Story Type: Views & Reviews

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.

Are the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act enough?

People with criminal convictions are not the most popular group in society.

However, once somebody has served their sentence and doesn’t re-offend, it’s in everybody’s interests to enable them to move on positively with their lives and contribute actively to society.

And we’re not talking about a small group of people either – although around 100,000 people are sent to prison every year, there are over 1.4 million convictions at court every year. The majority – approximately 945,000 convictions – involve a fine, with 195,000 convictions resulting in a community sentence, and about 45,000 having a suspended prison sentence. There are over 9 million people in England and Wales with a criminal record. A third of people claiming jobseekers allowance have been cautioned or convicted in the last 10 years.

Before 1974, anybody given a conviction at court would have to disclose this for the rest of their life if they were asked. This caused people real difficulties when trying to get their lives back on track. That is one of the main reasons why the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was introduced 40 years ago. It remains the only real piece of legislation that provides some form of legal protection to people with convictions.

However, ever since it was introduced, it’s been criticised in many ways, with the main focus of attention being on the ‘rehabilitation periods’ attached to a sentence. For example, a fine took 5 years to become ‘spent’, an 8 month prison sentence took 10 years, and a sentence of more than 30 months in prison could never be spent.

That’s why, right from when Unlock was started back in 1999, we’ve campaigned for reforms. We were part of the Government’s original Breaking the Circle review in 2002, and since then have pushed for the recommendations in that review to be implemented. The more recent Breaking the Cycle review brought the item very much back on the agenda, and although it’s been a long-time coming, changes we’re finally included in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which received Royal Assent in 2012.

Two years further down the line, we’re delighted that the changes will be coming into force on 10th March 2014. This means that many people will find that their conviction becomes ‘spent’ a lot sooner than it did previously. It only applies in England and Wales, but the changes are ‘retrospective’, which means it applies to people convicted before the March changes.

So, if you were sentenced in June 2013 to 1 year in prison, this would previously have taken 10 years to become ‘spent’. Under the changes, this will reduce to 4 years from the end of the full sentence (so June 2018). It also means that many people who had a conviction that would never be spent (whose sentence was between 30 months and 4 years) will now find that it will be able to become spent. There are also big changes to non-custodial sentences. The rehabilitation periods for community orders are being reduced considerably, and fines are reduced from 5 years to 1 year.

For many people with convictions, this means an end to the years of struggles that they’ve had in finding work or buying insurance. One comment we recently received typifies the impact this will have – “I’ve struggled for the last 20 years. My convictions were previously never spent. I’ve been waiting for the last two years for these changes to come in. Finally, I can apply for work with a clean slate. Thank you.”

Once a conviction is spent, it means you don’t have to disclose for most jobs, and insurance, and it won’t be disclosed on a basic check. It doesn’t get deleted, and for jobs that involve standard or enhanced criminal record checks, it will continue to get disclosed in most cases.

However, despite all of the positives, the reforms are not perfect. Sadly, when the changes were being brought before Parliament, we found ourselves largely isolated in calling for further change. The result is that, while the reforms will undoubtedly make a significant impact to thousands of people, it nonetheless represents somewhat of a missed opportunity, given it’s the first time in nearly half a century that significant change has taken place.

For example, although the upper-limit of sentence that can become spent has been raised from 30 months to 4 years, we continue to campaign for a system that allows people with sentences of more than 4 years to have a way of their convictions becoming spent at some point. In 2012, over 7,200 people received a prison sentence of more than 4 years, and it remains a sad indictment on our criminal justice system that it believes it cannot rehabilitate these individuals. The simple passage of time might not represent the most appropriate way of attributing a rehabilitation period to a conviction, but placing any individual outside the scope of the Act permanently sends out the message that they are inherently ‘unreformable’ or ‘irreclaimable’ and acts as a disincentive to any attempt at reform on their part.

One solution would be to give people with sentences of over 4 years the opportunity to apply to a court or other tribunal for their conviction to become spent after going a minimum amount of time in the community conviction-free. Such a process could also apply to people who under the reforms have to wait many years for their conviction to become spent. One of the advantages of such a scheme would be to act as an incentive to achieve rehabilitated status so that the stigma of the ‘ex-offender’ label could be effectively removed as though the conviction had become spent from the mere passing of time. Achieving rehabilitated status could perhaps become a significant ‘marker’ in the process, a rite of passage, formal recognition of re-integration requiring conscious and deliberate activities consistent with good and active citizenship.

Another issue which wasn’t addressed by the reforms was the number of exceptions to the legislation, which relates to those jobs and roles where spent convictions can also be taken into account. The growing number of exceptions from and exemptions to the Act mean that people with old convictions are consigned to an increasingly narrow range of employment and educational opportunities. This is shown in the number of standard and enhanced criminal record checks undertaken in recent years (which can only be done on positions which are exempt from the Act). In 2002, there were 1.3 million a year; in 2011, there were 4.3 million.

Some of this represents an increasing appetite for criminal record checks from employers. Nevertheless, the same period has also seen a significant number of additions to the exceptions. Although the Government has ruled this out on a number of occasions, what is needed is for the exceptions order to be overhauled to establish precisely what types of occupations should be included in it. Consideration should also be given as to whether exceptions could be included based on the relevancy of the offence to the role/occupation, e.g. financial convictions for FCA approved-positions. Roles included within the exceptions order should only be entitled to certain spent convictions. Blanket access to all convictions is not a particularly sophisticated or effective way of disclosing conviction information.

The reforms also fail to deal with the developments since the original law was passed in the way that information is now readily available – largely referred to as the ‘Google effect’. There’s no easy answer to this problem – court reporting, albeit patchy, remains a fundamental right of our justice system, and the increasing ways of sharing information online represents a significant challenge to the way that the 1974 legislation works, particularly given its continued reliance on a ‘licence to lie’ principle. Sadly, the Act is often criticised for being ‘toothless’, and to my knowledge, no employer has ever been prosecuted for taking into account spent convictions, despite numerous anecdotal examples of this having taken place in practice. One practical measure would be to amend to ROA so that it was an offence to ask about criminal convictions beyond a limited form specific to unspent convictions (rather than just a duty to ignore any spent convictions). Without the force of the law to prevent employers and insurers from asking questions to which they are not entitled to know the answer they have and will continue to discriminate with impunity. Such a change would enable people with convictions to answer questions honestly, rather than being licensed to lie.

On a technical point, one thing that is being kept quite quiet is the way that motoring offences are being dealt with. Because of complaints by the insurance industry, the changes that were planned to motoring endorsements (from 5 years to nil) are no longer happening. Although we can understand the issues raised by the motor insurance industry, the unfortunate knock-on effect is that motoring convictions are dealt with much more seriously under the ROA than short prison sentences, and this applies not just to insurance, but also for when people are applying for work. This is an area that we’re actively looking to challenge moving forward.

Despite these issues, there is, without doubt, a feeling of relief that these reforms are finally coming into force. However, we shouldn’t lose sight of the remaining difficulties that are left unaddressed by the 1974 Act, and it would be a mistake to think that, if your conviction becomes spent under these changes, that’s the end of your problems. Sadly, in our experience, a criminal record will continue to haunt people for the rest of their lives, and in many cases this prevents people from reaching their full potential. That cannot be good for society.

What’s next in practice?

Once the changes come in on the 10th March, we’ll be updating the guidance we have on our self-help website, unlock.devchd.com/information-and-advice/, as well as updating our online tool disclosurecalculator.org.uk.

We also know that staff and practitioners that provide employment support and careers advice to people with convictions often struggle in understanding this legislation – 8 out of 10 people we provide training to get the ROA wrong, so we’re holding ‘masterclasses’ on the changes. Details of these can be found on our website.

Once a thief, always a thief?

by Baillie Aaron

Thank you to Baillie for sharing this video with us, and giving permission to circulate it through theRecord

Baillie Aaron is co-founder and Executive Director of Spark Inside, a UK charity supporting young people in custody through life coaching. She is also the founder of Venturing Out, a Massachusetts charity teaching entrepreneurship to men and women in prison. Both ventures seek to expose latent human potential, and adopt strength-based approaches toward empowering prisoners to achieve legitimate self-sufficiency on release.

House of Lords Reception: A Refreshing Change

by Richard, Editor of theRecord

We gathered where the laws are made, where the Law Lords do their thing; the place where the wallpaper costs £59,000 (see image). And I was defensive. Having a conviction more or less bars me from taking part in politics, the press would tear me apart before I even got started and, since the original 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, I’m not aware that anything particularly useful has emerged from this place to help people like me put their past behind them; at least, not without being forced into it by the EU. In fact, things have got considerably worse for people with convictions over the last ten years, so I had a big question mark in my mind about what we were all doing here: are the people who run this place really our allies? But I was pleasantly surprised.

First, Lord Ramsbottom spoke. He’s a lively and humorous man, and left me in no doubt that there are people in the upper echelons of the establishment who do care about the lot of those at the other end of the social scale. He has a clear commitment to Unlock and to the people it serves. It was good to see.

Then Charlie Ryder came on, making excellent points about the use of language and the problems with the term ex-offender. I don’t like it myself because it makes ‘offender’ sound like a job description, like ex-journalist, or ex-footballer; like having a conviction was something I wanted to achieve and was once proud of. At least ‘people with convictions’ has a double meaning and, as Charlie tells us, the writer and producer Emilia di Girolamo says: “To succeed after prison you need real conviction because the odds are stacked against you.”

As I mingled and circulated among the crowd I met people from charitable trusts who help fund Unlock, business developers from private security and prison firms who are interested in developing whole packages of aftercare and resettlement services that, currently, don’t really exist. And they have the resources and the research to prove these initiatives reduce re-offending, which is always the big selling point when going after tax-payers money. I met powerful and successful lawyers who make it their business to fight for people like me; to use every legal tool available to slice off the ball and chain that a criminal record can be. I met senior probation officers and policy makers who all share the same conviction: that it’s not what you did that matters, it’s what you do now that counts. And it was good.

The main thing I took away from that reception was a refreshed understanding that there are a lot of good, well connected and committed people working on developing far more progressive approaches to rehabilitation that have yet seen the inside of the Lords’ chamber as legislation, and that not everything that comes out of this place – or as MPs call it ‘The other place’ – is designed to make my life, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of other, more difficult.

Junior James; A different deal

by Richard, Editor of theRecord

Junior James is a fascinating man, a ‘larger-than-life’ character who oozes energy and enthusiasm. He’s gone from being a busy, but never happy, drug dealer to a NOMS ‘Service User of the Year’ via a spell inside. He made best use of his time in prison by taking advantage of every training and education opportunity he was given, and is now committed to helping others break out of a criminal lifestyle. However, when going through all this, he became aware of one of the major shortcomings with what is on offer for prisoners and was recently quoted in The Voice on-line as saying that it would be particularly useful for courses on entrepreneurship to be available.

Now, ‘entrepreneur’ can mean any number of things in reality, from the likes of Richard Branson and the ‘Dragons’ in TV’s den to someone running a hot-dog stall at a festival or setting up a shelter for the homeless . So I rang him to ask him what he meant: “Being self-employed, mate. That’s the crux of it. It’s all very well giving training courses and helping people getting qualifications, but if you’ve got a record, no-one’s gonna want to employ you, so you’ve got to do it yourself.” And, by and large, he’s right. As we chat we agree that there are a few enlightened employers out there, but not many. We agree that what people need is to learn how to run a business either for just themselves or to employ others. And anyone who’s tried it will tell you it’s not all plain sailing and counting your money. A very high proportion of new businesses go under in the first three years and there’s a lot to learn and a lot at stake. And preparation and knowing what you’re getting yourself into is key to success.

So, keen make best use of his time, put right past mistakes, encourage other not to get involved in dealing and to put his money where his mouth is, Junior took to writing. He first started in prison, showed a few pages to a few mates, got some good feedback about this wit and his style and so carried on. He writes about his life and the way he used to live in in a way that gets to the truth of the paranoia, the fear and the stress that is so often overlooked by young people who see only the money, the status and the bling on offer with a coke-dealer’s trade. He’s funny, direct and real and he’s working on his third book now. The first two, Different, Parts 1 & 2, are available on his website: www.juniorjames.co.uk. Check him out, he’s different.

Unlock reception at the House of Lords

by Erica Crompton

“I’ve got to run soon,” says Lord Ramsbotham, life peer in the House of Lords and president of Unlock. Speaking at Unlock’s reception, he adds: “But before I do I have to say, this is one of the nicest rooms in the House of Lords. It was a drawing room for the Lords Chancellor and now it’s the Lord Speakers room. He stipulated that the only people who could use it would be do-ers organisations. Organisations like Unlock. This charity represents to me something very remarkable because the people have been there and are coming and doing it for other people.”

We’re gathered in this plush room in the House of Lords tonight to learn about the new direction of Unlock. Now known as Unlock – for people with convictions, the new name has a double meaning. It’s not just criminal records that the new title eludes to. It’s also people’s convictions to reach their full potential.

Political freedom fighter and playwright, Charlie Ryder says: “I welcome Unlock’s name change to ‘people with convictions’. Ex-offender is so offensive. I feel it’s a permanent label based on the worst thing you’ve ever done. It focuses on the past rather than the future. None of us would like to be judged at the lowest point in our lives.”

Unlock trustee Carlotta Allum can relate: “I am someone with a conviction from 16 years ago and the ignorance and prejudice I have faced shocked me. Immediately after my crime I kept my head down. I trained to be an art teacher. But lots of people started judging me on my conviction even though I was doing well at my placement in school.”

But charities like Unlock can help with this. They’re currently responding to social and political climate. It isn’t enough to make a difference, they say, and so they prove it day in, day out.

“We hold true to the ethos that our charity should be led by people with convictions. This makes all the difference.” says Julie Harmsworth Director of Operations at the charity.

Unlock are looking forward. They have their new terminology. They’re launching a new website at the end of the year. And they’ve launched their new information hub – the most comprehensive source of self-help information, reaching a quarter of a million people every year, and growing.

One such person Unlock has reached out to is Steve Smith, a former Unlock volunteer. Steve discovered Unlock at the end of a custodial sentence. He soon became the charity’s first volunteer.

Steve says: “When I arrived at Unlock, I wanted to get back into the construction industry. But my mind was open to take on what I could and resettle back into the community. After volunteering with Unlock an opportunity came up for an Office Manage post at Changing Paths, helping people with convictions back into employment. I went to the interview and they gave me the job. I soon started in the role. Today I am the Project Manager at Changing Paths.”

Pictured above: Judge John Samuels QC (Unlock Vice President), Stephen Smith (Project Manager at Changing Paths) and Linda PIzani-Williams (Chair of Trustees at Unlock)

Thanks to Unlock, many people, like Steve, have succeeded in finding work or fulfilling goals. “I’m thrilled to be an Unlock trustee today” says Carlotta, “As I’m sure you’ll understand, it’s a cause close to my heart.”

Then, before tonight’s ensemble of trustees, supporters, peers and legal eagles, Julie concludes: “You’ve just heard some of the reasons I work for Unlock.”

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.

An open letter to Lord McNally – Delays to changes to the ROA

by David, re-published here with his permission.

Good Morning your Honorables,

I woke up this morning feeling so suicidal and desperate because of my situation and was wondering why the government is working against its citizens.

I am a reformed offender, having made silly mistakes some years back, and trying desperately to put my life back on track, provide food and a living for my young family and feel useful in my community.

I have been knocked back from every single job offer both paid and voluntary that I received because of my criminal record which under the new reform would have become SPENT.

My problems is in regards to the implementation of the new Rehabilitation of Offenders Act passed in April 2012, which was meant to be enforced by April 2013, but will take up to November 2013 or longer to get implemented. Honestly over a 12 months to be put in place???

I would like to plead with you and request that you help ask the below questions to the people at the Ministry of Justice, we appreciate they are busy but our lives and the lives of our children and extended families depends on us getting jobs and living meaningful lives and contributing into our society.

You and the team at the Ministry of Justice will have to agree that it is poor and wrong that the relevant agencies cannot implement these changes within a reasonable time frame given there are mammoth resources available to conduct these checks in the first place, and given there are mechanisms in place for filtering,

Also with all due respect to the honorable MP’s that have work tirelessly to push this reform I believe you should scrutinize the work of this government agency, and given that there appears to be a delay in the implementation of important laws passed by Parliament, the relevant people – the Minister and the civil servant in charge – should be called to account and to explain the delay and what is being done about it.

My Questions:

(i). to specify what “…necessary changes to systems and processes…” they make reference to;

(ii). who is responsible for these;

(iii). which civil servant has overall responsibility for implementation of the project;

(iv). which government Minister is accountable and answerable to Parliament for implementation of the project;

(v). why “…it has not proved possible…” to implement the necessary changes by the original April 2013 deadline;

(vi). where the revised November 2013 deadline has been published and whether this deadline has been announced in Parliament by the Minister;

(vii). whether Parliament has been informed officially of these delays, either through the relevant Minister or a civil servant;

(viii). what, if any, response has been provided by Parliament.

Thank you very much for reading and hopefully get a reply and some news from you shortly.

Regards

David

Three tips on overcoming your convictions

Dr. Anthony Hewitt has spent more than twenty years working the criminal justice and drug treatment fields. He currently specialises in designing and implementing prison drug treatment systems. We asked him to give us three tips for prison leavers who want to move on and leave their offending behind them. Here’s what he had to say.

Three things to do:

1. In practice we often get what we need through people we know. Taking work as an example, most people don’t get work through the Jobcentre, but more often through contacts. Do use the Jobcentre, agencies, websites, the papers and so on, but also use other people for advice. This could mean someone you know giving you a job or some work. But also it could mean someone telling you about an opportunity they heard about, or even just some ideas they have about how you can get work. The point is that the best resource is often other people, so use this resource. Ask EVERYONE you can think of for help. Don’t be pushy about it, don’t expect them to have solutions, don’t even worry that they don’t know you that well or haven’t seen you for ages. Just ask them if they’ve got any good ideas, ask all of them. Think of everyone you’ve ever known, haven’t completely pissed off, and who you can get to talk to, and ask them, and ask them to ask around for you. The same approach could apply to finding somewhere to live, a cheap car, or to anything you might need or want.

2. Understand the world doesn’t owe you a living. A lot of us don’t get what we want when we want it. That’s life sometimes. And things can definitely be more difficult with a criminal record. Try not to get bitter and angry about obstructions and setbacks, that won’t help anyone, especially you. Whether they know about your convictions or not, being angry or upset with people who don’t give you what you want is only going to make them think they were right not to help you. Why should that potential employer, landlord or partner take the time and trouble to get to know why you’re the right choice? Why should they take your word for it? Learn to deal with the knockbacks as best you can, and you’re more likely to get where you want in the end.

3. Focus on your strengths, not your weaknesses; what you have going for you, not what might be going against you – like a criminal record. Think hard about ALL the things in your favour; skills you’ve got, stuff you know about, your personality, your likes and interests, your life experience, everything. This is one time when it’s good to make a list, and keep adding to it. Other people can help with this too. Put down everything you can possibly think of, don’t hold back, you don’t have to show any of it to anyone. It’s not just a CV of all the work you’ve done, try and be creative and get down as many things as you can. Try and frame things in a positive way, the more of them and the more positive the better. This list is a good starting point to draw from when you’re selling yourself, perhaps to a potential employer, perhaps to a potential partner. It can also help remind you what you’ve got going for you, and that’s probably a lot more than you realise.

Can filtering be challenged?

Anonymous

In October 2001 I was convicted of “permitting premises to be used for producing cannabis” under Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. At the time, I was living with my partner and children in a relationship where domestic violence was occurring. On one occasion my partner assaulted me while he was drunk and I had to ring the police. My partner had cannabis plants growing in a wardrobe in the bedroom. When the police attended the property they had a look round, found the plants, and we were both arrested. He was charged with production of cannabis and received a fine. At the time, I was offered a caution – which I refused as I couldn’t stop him doing what he was doing. Anyway, the matter went to court and the magistrate argued that, even though I was in a violent and abusive relationship, I could have reported him to the police. I was stuck in a no-win situation. If I had reported him he would have battered me. I received a twelve month conditional discharge and a fine.

I left him shortly after that and have lived on my own with my children ever since. He is an alcoholic who is in and out of rehab, the children and I have nothing to do with him. I have been back into education, got a good job and bought my own house. I even got onto a teaching course and have been a teacher for a number of years now. I haven’t been in trouble with the police since 2001.

When the new filtering guidelines came out I thought I could put this matter behind me, but ‘permitting’ is on the list of serious offences, and so it is not filtered out of a DBS check. I don’t think production of cannabis is on the list, so that makes my conviction more serious than his, even though he was the one that cultivated the plants and got all the equipment.

I feel my life is blighted forever. I can’t face applying for new jobs as it is so, so degrading to have to bare my soul and reveal my past to colleagues and people I have to work with on a daily basis. What’s the point of a filtering list if I haven’t committed another offence in eleven years but my ‘crime’ will never be filtered? Do you think that the list can be challenged?