Story Type: Struggles & Stigma

Public interest, private curiosity and the right to be forgotten

by Andy

I was convicted of a number of internet sex offences in 2010. My case appeared in the local newspaper twice: at committal and the sentencing hearing.

A few days after I was charged my half-sister – Anne – whom I had only met once only a year before – died. Someone found my address on a piece of paper at her house and her solicitor contacted me to give me the funeral arrangements. This was a strange situation for me (and my wife) and left us with a dilemma. Because of the charges I would be facing in court, would it be right, in the circumstances, to attend her funeral, or should I stay away? We decided that, in spite of the fact that I only knew her from a very pleasant day we had with her at her home, it was really important that we should attend.

We had a good day. Her friends were interested to meet us and gave a sympathetic hearing to my story about the way my dad ran off from his wife, setting up with my mother a few years later. By the end of the day, I felt we had made some new friends. She had died intestate and I inherited her estate (another, though less important reason for attending the funeral…’He got all her money and he never even came to the funeral!’). So I had to return to Scotland to clear the house and tie up some legal stuff.

Two of her good friends lived up her street and shortly after we arrived, one came to the door. I expected a few friendly words and perhaps an offer of help. Instead, I was confronted with the statement: ‘People up here know about you’. Apparently, someone had Googled the news item about my committal hearing which, by then, had happened. When we got home, we had an email from someone we met at the funeral who described herself as ‘Anne’s best friend’, berating me for the evil person I was, with the inference that my wife, by supporting me, was as bad.

That was an early lesson about how damning these stories can be. Since then I can think of at least two other occasions when my inclusion in the paper has had an effect on my life. One was the inability to get house insurance (‘Was your case in the paper?’) and, on another occasion, its use to ‘out’ me when I was a member of an adult drama group. The group knew of my convictions and welcomed my participation but, as it turned out, did not possess the courage to allow me to remain a member after the URL of the story about me was circulated on Facebook.

All that said, I know I have been lucky. In lots of ways, my life is the same: my wife stuck with me, my daughters have forgiven me, most people I know are supportive and, luckily, I had retired from work before this all blew up. But there have been several situations where I have given my name to someone I have just met and gone on to think: ‘I wonder if they’ll look me up?’

I like the idea of freedom of the press/information too, but does what has happened to me truly show the value and importance of this? Is the ability of anyone and everyone to look me up on the web a matter of public interest, or merely something of interest to some of the public?

Finally, a lot of people seem to think that having this stuff online protects the public in some way. In the sex offenders’ programme I attended, only 2 or 3 of us out of 12 had had our names in the paper, and one of those said how relieved he was that he had the same name as a film director so he was well down a Google list. I guess that, except for the most heinous of offences inclusion in the local newspaper depends on arbitrary factors such as how much news there is on that particular day, rather than an obligation to include all convictions. To look to search engines in the belief that they will dig out all wrongdoers etc. is a dangerous illusion.

For what it is worth, I cannot see that I should not have the right to be forgotten after my five years on the Sex Offenders’ Register is complete.

Soul Destroying Fear

by Vicki

I recently applied for a job as a senior mentor post, a post I already hold, and have held for 7 years, in a primary school. Despite passing the assessment and seemingly giving all the right answers in the interview, I was turned down for the job, despite showing them character references from my last two employers, two prominent head teachers.

I declared on my application that I had a criminal record, enclosing details in a sealed envelope as they requested. The problem is, I have two offences as part of one conviction dating back to the late 2000’s: two counts of ‘failing to notify of a change of circumstances required by regulations under the act on 14th April 2003 Social Security Administration Act 1992’.

My guess is that they took one look at this and thought they’d show willing by shortlisting me and calling me for an interview, but in my heart of hearts, I knew that I wouldn’t get the job. There were extenuating circumstances to my actions (I suffered a double bereavement in the space of a 5 day period, plus caring for a father who suffers from Parkinson’s) and my solicitor said that I was probably suffering the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder. Prior to this conviction, I had never broken the law in any way shape or form, and, obviously, have not done so since. I was sentenced to two suspended sentences (to run concurrently), and 100 community service, which I completed over 13 weeks (one Saturday a week) receiving glowing comments on my paperwork each week from the team leader, for my work ethic.

I am too embarrassed and scared to apply for jobs, especially as I work with children and so am subject to an enhanced disclosure. I applied for a job last year, and though they eventually offered me employment, it felt like I was given the third degree, having already declared the conviction, I then had to sit in a room before I could sign my contract, to explain my actions. If the ground could have opened up and swallowed me whole, I would have happily jumped in. In the end, I turned the job down because they made me feel as if they were doing me a favour, and I didn’t want them to have me over a barrel.

It really is very hard. I don’t want the conviction to define who I am as a person: a single parent, a sister, aunt and a carer for my disabled parents, but employees don’t see that, they just see ‘criminal’. Thankfully, I have the support of my family, and my son. Telling him what I had done was the hardest thing I’d had to do, since telling him that his father had died. My son is the one that gives me the confidence to apply for jobs, reminding me that I am actually very good at what I do.

I’m resigned to the fact now, though, in my 40’s, I will be one of those people that just stays in their job until such time that they can retire, because the thought of having to bare my soul each time I apply for a job, well, it’s soul destroying.

Caution with cautions

by Katie

In 2008 the police called my phone and asked me to come into the station and explain something I’d done. I explained what happened, and I was told that they would issue me with a caution, which would stay on file for 3 years.

I currently work in the health care industry, I always have, and for over 10 years now. Recently I applied I for some extra work, notifying the employer that a caution may possibly be still on record, but added that I had been told it would be cleared after 3 years.

This was not the case.

I received my enhanced DBS check with the caution on the certificate. I then contacted the customer line where they informed me it will be on there for six years, not three, and then told to contact the Unlock helpline for further advice. Even though I had voluntarily declared possible caution, it now appears I’m being judged automatically, as still remains on certificate because of the offence type.

We live and learn from acts of impulsiveness and, in my case, I was sent something and then sent it back and explained briefly to employer, and yet it’s unfortunate when you try and move forward and explain your past, that it’s judged upon – even when successful at interview.

Police officers should give correct information. If they had told me at the time that the caution would be on my record much longer, I would have accepted this. But when you find its still on your record it just deflates your hopes, as employers do judge. As much as they talk about equal opportunities, this doesn’t always apply to people with cautions.

The Right to Forget

Editorial

There’s an interesting debate in the air regarding the EU ruling on ‘the right to forget’. The EU has just passed legislation that allows individuals to block access to outdated information and stories.

On one side, individuals who want hide information on the internet about the way they have behaved in the past can write to search engine providers, such as Google, to stop them listing pages containing personal information which is more than 30yrs old.

Some journalists and media academics are claiming this is a dangerous form of censorship, undermines free speech and hobbles journalism. They claim it should only be publishers who have the right to decide if information should or should not be made public. This means that the judgement call on what it is legitimate to publish rests with journalists like Piers Morgan and Rebekah Brookes.

On the other side, people with convictions, and others who wish to bury embarrassing stories about their pasts, are asking for the right for them to be forgotten, as criminal records are under French law.

As James Bell writes in the guardian: “There might be a case for saying some stories should vanish from the archives: what about, say, someone who committed a petty crime at 18, who long since reformed and cleaned up their act? If at the age of 30 they’re finding that their search history is still preventing them getting a job, couldn’t they make the case that it’s time for their record to be forgotten?”

But he also makes the point that “The Guardian, like the rest of the media, regularly writes about things people have done which might not be illegal but raise serious political, moral or ethical questions – tax avoidance, for example. These should not be allowed to disappear: to do so is a huge, if indirect, challenge to press freedom. The ruling has created a stopwatch on free expression – our journalism can be found only until someone asks for it to be hidden.”

You can see more of the debate here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-guardian-google

If a person is convicted in the UK, then their conviction is a matter of public record, and anyone can research press articles and court records and bring them back to everyone’s attention. But should there not be a time-limit on this, just like the idea of a spent conviction?

We’re very interested to hear what you have to say about this. Please let us know your views – either comment on this article, or send us your thoughts.

A glass ceiling? Good enough for a job, but not for a promotion

by Mary

In November 2009 I was dismissed from the post of a Council Principal Librarian. Although I had had an unblemished professional record since 1975, I became the victim of bullying and harassment by a jealous colleague who was acting up in the role of head of service. I was accused of having books at home that I hadn’t issued – books which I was using for work purposes to prepare for family learning outreach service. The Council took out a private prosecution against me and, on the advice of my solicitor, I fought this unfair prosecution and insisted on fighting it through to Crown Court. But I was convicted of Fraud and Theft in January 2010. I was dismissed from my post two months before this verdict.

I spent 3 years trying to gain employment, but had several offers retracted when the Council sent in a bad, damning reference. I made prospective employers fully aware of my background and the circumstances of my conviction. In the light of my explanation and excellent references from previous employers, and an account of my court case, I was offered my current job as a Librarian by a local Trust in July 2012. I have been praised for my performance in my job and have received straight ‘A’s in my assessments.

About 6 weeks after I started, I received a telephone call from a reporter who told me that they had received an anonymous letter about my conviction. This can only have come from someone at my previous employers, the Council. I know this because the letter contained information that only the Council’s HR Dept. knew. The newspaper published an article, which was an exact reprint of what had appeared in the local press at the time of my conviction and about which I had made my current employer fully aware.

I was mortified by this article but, at the time, my employing Trust were supportive. My boss briefed our Press Office about the issue and gave out a statement saying that they are an equal opportunities employer and had considered all of the facts when they appointed me. They also offered me counselling. The only feedback the paper received about the article was very positive for the council, saying that it was to their credit that they had given me a chance. They could easily have fired me, but they didn’t.

Then, in June 2013, because things seemed to be going so well, I applied for promotion. But my application was rejected outright, without the chance of an interview, purely because my conviction was unspent. I was told by the Chief Executive that my application was by far the best they had received, but I was also told that I would be an embarrassment to the Trust and that I couldn’t be trusted.

I’m an honest and hardworking person, and I have proved it. My conviction, for taking books home to work on, was purely driven by malice. The Police weren’t interested. It was a personal vendetta continued with anonymous letters to the press. As a result, I have a permanent record for dishonesty and have hit a ‘glass ceiling’ where I cannot progress in my career as a result of an unspent conviction.

‘I’m going to move on now’

I last wrote here about 9 months months ago. Since then there has been a change. New amendments to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are coming into force this month. Since March 10^th, I no longer need to tell many potential employers, insurance companies or other interested parties that I have a record.

This is a huge relief. For me, it’s a massive change. It means I’ll be able to apply for job like stacking shelves in the Co-op or work in an airport. Seventy percent of all jobs now require a disclosure. Now I can apply for far more of them. And get insurance to be a plumber: what’s possible now in the world of self-employment is far greater too.

In many ways, 36 years after my conviction, I now have the right to be treated much like any other citizen. That’s very important to me because that’s just how I want to feel, just like any other citizen. Now the challenge will be to adapt my ingrained ways of thinking about myself, and take opportunities that were previously barred to me.

But let’s not forget that these changes don’t effect everybody. People who’ve been sentenced to more than 4 yrs. are still caught in the same old net. As a society, we are still obsessed with the long past, and with our belief that it is the best predictor of future behaviour. The Government are changing the legal limit on digging into the past lives of others, for such things as insurance and employment purposes. But the changes haven’t gone far enough. There is still a great deal of disproportion in the system. Why should someone sentenced to four years be treated as a whole different category of human to someone who’s served three? What we have is an arbitrary cut-off point; what we need is a system that takes age and maturity much more into account.

As a society, we have a right to expect people to behave better as they mature and grow older. But, again, what we have now is an arbitrary cut-off point at 18, when we get the right to vote. Everyone knows people mature at different rates, and that, often, the pinpoint accuracy of sentencing to reflect exactly the nature and seriousness of the crime is subject to all kinds of vagaries, from the politics of judiciary to the colour of the convicted’s skin.

As we move ever closer to towards a pan-European criminal record system, and the interconnected and international nature of policing and surveillance methods, there is an opportunity to revise these weaknesses and build a system that still protects the public and the employers, but give better opportunities to those who sort themselves out and go on to live more decent lives. It requires three ingredients:

1) The time during which a conviction is unspent and before which full rehabilitation can begin should be linked to both the sentence handed down and the convicted person’s age at the time of the offence. Simply adding their age to the sentence in years gives a much fairer system. E.g. An 18 yrs old sentenced to 3 yrs gets a rehab period of 21yrs, after which time the record is expunged completely, the offences become spent in half that time, 10.5 yrs. Whereas a 40 yrs old getting three years would have a rehab period of 43 yrs and a spent period of 21.5yrs. A 28 yr old getting 14 yrs would have spent conviction after 28yrs and everything expunged after 42 yrs, by which time they’ll be 70. Doesn’t that seem fair enough? The police and courts would retain records for life, and pervious conviction would still be factored into any future sentencing, but those who don’t offend again get to die with a clean record.

2) That employers do not ask about a job applicant’s criminal record until after all the interviews have been completed and they have decided on their favourite candidate. They should never need to ask applicants they were never going to employ about their record. If the chosen candidate has a record that makes them unsuitable, then they are not offered the job and it goes down the line to the second best candidate. I completely accept that an employer has right to know about convictions – but only of their employees. Until you become an employee you are just a member of the general public, and you should have a right to keep your record private. The box on job application forms which asks about criminal records should be banned.

3) Compassion. As a society we often define ourselves by what we hate and won’t tolerate, and that all seems natural and unavoidable. We also define ourselves by our compassion, or lack of it. If you refuse to forgive, you make a prisoner of both yourself and the other, because both become stuck and neither can move on. Everyone has had their struggles, and if they acting out badly during that time, can we not let rest in peace after thirty years? The French call it ‘the right to forget’. Let’s move closer to that.

I’m going to move on now.

A Position of Trust

By Aaron

Should those with unspent convictions should be employed in a place of trust?

I worked in mental health services for nearly 5 years without any blemishes to my work record. The management asked me if I would undertake a diploma or degree in psychosocial interventions as this would put me in good stead for a managerial role. It was a very difficult time in my life, as was still coming to terms with the murder of my son. He was just 15yrs old. I was also asked to do another part-time job on top of the Master’s degree. But I said yes, I would do the course.

While I was waiting to get started on the course, our organisation went up for tender. As part of this process, all the staff had to undergo a new enhanced criminal records check. Mine came back with my prison record on it, as I was sent to prison for 3 years in 1992 for GBH; I had done 18 months in Northern Ireland. I was immediately sacked because I had not disclosed this.

Until I got advice, I had assumed that anything over 10 years or more was off your record, and that’s why I did not disclose my conviction.

I worked in the mental health area from 2005-2009. When I was sacked in December 2009 , my wife left me and I lost my home and driving licence because I began to drink. My wife also miscarried whilst also trying to come to terms of the death of our son.

All of this happened to me in December 2009. I lost a lot of my confidence and became reclusive because I felt a complete and utter failure. But I didn’t turn to crime, or hurting others. Just because you’ve done something bad in the past, doesn’t mean you’re always going to act that way, no matter how much stress you’re put under.

I do believe people with convictions being trustees should be implemented because people can and do change their lives if given the right needs and support.

Those with no criminal convictions can and do offend; a clean criminal record check only tells you they haven’t been caught yet. And, in very recent times on the news, there have been cases where those in charge of vulnerable people – whom I would assume have no convictions –were mistreating and abusing those people placed in their care.

The important thing is to judge people on how they are now, not on what they’ve done in the past, and let people with conviction make good, positive contributions where they can.

Six month sentence or life?

by Lucinda Neall

Let me tell you about Luke.

Luke has been a volunteer youth leader for the last three years at one of the youth clubs I’m involved with. He’s great with the kids, a reliable member of the team, and probably would have been selected as chairperson if he hadn’t already been running a football club almost singlehanded. He’s a thoroughly decent guy who cares about young people and wants to give them opportunities – very empathetic, easy to talk to, good fun. Maybe that’s just his nature, but it’s probably got something to do with his life experience too: he was bullied at school, he became an angry teenager – in fact he ended up doing six months in a detention centre. So Luke can empathise with youngsters who aren’t finding life easy. But he came through, got a job and it wasn’t long before he was asked to keep an eye on the apprentices at work.

Luke got married, had children, but sadly his wife died of cancer and he found himself bringing them up on his own. Oh, and did I tell you his son has ADHD and was eventually sent to a special school, so Luke also knows all about dealing with special needs.

As you can imagine Luke didn’t come out of school with many qualifications, so it was amazing when he decided to do a degree as a mature student. And once he graduated he started job hunting and asked me to be one of his referees. It was not difficult to write a great reference for him when he applied to be a support worker at a home for people with learning difficulties. Nor was I in the least bit surprised to hear he had been offered the job, subject to a DBS check.

What did shock me a few weeks later though, was when he told me the offer had been withdrawn because of his criminal record – because of what he had done when he was 17 and 18 years old. You see there’s one thing I haven’t told you about Luke, which is that Luke had just celebrated his 50th birthday. And he is being told he is not suitable to work with people with learning difficulties because of things he had done as a teenager over thirty years ago!

I have written to the organisation involved to question their recruitment policy, but that is not enough, because this sort of insanity is going on all over the country in the name of safeguarding. Instead of using a bit of intelligence, common sense and discretion when faced with DBS information, HR departments are using a blanket tick-box approach. We need to get this story out there so that those who are recruiting start questioning their policies, instead of covering their backsides, and putting some humanity into Human Resources policies.

As Luke put it, “I did something wrong as a teenager and was punished for it. I don’t expect to be punished for the same thing again 30 years later.

Thanks to Lucinda Neall for permission to re-publish this piece. The original is available here.

Scarred for Life: The Retention of Criminal Records and the Lack of Rehabilitation

By Ivan Marazion

I write this article as someone who, in my younger days, had issues with addiction. Like many people who fall into addiction, I also fell into petty crime and in my late teens was convicted of theft and burglary. I must take responsibility for my actions, but I must also protest at still being deeply affected by this over 17 years later. It’s important to mention that I have not been convicted of any crime since.

In 2005, after spending many years in active addiction, I entered a drug and alcohol treatment centre. This was the beginning of a new life for me. After getting clean, I made a decision to go back into education and gained a degree from a top university. I then took a teaching qualification and started working abroad as a teacher. During this time, I constantly felt like a fraud, unable to disclose my previous convictions as I would have never have been employed if I had. As an overseas English teacher I could only earn half what I could’ve earned had I been able to work as a government schoolteacher, abroad or in the UK. But this is impossible as I will never have a clean DBS check. Prior to teaching I was interested in studying law so made enquiries with the Solicitors Regulation Authority – only to discover it was unlikely I would be able to work in this field either. These are just two examples of where I’ve been stopped in my tracks, unable to move forward with my life. I could cite many more; and every time the feelings of disappointment and anger, at myself and at the system, were totally crushing. I began to feel that everything I had worked hard to achieve was pointless.

In my experience, most people have done something which could have earned them a criminal record, but have been lucky enough not to get caught; whether this was setting off a firework in the street, getting into a brawl or simply a stupid act motivated by peer pressure. How often do we hear about the politician who smoked dope but didn’t inhale? My point is that we all have pasts. Surely someone who has taken responsibility for their past actions should be allowed to rehabilitate fully and not be punished for the rest of their life? Should people like me just accept our lot and enter unchallenging, mundane, soul destroying employment or perhaps claim benefits and sit around in our underpants watching Jeremy Kyle? I have worked hard and struggled to become a better person; to educate myself, to try and find worthwhile employment and lead a fulfilling life. People who have done their utmost to rehabilitate should be allowed to do just that. It can’t be good for the individual or larger society that such a large group of people are held back in this way. The constant feelings of being ‘less than’, or being a fraud and the worry of being found out if you haven’t been totally upfront about your past, are degrading and can be mentally and emotionally crippling. These feelings of degradation do very little for ones self-esteem and sadly for some can lead to a vicious circle of further crime and substance abuse. My choice, and the choice for many, is this: lie and risk being found out because there’s a system in place that’s likely to expose them sooner or later, or be up front and risk rejection.

Now and then a glimmer of hope appears, most recently in the form of the new filtering process brought in earlier this year. It was exciting to think, just for a moment, that in some circumstances I may not have to reveal myself as a second class citizen and a criminal. Sadly, my joy was short lived when, after sifting through the myriad of offences and circumstances which were exempt from the filtering process, I noticed that the system would not benefit me as I had multiple convictions. Anger rose up in my body before collapsing in on me in the all too familiar form of regret and disappointment!

I was asked what name I wanted to use when this article was published; did I want to use my own or a pseudonym? After much consideration I’ve decided to use a pseudonym because I’m not proud of having criminal convictions and, sadly, people make immediate negative judgements if a person has convictions – despite any reparative steps they may have taken. Unfortunately, the current system aims to expose people like me unnecessarily, resulting in many currently law-abiding people being scarred for life.

There is only one conclusion to come to: the system needs to be changed in order to prevent ruining the lives of those who have already paid the price for their crimes.

Been held back for 2 years from reaching my dream

For the past 4 years my life has been on pause. I have been heavily relying on the reform to be put into place since 2012 when my goal was to become a Royal Marine Commando in the Royal Navy.

I messed my life up by crashing my car into the centre of an island and the courts slammed me with a 2 year driving ban which I could cope with, 240 hours Community service which is a bit heavy in my opinion and a small fine which I paid immediately after walking out of the courtroom. At the time I was in Full time University and working as a shift manager in a food production company. Being a student I had no escape I had to work in order to live as I can’t depend on family and a student loan was not enough. This unfortunately meant I was too physically exhausted to attend community service and breached 3 times. At the time I did not know how badly this would affect my career opportunities later on in life and haunts me day after day. I got sentenced to a 4 weeks suspended sentence for 12 months and 60 more hours unpaid work (i had 12 hours remaining to complete and my community order would be done).

After a few months I had finished my unpaid work and wondered what to do because I dropped out of university as I could not afford it and I was still unsure about my future, I was underweight, sometimes didn’t eat for near on 2 days and lost two jobs due to my convictions.

I went to my local Navy Careers Office and told them my situation, they told me to get a print out of my offences and conviction so immediately I went to court and bought original documents of my convictions and dropped them into my careers office. They said driving offences are at the discretion of the recruiting officer and they deemed me a suitable potential marine, passed my medical examination and Interview with flying colours even adding I am what they are looking for in a Royal Marine.

After my Interview he looked at my convictions and seen I had a suspended sentence and this became the downfall of my career as a Royal Marine before it had even started. He said there was no way on this earth I would ever be accepted in to the royal navy unless it was spent. He looked at the date at which my conviction would be spent and it is 2019. I will be in my late 20’s when my conviction is spent which is not at all a good time to join the marines.

After soaking that up and wondering where to turn next I joined the Royal Marines forum and looked at the rehabilitation of offenders act thread, which had a link to your website. At first it put a huge amount of hope into me and I was back on my training waiting for the reform to commence in spring 2013, after that didn’t happen I was a bit unhappy but November wasn’t too far away and gave me more time to dedicate to my training and preparation.

November reform has now been cancelled and I must say I am absolutely gutted I cannot move on from that night that totally ruined my life, I am not a bad person, I am polite and respectful to everyone. I do not Drink, smoke or take drugs and seen as an upstanding person who has self reliability, I have depended on myself from the age of 15, being from a normal working class family I have never had the luxury of being looked after financially by mum and dad, if my shoes have holes in them I had to do my paper round, save up and buy some new ones, that’s how my family are to prepare me for the ‘grown-up’ world.

The government need to immediately change the rehabilitation of offenders act not just for normal civilised people who cannot follow their dreams due to a split second accident/mistake but also for people who are bad but want to change, give people another chance to redeem their lives and prove they can be better, we all make mistakes but it is how you bounce back and overcome the down times and improve as a person.

We don’t need to be followed around by a demon stopping us from enjoying the fine qualities of life and the opportunities we have. Being in the Royal Marines is my dream, I will risk my life for queen and country.

By Carl