed my mind. Why does my daughter have to be contacted? What concerns do the police have? Don’t they take into account that it’s been eight years since my conviction and I have moved on, I’m rehabilitated. Do the police even believe in rehabilitation?

A couple of days later I made the phone call to my daughter that I’d been dreading, letting her know that social services would be contacting her. My daughter told me that social services had already contacted her. I apologised profusely for putting her through this and for not warning her prior to their call. She told me that the questions they’d asked her had been around the contact that I had with my grandchildren – was it supervised, was I left on my own with them. My heart sank, they obviously think I am a deviant paedophilic monster who would physically abuse my grandchildren. Surely that can be the only reason they’re asking.

I know what I did was wrong, I can never change that, no matter how much I wish I could. I was a weak, disgusting man when I was offending and I wish there was a time machine and I could go back to the moment before I first offended and start hitting myself around the head to stop myself but I can’t. All I can do is move forwards with my new life.

I am a stronger man now and will never offend again. As a person in a recent article on theRecord said:

I can never make up for what I did but I can do all I can to be the very best person I can be.”

This describes perfectly me today, but no matter how hard I try, it appears the police will see me as I was 8 years ago, a sex offender and a risk to everyone. The police may know of me, but they don’t know me. Because if they did they would find that I’m a nice guy. Perhaps, the police don’t want to know that some people with sexual convictions are nice people who have made mistakes and move on.

So my answer to the question is ‘no’. I don’t think the police believe in rehabilitation. But why, if part of the Criminal Justice System is supposed to work towards rehabilitating people who have committed offences. Is it because the police represent the society they serve, and society doesn’t believe in rehabilitation. Maybe an honest conversation needs to be had around rehabilitation, even though the answer maybe one I won’t like, that society doesn’t believe in rehabilitation. But at least I would know the truth.

By Russell  (name changed to protect identity)

Useful links

  • Comment – Let us know your thoughts on this post by commenting below
  • For practical information – More information can be found on our information hub site on sexual offences
  • To discuss this with others – Read and share your experiences on our online forum.

I thought the last people to judge me would be the solicitors I worked for

Source: Adobe Stock

After working for a company for 25 years, Ian was distraught to learn that following changes to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Code of Conduct, he would have to disclose his 31 year old criminal record.

Until August of this year I was employed in the accounts department of a large law firm being responsible for several European offices. My employment began in the early 1990’s and without being too boastful, I had an exemplary work record.

However, my life prior to this was very different. In my early 20’s I was arrested for armed robbery and in 1988 received a prison sentence of 7.5 years. Like many people with convictions, finding a suitable career upon release was not easy but I was determined to put that life behind me and I never gave up searching for a career rather than just a job.

I managed to find a succession of jobs but nothing that had any long term prospects. However, despite a series of setbacks, I wouldn’t let anything stop me and I persisted with my search. In 1994 I secured a position in the accounts department of a law firm as an accounts assistant. Few companies asked about criminal records at that time and my employer was no different.

Over the years I progressed internally becoming assistant manager and then after 11 years I took the lead on a newly created role as billing coordinator. The past 14 years have seen me build on this and four years ago I became manager.

My life outside of the ‘office’ also grew. I met my wife in 1993 and we celebrated our 22nd wedding anniversary this year with our two sons. We settled into an average, suburban life, something I never thought I would be able to enjoy.

After almost 25 years working for this company and building a new life with my wife and sons, I now find myself in a very difficult situation where I have become unemployed again. I had hoped that I would stay with the company until retirement but unfortunately a situation arose that has resulted in my employment being terminated.

Due to my employers desire to not only comply with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) but also with current and prospective client engagement letters, my company decided to carry out retrospective background checks on all employees. Before the check was even started I took the decision to disclose my conviction to one of the managing partners, who decided to raise it with both the SRA and an outside employment law specialist. Neither the SRA nor the legal advisors were able to offer any concrete guidance around whether my conviction prevented me from working in my finance role. Two months ago the SRA made the decision that my role was not eligible for this type of SRA approval and that I didn’t need to go through the process again in any future job.

The advice my employers received was discussed amongst a small number of the partners and, despite a faultless employment history and the fact that I’d worked for the company for approximately 25 years, the decision was made to terminate my employment.

I’m still in total shock over what’s happened and how I’ve been treated. The people that made the decision to terminate my employment were people I’d known for 25 years; I didn’t just think of them as my employers but also as friends. I was obviously nervous about disclosing my conviction to them and I knew that they’d probably be shocked but I didn’t think that it would result in my dismissal. I honestly thought that they’d use my 25 years of work experience to make a decision rather than something that happened 31 years ago to a very different person.

By Ian (name changed to protect identity)

Comment from Unlock

It’s extremely disappointing to hear that Ian’s employer’s took the decision to dismiss him, especially as the SRA have confirmed that his role was not covered by the SRA Standards and Regulations. However, it does evidence how once employers have seen details of somebody’s criminal record they can sometimes find it difficult not to act on it. It’s one of the reasons why we continue to campaign for changes to the current criminal record disclosure regime.

Ian has now accepted a settlement from his previous employers and is currently seeking a new role in a similar field.

Useful links

A cautionary tale if you’re looking to start a relationship with somebody who has been convicted of a sexual offence

Source: Adobe Stock

Having started a new relationship with a man who’d been convicted of a sexual offence, Yvonne was surprised to find that the police, probation and social services all had such a judgemental attitude towards both her and her partner.

My partner Stephen is a convicted sex offender. I’m divorced and until I met him, neither I, nor anyone close to me, had ever met a person with a criminal record. This is our story.

Stephen and I met through an online dating agency. He was out of prison and on licence. Both his police protection officer and probation officer knew about, and encouraged his use of the sites although in hindsight, it should have been obvious that Stephen was unknowingly violating the sites Terms and Conditions. (Some agencies ban people with certain offences from signing up).

Little did I know that the consequences of getting involved with a sex offender are huge. The deceit you are forced into daily with everyone you meet, the decisions about who to tell and who not to tell, the horror of what those who you do tell subsequently discover on the internet, the change in your relationships with them, the difficult place you put them in when they, in turn, are forced to keep the secret, the ongoing terror of the truth eventually coming out …..

I have two children, a son and a daughter and Stephen’s probation officer advised him that there was no problem in him pursuing a relationship with the mother of a 16 year old girl. She and the police protection officer both approved and registered my home as Stephen’s second address without speaking to me, let alone meeting me or my daughter or visiting our home. Should this have been allowed? Probably not.

As my daughter was at boarding school she only came home during the holidays and every now and again at weekends. I’d mentioned to my daughter that I’d started seeing somebody but Stephen and I decided not to tell her that he was regularly staying over at my house until I’d spoken to her father.

A few weeks after we’d started dating, Stephen’s probation officer told him that she needed to inform the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) about our relationship – apparently this was ‘just a formality’. It took two months for the relevant paperwork to be processed and, when I was contacted by a woman from Social Services, it was whilst I was attending a lunch party with friends. She insisted that I repeat to her there and then on the phone the precise details of what Stephen had told me about his offence. Repeating the details aloud was a horrible experience not least because it came out of the blue.

Two days later after this telephone call I was contacted by Social Services again and told that they wanted to come along with a police officer to meet me – they gave me three hours notice!!!

During this meeting Stephen was made to wait in the garden and the police officer who’d never met either of us before spent 4 hours carrying out a character assassination. Her opinion of Stephen appeared to be based only on what she’d read and in my view demonstrated a stereotypical judgement of all sex offenders. It included straight untruths, exaggeration and general inaccuracies.

At the end of the meeting, the police officer insisted on driving directly to my daughter’s school to inform her of Stephen’s convictions. I was refused any contact with her or her father and so couldn’t be with her when she was spoken to. When the uniformed police officer and social worker arrived at the school they disclosed details of Stephens conviction in the presence of her housemistress and four other members of school staff. As my daughter had become aware of Stephen’s background I thought it was only right that I should tell my son and the children’s father.

At this point, my daughter told the police officer that she didn’t want Stephen to stay in our house any more and this was added to one of Stephen’s licence conditions. My son refused ever to meet him and the fragile relationship I’d built up over a decade with the children’s father was destroyed. The trust and respect my two children had for me was devastated and their faith in my judgement trashed resulting in a total loss of all sense of security and stability.

I made a complaint to the police which took them four months to respond to. My complaint was not upheld and I was advised that the police officer had ‘acted in good faith’.

Three months later and having got over the shock of the disclosure, my daughter told me that she had no problem with Stephen visiting our home when she wasn’t there. My ex-husband and the children drew up a statement confirming this. However the police and probation still continued to prevent him from visiting me and Social Services told me they could do nothing all the time the police and probation were denying him access.

This situation went on for 9 months and it was only when I began to threaten to expose the catalogue of mistakes made by all three agencies that they finally started to listen to me. A meeting with arranged with myself, Stephen, police, probation and social services where it was acknowledged that mistakes had been made. We received an apology from social services and Stephen’s licence conditions were immediately relaxed.

Discovering that that the police and probation were so judgemental, negatively stereotyping their clients rather than treating them as unique individuals came as a real shock to me. If this is the attitude of professionals is it any wonder that employers and members of the public find it so difficult to give those with a sexual offence a chance.

By Yvonne  (name changed to protect identity)

Useful links

  • Comment – Let us know your thoughts on this post by commenting below
  • For practical information – More information can be found on our information hub site on sexual offences
  • To discuss this with others – Read and share your experiences on our online forum.

“Second chances don’t feel like they exist if you’ve been convicted of a sexual offence”

Dean was delighted to find a job with a really supportive employer and didn’t think for a minute that he’d be dismissed 9 months later after head office had sight of his DBS certificate.

Back in September 2018 I applied for a job delivering and collecting courtesy cars. There was a box on the application form asking if I had any unspent convictions and then another box underneath asking for further details.

This question filled me with dread as I knew that ticking the ‘Yes’ box would always reduce my chances of success. So not feeling too optimistic, I put my cross in the ‘Yes’ box and went on to explain that I’d been convicted of downloading indecent images.

A few days later I was invited for an interview. It went really well, the manager was easy to talk to and really put me at ease and at the end of the meeting he asked me when I could start and offered me a job. He told me that I would need a basic DBS check but, as I’d disclosed my conviction I wasn’t unduly worried.

On my first day at work I filled out the forms for the criminal record check and then off I went to get my task for the day.

I absolutely loved the job, I was driving all day clocking up between 40-50 hours per week but as I loved it so much it didn’t feel like work.

Nothing had been said about my criminal record check so I assumed that all was well with it. I was surprised that they hadn’t told me they’d received it but I wasn’t too worried.

I’d been working for the company for just over three months when I was called into the managers office. He told me that there had been a problem submitting my DBS application (I think they’d forgotten to do it) and asked me if I could give him some further details about my conviction. I had nothing to hide and told him what I’d been convicted of and the disposal I’d received. I explained what had led me to offend and what I’d been doing since – completing a probation course and building up a network of support around me. I wanted my manager to know that I was a different person now and I was ashamed of the person I’d been. He made notes but he seemed fine, in fact he was very supportive.

Everything carried on as normal until about 4 months ago when I was told that the company would be applying again for my basic DBS. I signed the form and gave consent for the certificate to go straight to head office – why wouldn’t I, nothing was going to show up that they didn’t know already.

Two weeks later my manager asked to speak to me. His first words to me were:

I’m so sorry and I want you to know that I did everything I could.“

He went on to tell me that having seen the DBS certificate head office had told him that he had to terminate my contract. He was close to tears as he told me that he had no problem with me or my work and he’d be happy to give me a character reference if I needed one in the future.

I never tried to hide my conviction; I’m not proud of it but it is my past. My manager and other staff knew my story and I got on well with all of them. I think head office were worried about their reputation but I spent very little time with customers and I’d only ever introduce myself using my first name. It seems a knee jerk reaction by head office. I’d been at the company for 9 months without any issues.

I knew I worked hard and I did a good job. I was polite and courteous to customers and had the full support of my manager. However, with all those things in my favour, head office still couldn’t see beyond my conviction and give me a second chance.

By Dean  (name changed to protect identity)

 

Useful links

Allow me to talk about my past and you might give me a better future

Having a criminal record can make it difficult to get into employment but as Ben has discovered, a diagnosis of PTSD makes it even more so.

I came out of prison after serving 3 months of a six-month sentence.

To give you some background to my conviction, I was sent home from military service with combat stress. The military tried to help me by putting me on a six-week treatment programme but after a week it was agreed that my symptoms were far too complex for them to treat and so the decision was taken to send me home. My head was all over the place and I just wanted to put my car through a brick wall and do away with myself.

I thought I might feel better if I were able to explain how I felt. Thinking it might be easier to talk to my wife over a drink, we headed off to a local pub. However, I ended up getting absolutely paralytic drunk and on the way home had a fantastic idea – I’d ring the police and tell them that I was planning on blowing up a local mosque.

When the police arrived at the phone box from which I’d made the call they came on masse – three patrol cars in all. I tried to explain how I was feeling and why I’d done what I’d done. They had to arrest me and I went along willingly; in a strange way I thought I might be able to get some help for my problems.

My case was heard at Crown Court where the prosecution agreed with my barrister that my motives were not racially motivated and that nothing would be served by sending me to prison. Both recommended that I have 1-1 counselling through the probation service. However, the judge stated that he had to make an example of me and so prison it was.

I did my time with no problems or complaints. It was a short sentence and I just kept my head down. Sadly I didn’t get any help or counselling and when I was released I was really in the same position as I’d been before I went to prison. The only difference was that nobody wanted to know me – so much for having served my time!!!

I found it incredibly difficult to get work and it feels like I’m constantly being punished for a stupid mistake I made just to try to get some help for myself.

I eventually manged to get some counselling and was diagnosed with PTSD. The treatment I’ve received has really helped me and I feel like I’m in a much better place.

Believing that I’d never be able to get a job I decided that the only option I had would be to work for myself. I decided to set up a photography business which I’m pleased to say is slowly getting off the ground.

I’ve been in touch with all the sports clubs in my local area, especially those which have kids teams (parents love photos of their off-spring in action). It’s important for me to show that I’m no risk to any of the children that I’m photographing and so whenever I’m asked, I’m happy to show clubs a copy of my enhanced DBS check. Inevitably, I’ll be asked about the time I spent in prison. I tell them why I did what I did and how I came to be in that position.

The majority of clubs I’ve spoken to have absolutely no issue with the fact that I’ve been in prison; they seem to be more concerned about the fact that I’ve been diagnosed with military PTSD – I’m sure they think that I’m some sort of axe wielding maniac.

I’ve never used my PTSD as an excuse for my behaviour. What I did was a cry for help and I’m sure that the PTSD led to the bad choices I made in seeking this.

I’ve embraced and engaged with the treatment that I’ve been offered and I’ve learnt coping mechanisms to help me deal with my triggers. In the same way that I’m happy to discuss my criminal record, I’d have no problem talking about my PTSD especially if it helped employers get a better understanding of it.

By Ben  (name changed to protect identity)

Useful links

‘Employers, if you want me to disclose my conviction, then please ask me the question’

Despite ticking the ‘Yes’ box which asked about convictions on an application form, Silvester wasn’t asked about them at interview and so did not disclose. Although he’d done nothing wrong, he was still dismissed when his criminal record came to light.

I’ve been out of prison for 18 months and still have another 2.5 years to go on licence.

In the past 18 months I’ve applied for over 700 jobs, getting to interview stage on only 6 of the applications, only to be rejected when I disclose my conviction (I was convicted of historical abuse claims dating back 39 years).

I recently applied for a job with an international company and disclosed my conviction during the online application process by ticking the ‘Yes’ box. I was invited to an interview and during this interview my disclosure wasn’t mentioned by the person conducting it. As I understand it, if the interviewer doesn’t raise the subject of criminal convictions you are not legally obliged to disclose. I assumed that as head office were aware then I didn’t have to do any more.

You can imagine my joy when a couple of hours later I was offered the job. I eagerly accepted after double checking with my probation officer and police offender manager that it was OK for me to accept. There were no concerns from either so I was looking forward to my start date which duly arrived.

I had to undertake 18 hours of online learning, covering health and safety, manual handling etc. There was a test after each module which you had to pass before moving on to the next one. This was carried out at home in my own time and I passed all the tests with an average pass mark of 98%.

I had been working for the company for nearly 4 weeks when my manager called me in to his office one day. He asked me if it was true that I had a criminal record. I replied that it was correct. He then asked why I hadn’t disclosed at interview and I told him that as he’d not asked me directly I didn’t have to disclose to him about the conviction. He asked me to go back to work only for him to call me back to the office a couple of hours later to inform me that after speaking to head office he would be suspending me on full pay pending further investigation. I informed him that head office were fully aware of my conviction and that I had not tried to hide anything.

A couple of days later I received an email from the HR department asking for my court papers and a copy of my licence conditions. I spoke to my probation officer, police offender manager and Unlock and they all told me that I should not give my employers this information – it wasn’t necessary or legally acceptable to ask. I contacted my manager and told him that my probation officer and police offender manager would be happy to speak to head office to confirm that they had no issues or concerns with my working at the company and they would confirm my conviction without disclosing any other information.

I passed on their contact details to head office and respectfully informed them that after seeking advice I was unable to supply them with the papers they had requested.

I was suspended for 3 weeks and finally received a text message from my manager asking me to attend a “meeting” the following week. I replied that it would be fine.

The day of the meeting arrived and I was feeling quite confident knowing that I had done nothing wrong. I arrived early and the manager came out on to the shop floor and asked me through to his office. I was greeted by a more senior manager from another store who told me that they would be conducting the meeting. My own manager would be taking notes of the conversation that would follow. It soon became clear that I was to be dismissed immediately on the ground of

Concerns for my safety and that of my fellow colleagues on the shop floor and to protect the company image”. In my humble opinion it is the latter statement that was the reason for my dismissal.”

It appears that someone who knew me had come in the store and had seen me while I was working and had telephoned head office to ask if they knew they had employed a sex offender. I was taken aback a little and again I was asked by the senior manager why I had not disclosed my conviction at the interview and again I explained that because the subject wasn’t raised I was not obliged to disclose. In all fairness to my manager, he did say at this stage that he was partly at fault for not asking the question about my conviction at the interview stage. He had a couple of hundred applications to go through in a short space of time and he had simply overlooked this question. I then emphasised the fact that I had not tried to hide my conviction and that head office had been made aware of it during the application process. The senior manager stated that:

Head office don’t always look closely at the application forms and my conviction had obviously gone unnoticed.”

It then transpired that the company had not approached either probation or the police for their input, they had made up their own minds that I was not suitable for the role.

I asked them what was the point of an online application form if no one looked at them and why no contact was made with probation or the police. The senior manager said they couldn’t explain that to me because they didn’t have the answer. I asked if I could appeal the decision to dismiss me and the answer was a very swift “No”. The meeting concluded and I was escorted off the premises.

To say I felt gutted is an understatement. I really thought that at last someone was willing to give me a chance to prove that I could be an asset to them. How wrong I was.

By Silvester (name changed to protect identity)

 

Useful links

I’ve worked hard to be part of a system that’s now holding me back – problems with the UK criminal record disclosure system

There are many people who, as youths, picked up convictions for minor offences. However, having worked hard to gain an education and contribute to society, they find themselves in a similar situation to Tom – being judged by employers who only see them as a safeguarding risk.

 

 

As a young lad I was the class clown; the one that never went to class, never did my exams and eventually got expelled – it was classed as ‘early study leave’ at that time. With few qualifications I worked in factories for a while and then decided to go and work abroad for several months.

I really enjoyed the time I spent overseas and I started to plan for all the things I was going to do in the future. However, when I returned home I pretty much went back to my previous behaviours. It became a very common occurrence to get arrested for various ‘petty’ offences – drunk and disorderly, possession of cannabis progressing to possession of cocaine, criminal damage and battery.

For the best part of five years I never claimed a penny in benefits, was employed throughout and always paid into ‘the system’. I began to change my life around properly about 3.5 years ago when I realised that the time had come to seek help from a substance misuse service. The help I received was priceless and I soon began to volunteer for the service myself.

I really enjoyed volunteering; it helped me personally, but I was also getting some good feedback from clients that I was working with. I started to apply for trainee roles with the company and eventually I was offered an 18-month temporary contract with them.

I knew this was the field I wanted to work in, but I didn’t just want a job, I wanted a career. I went to night school to do a GCSE in English and then I enrolled for a degree course with the Open University. I’m now in my second year and considering that I’ve not done any form of studying for years and years. I’m doing OK. As well as the success in my career, I’ve now got my own place to live, I’ve got a car and even a dog and I regularly raise money for charity.

However, for all the positive stuff that I’ve done, I’ve just realised that it’s impossible to escape your past. A few days ago, I had a fantastic interview at a local care home; I’d really gelled with the manager and I was quietly confident that I’d be offered the job. I’d been asked to call into the care home to pick up some documents and I thought this was a really good sign.

When I arrived, the manager seemed a bit different to how he’d been at the interview and asked me to come into his office. He then said:

We have a problem. I’ve discussed your criminal record disclosure with HR and we’re unable to take your application any further. The company believe that you could be a safeguarding risk.”

I could feel my eyes starting to fill with tears. Even though my last conviction had been approved 9 years before, I felt embarrassed and ashamed. I’d made drastic changes to better myself and I wanted to continue to do so. I found it difficult to understand how I could be penalised for something that I’d done so long ago.

I’ve made such an effort to conform, to behave and be part of “the system” yet that system is stopping me from doing so. Because I’ve got several convictions and I want to work in regulated activity, I’m always going to need to disclose the details of my past.

It’s clear to me that the UK system of rehabilitation and criminal record disclosure isn’t working and is one that urgently needs addressing.

By Tom (name changed to protect identity)

 

Comment from Unlock

Back in January 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that two aspects of the current filtering regime were disproportionate and in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the way multiple convictions and childhood cautions are dealt with.

We hope that it’s not too long before changes are made to the system and that people like Tom will be able to leave his past in the past.

Useful links

 

What’s the point of having a policy if an employer doesn’t bother to follow it?

Miski applied to a large, well-known employer and believed they would follow their published policy on recruiting people with criminal records. Here we look at how this employer approached asking, assessing and adhering to their own policy.

 

A couple of years ago I applied for a job at a large organisation famous for its inclusive values. Having unspent convictions for drugs-related offences, I was nervous about applying but the organisation’s online policy on recruiting people with criminal records was clear and seemed progressive. Although applicants were asked to disclose unspent convictions on their application, the policy said:

At interview, or in a separate discussion, the recruiting manager will ensure that an open and measured discussion takes place on the subject of any offences or other matter that might be relevant to the position.”

The job was a specialist role and I was well qualified so decided to apply, ticking the box for ‘unspent convictions’ and indicating that I’d discuss the details at interview. I expected to hear nothing back, so I was delighted to be invited to interview.

The interview was in two parts – a presentation, followed by a panel interview with the line manager, a director and three staff from other teams. The interview lasted for three hours in total and I travelled over 100 miles there at the employer’s expense. On arrival, an HR administrator filled out forms on my right to work and travel expenses, but at no stage was I asked about my criminal record. Naively, I thought maybe they’d decided it wasn’t relevant. The organisations people-centred approach seemed to be underlined when the senior manager explained that they aimed to let candidates know their decision within 48 hours. When I left I felt hopeful and optimistic; even if I didn’t get the job, it was good to know that some employers took an enlightened approach to applicants with criminal records. I’d heard such horror stories.

True to his word, the senior manager contacted me that evening and offered me the post. He explained that HR would be in touch to discuss salary and a start date, and that he was aware I had disclosed my conviction so there would be some additional paperwork to complete. The following day, I completed the paperwork sent by HR and then I waited.

After a week, I contacted HR and was told ‘don’t worry, we’re just doing checks.’ They didn’t say what checks. After another week, I wrote again and was told ‘no news’. A few days after that, a short email arrived with the title:

Application not progressed’

No reason was provided, and I asked several times for an explanation before receiving a response. They eventually admitted they’d done online searches. I knew what was there – the usual tabloid stuff, a link to a racist website and some local news. I never thought it would be part of a recruitment decision, especially by an organisation like this. But they were adamant:

…you may feel that material in the public domain does not contain all of the facts but we have to take into consideration how the media and public may respond to your appointment and that response will also be based on that information.”

This seemed at odds with the published policy: there had been no ‘open and measured discussion’ and the things they said they’d consider –

  • Whether the conviction is relevant to the position in question;
  • The seriousness of any offence;
  • The length of time since the offence occurred;
  • Whether the applicant has a pattern of offending behaviour;
  • Whether the applicant’s circumstances have changed since the offending behaviour, and
  • The circumstances surrounding the offence and explanation(s) offered

wasn’t mentioned at all. It seemed my criminal record was not a problem for the employer, but the fact that other people could find out about it was. I had been offered the job, and the policy was clear that:

Where a job offer has already been made, we will undertake to discuss any matter revealed with the person seeking the position before withdrawing a conditional offer of employment.”

I tried pointing this out, but was met with a wall of silence, eventually receiving a brief ‘Our decision is final. I do not intend to discuss this matter further.’

There is nothing to stop an employer discriminating against me because of an unspent conviction, but the fact they did so simply because I can be found online seems unfair. Especially when their brand is built on being inclusive. Can a big organisation really suffer reputational harm because it gave someone a second chance?

By Miski (name changed to protect identity)

 

Comment from Unlock

On the face of it, this employer had a reasonably fair approach to applicants with criminal records. Although asking on application forms is usually unnecessary, the employer does explain that applicants will have the chance for an open and measured discussion and that a conditional offer would not be withdrawn until after a discussion with the applicant. We advocate this approach in our self-disclosure guidance to employers. So what went wrong for Miski?

Asking

As our guidance on self-disclosure makes clear, applicants should only be asked about criminal records when it’s necessary and it will not usually be necessary on application. 125 companies have signed up to Ban the Box because they recognise that people with criminal records can enhance their business. For those employers, it means not asking until interview stage, or after an offer has been made. This doesn’t mean they won’t sometimes reject applicants because of a criminal record but it does mean they’ve given thought to how to deal with them fairly. Necessity will depend on the employer’s approach, but will generally be at interview or offer stage.

The employer should have avoided asking at application stage, but that made no material difference – Miski was offered an interview anyway. The problem arose when the employer failed to follow their disclosure policy and even introduced a new element – checking material in the public domain. Lots of employers do this, but they should make it clear to applicants if this is part of the recruitment process and be clear about how information is assessed and used. It may breach data protection principles (c) – as the employer acknowledges, information in the public domain may not contain all the facts so they cannot be certain it is accurate. Not every criminal case makes the news, and it is unlikely that any reports will contain all the facts. Using material in the public domain without informing applicants could also be a breach of the ‘fairness’ element of data protection principle (a).

Assessing

Applicants may sometimes disclose criminal records that make them unsuitable, but employers should consider their policy and approach to avoid situations like Miski’s. Staff time was wasted and, ultimately, the best candidate on merit – Miski – was not employed, because of the perceived reputational risk. None of the factors in the policy were considered.

Adhering

Like many organisations, the employer in this case had copied and pasted their policy form the DBS sample policy. While this means it’s legally compliant, using an off the shelf policy means an organisation has given limited thought to how it will work in practice. In Miski’s case, the policy wasn’t followed. More than that, new elements – checking of material in the public domain – were introduced. This suggests the employer had limited experience in recruiting people with convictions, and little regard for their own policies. If reputational harm is a factor in recruitment, employers should consider how best to manage disclosure and assessment. Post GDPR, they must also be clear about what information will be collected and why – use of information in the public domain could be considered excessive.

 

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