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

Tag: wipetheslateclean

Appeal against High Court ruling on disproportionate criminal records disclosure scheme scheduled

Since the High Court ruling in January, which found that the current criminal record disclosure scheme for standard/enhanced checks was disproportionate, lots of people have been asking us what would happen next.

We’re now in a position to say that the Government has appealed against the High Court ruling (which to some extent we expected) – this means that the case will go up to the Court of Appeal. The case is being heard with three other cases that involve the ‘type of offence’ exclusion (which is another area we think needs to change).

The case has been listed to be heard in February 2017 with a judgement expected later in the year.

In the meantime, nothing changes. The current DBS filtering system remains in force. If the outcome of the appeal goes the right way from our perspective, the government would need to look at extending the filtering process.

More information

New research into impact of childhood criminal records and launch of campaign

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A child who has offended in England and Wales is shackled to the mistakes of their past by a criminal record system which is punitive, and holds them back from reaching their full potential, according to a report released today by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ).

The report, which reviews criminal record systems in over a dozen countries, finds England and Wales to be an outlier in the extent to which it ties children to past offending.

“A child in England and Wales is not only more likely to acquire a criminal record, but this record will affect them for longer, and more profoundly, than in any of the countries reviewed”

said Penelope Gibbs, Chair of the SCYJ.

“A child who has shoplifted a couple of times will suffer the disproportionate penalty of not only having the offences recorded for life, but also having to disclose it at key points – such as entering university or applying for certain jobs, such as a teacher, or a police officer. No other country reviewed inflicts such tough penalties on a child who offends.”

The far reaching effects on a child go well beyond their sentence. Children with a criminal record face stigma and discrimination in accessing education, training, employment, travel and housing and these obstacles can follow a child into adulthood impacting adversely on their life chances and their ability to reintegrate positively in to society.

In 2013/14 over 60,000 cautions and convictions – all with criminal record implications – were handed out to children in England and Wales. These records will have to be disclosed for many years, and some forever.

The SCYJ is launching a campaign today calling for radical reform of the law on childhood criminal records. Its recommendations include shorter rehabilitation periods, expanding the current filtering system, and wiping the slate clean after ten years.

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, in supporting SCYJ’s campaign for reform, said:

“There are over 10.5 million people in the UK with a criminal record, with the vast majority of these being obtained when people are young. Every day we’re contacted by people who are facing stigma and discrimination because of offences they committed when they were under 18. This directly impacts on children’s chances long into adulthood, often for the rest of their lives.”

 

“Children that commit crime need to be rehabilitated and our youth justice system is supposed to be specifically designed to not impose retributions. However, when it comes to criminal records, the system treats children in a very similar way to adults.”

 

“There are many parts to the criminal record disclosure system that are disproportionate and unnecessary. A specific attempt to ensure that criminal records do not blight the lives of children is long-overdue. That’s why we’re actively supporting the campaign launched today. The recommended changes would result in a fairer and more calibrated system.”

 

More information

  1. More information about the report and campaign can be found on the SCYJ website.
  2. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) is a membership body, representing over fifty organisations, campaigning for a better youth justice system. They pool the expertise of their members to work on issues surrounding children in trouble with the law. Their work focuses on policy and legislation affecting all aspects of the youth justice system and young people caught up in it – from policing to resettlement.
  3. Unlock is supporting this campaign as part of our policy and campaign work.
  4. More information about Unlock’s policy work on the DBS filtering process.
  5. Unlock press/media enquiries.

Disproportionate criminal records disclosure scheme declared unlawful by the High Court

Press Release – 22nd January 2016

The High Court has today declared the Government’s criminal records disclosure scheme incompatible with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The judgment relates to the rule that anyone who has more than one conviction on their criminal record – regardless of the minor nature of the offences, how long ago they were committed and the person’s circumstances at the time – is required to disclose them forever when applying for certain types of work that involve standard or enhanced checks.

Lord Justice McCombe and Mrs Justice Carr declared this rule unlawful under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life.

The case was brought by Liberty and Stephensons, supported by Unlock.

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director of Unlock, a charity for people with criminal records, said:

“Unlock is delighted with the court’s decision in this important case which stands to affect many thousands of people with convictions. Since the filtering scheme was introduced in 2013, it’s helped many people with old and minor criminal records to be free of the stigma and discrimination that so many face when they have something on their criminal record.

 

“However, the current system doesn’t go far enough: it is blunt, restrictive and disproportionate. These shortcomings have today been recognised by the High Court and we are excited about the improvements which will follow. They will not only benefit those with convictions to move on positively with their lives but it will also contribute towards building a fairer and more inclusive society.”

The argument put forward in the case was that the current system breached rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, that the system is arbitrary and disproportionate, and requires urgent reform to allow for greater consideration of individual circumstances.

Unlock has long argued that a more flexible system, which considers individual circumstances in cases of old and minor convictions, should be introduced. The defendants in this case argued that such a review scheme would be unworkable – but Lord Justice McCombe said he was “far from convinced” by this argument.

The Court has yet to decide on remedies.

James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said:

“This ruling will bring reassurance for the very many people who have had their ambitions dashed because of very small mistakes they made years, or even decades, in the past.

 

“The Government must urgently fix this broken system, which rightly allows people with a single minor offence to move on with their lives, while those with two – no matter the nature or circumstances of their crimes – cannot.

 

“We are delighted the High Court has recognised the importance of the human right to privacy in allowing people to rebuild their lives.”

Mike Pemberton, head of public law and civil liberties at Stephensons, said:

“The judgment of the High Court recognises that it cannot be necessary or justifiable for an individual to have minor offences disclosed indefinitely from many years ago; merely because there is more than one minor offence.

 

The court heard that a more serious offence of the same type would be filtered and accepted that there could not be any rationale for the disclosure of the minor offences. I welcome the fact that the court has effectively applied what is common sense to the issue of criminal records”.

END

Notes to editors

  1. Press/media 
  2. Unlock is an independent, award-winning charity for people with convictions which exists for two simple reasons. Firstly, we assist people to move on positively with their lives by empowering them with information, advice and support to overcome the stigma of their previous convictions. Secondly, we seek to promote a fairer and more inclusive society by challenging discriminatory practices and promoting socially just alternatives.
  3. Our website is unlock.devchd.com.
  4. The judgement is available online.
  5. This judgement does not have any immediate impact on the current DBS filtering scheme.
  6. A press release from Liberty is available on their website.
  7. A press release from Stephensons is available on their website.
  8. We have practical self-help information on how the current filtering system works on our information hub.
  9. Find out more information about our policy work on the DBS filtering process here.
  10. The current system is explained below:

One of the cases was referred to as P. In August 1999, P was charged with shoplifting a 99p book. She was bailed to appear before a Magistrates’ Court 18 days later, but failed to attend and was therefore convicted of a second offence under the Bail Act 1976. In November 1990, she was given a conditional discharge in respect of both offences. P’s two convictions relate to a very specific and short period of her life, and she has no subsequent criminal history of any kind. At the time, she had untreated schizophrenia – a condition which was later diagnosed and treated. P now wishes to work as a teaching assistant and has sought voluntary positions in schools. However with each application she is required to disclose her two convictions, which has the effect of leading to the disclosure of her medical history.

The other case was referred to as A. A was convicted of two minor crimes in 1981 and 1982 and was concerned that he would be forced to disclose his convictions as part of his current employment. The Police Act 1997 created the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS – formerly the Criminal Records Bureau), which provides details of a job applicant’s previous convictions to prospective employers.

For certain types of work, particularly work with children or vulnerable adults, the standard or enhanced certificates issued by the DBS used to list all the job applicant’s previous convictions. However, in 2013, the Government amended this scheme following a Court of Appeal ruling (T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester) to introduce a “filtering” process. Single convictions for non-violent, non-sexual offences that did not lead to a custodial sentence (including a suspended one) will be “filtered” (i.e. not disclosed) after 11 years (five-and-a-half years if the person was under 18 at the time of the offence).

The new filtering process does not apply if a person has more than one conviction – regardless of the minor nature of the offences or the person’s circumstances at the time.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which governs the circumstances in which a person has to admit to a previous conviction if asked, operates in a similar way. A person applying to work with children or vulnerable adults does not have to disclose a conviction which is “filtered”.

Unlock supports legal challenge to disproportionate criminal records disclosure scheme

The High Court will tomorrow hear a legal challenge, with the support of Unlock, to the Government’s criminal records disclosure scheme.

There are two cases being heard on Tuesday 8th December, both focusing on how the system forces people with more than one conviction to disclose them forever when applying for areas of work that involve standard or enhanced DBS checks – regardless of specific circumstances.

One case is being brought by Liberty. Their client – referred to in this case as P – committed two extremely minor offences in 1999 while suffering from a then undiagnosed mental illness. P has committed no crimes since and – more than 16 years later – is seeking voluntary positions in schools with a view to achieving her aim of working as a teaching assistant. However, under current rules, she is forced to disclose her two convictions when applying and – in explaining the circumstances of the offences – to reveal details of her medical history. Liberty will argue that this represents a breach of P’s rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life. Liberty will also argue that the system is too arbitrary and disproportionate, and requires urgent reform to allow for greater consideration of individual circumstances.

Unlock is supporting this case by providing a witness statement for the High Court.

The second case is being brought by Stephensons. Their client – referred to in this case as A – was convicted of two minor crimes in 1981 and 1982 when aged 17 and 18. He has since worked as an accountant, a company finance director and now project manager – work that often requires due diligence and criminal record checks – and is concerned that he may be forced to disclose his convictions.

The current system

The Police Act 1997 created the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS – formerly the Criminal Records Bureau), which provides details of a job applicant’s previous convictions. For certain types of work, particularly work with children or vulnerable adults, standard or enhanced certificates issued by the DBS used to list all the job applicant’s previous convictions.

However, in 2013, the Government amended this scheme following a Court of Appeal ruling to introduce a “filtering” process. Single convictions for non-violent, non-sexual offences that did not lead to a suspended or custodial sentence will be “filtered” (i.e. not disclosed) after 11 years (five-and-a-half years if the person was under 18 at the time of the offence).

The new filtering process does not apply if a person has more than one conviction – regardless of the minor nature of the offences or the person’s circumstances at the time.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which governs the circumstances in which a person has to admit to a previous conviction if asked, operates in a similar way. A person applying to work with children or vulnerable adults does not have to disclose a conviction which is “filtered”.

James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said:

“Too many people find their work prospects blighted because of minor offences committed in their distant pasts.

 

“The Government accepted the logic of letting people move on when it introduced “filtering” two years ago. But, in restricting this to those with only one conviction, it has created a scheme which is deeply unfair to people like my client, with two very minor – and, in this case, connected – convictions.

 

“We need a system that’s flexible enough to consider individual circumstances – and we hope the High Court will agree that the DBS scheme still needs reform.”

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director of Unlock, a charity for people with criminal records, said:

“Since the filtering scheme was introduced in 2013, we know it’s helped many people with old and minor criminal records to be free of the stigma and discrimination that so many face when they have something on their criminal record. However, it simply doesn’t go far enough. We’ve had thousands of people contact us who continue to have old and minor records disclosed to employers when they have no relevance to the role they’re applying for. That’s why we’re supporting this legal challenge.  The current system is blunt, too restrictive and disproportionate.”

More information

Unlock responds to Scottish filtering consultation

In September, the Scottish Government announced a consultation on a Remedial Order that they’d brought into force on the 10th September.

This, in practice, brought into force a filtering process that applied to standard and enhanced checks processed by Disclosure Scotland, similar to the filtering process operated by the Disclosure & Barring Service.

Although our work as a charity doesn’t directly extend into Scotland, we felt it was important to respond to this consultation to make a number of comments based on the approach that the UK Government took in England & Wales when it introduced a similar process in 2013, as well as raising a couple of practical considerations which we believe are important when reflecting on the current approach of the UK Government.

You can download our response to the consultation here.

 

Useful links

Article in Inside Time on ‘filtering’

We’ve written an article for Inside Time on the ‘filtering of convictions.

You can read the article here.

Do you have a caution or conviction that can never be filtered?

The filtering rules set up following Supreme Court’s judgment in R (On the application of T and another) [2014] UKSC 35 mean some cautions and convictions can be filtered from standard and enhanced DBS checks after a period of time. Convictions for specified offences, custodial or suspended sentences and multiple convictions could not be filtered.

In R (On the application of P, G and W) [2019] UKSC 3, it was argued that the rules didn’t go far enough. The court ruled that multiple convictions ought to be filterable, and we’re gathering evidence to show how important it is that these changes are made quickly.

 

 

We’d like to hear from you if:

  • you’ve only been to court once, but you were charged for two ‘counts’.
  • you have two separate convictions.

We still don’t think these changes go far enough to help people move on positively with their lives. The court did not rule that the list of offences that can never be filtered should be changed. None of the cases addressed the question of whether custodial or suspended sentences should be filtered. We are gathering evidence to show why this should change. We want to hear from you if you:

  • served a short prison sentence, or suspended sentence, for an offence that could be filtered
  • have a caution or conviction for an offence that currently cannot be filtered – such as
    • Assault occasioning ABH (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
    • Robbery (s.8 Theft Act 1981)
    • Loitering for purposes of prostitution (s.27 Sexual Offences Act 1992)

What we need from you

If you are affected by the filtering rules, contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: DBS filtering’. Please include:

  • Your name
  • Your date of birth
  • Contact details (email and telephone) and how you’d be happy for us to contact you
  • Which example above you think your case fits into
  • Details of your cautions/convictions including the dates and a DBS certificate if you have one
  • The difficulties you’ve faced, recently or in the past, as a result of your criminal record not being filtered.
  • Whether you would be willing to contribute to any media coverage on this issue in future (this is for our reference, we won’t share your details without consent)

Any information you provide will be kept in line with our confidentiality policy. Any personal information provided to us will not be shared externally without your consent.

Find out more about how we handle your data.

Find out more about our work on DBS filtering

 

Supreme Court rules that minor cautions and convictions shouldn’t be disclosed on criminal record checks, and the filtering process remains

The Supreme Court has today ruled on a landmark case, referred to as T. The full judgement can be downloaded here: [2014] UKSC 35.The two individuals involved in the case had originally appealed against the decision to disclose details of their criminal records in job applications. The individuals had been issued warnings and cautions several years ago, and while one of them had been a child. They argued that the disclosure of these warnings and cautions on their enhanced criminal record certificates, which preventing them from getting certain employment, violated their ECHR, Article 8 rights for respect for private life.The Court of Appeal had previously held that the criminal record check process as part of the Police Act 1997 was incompatible with Article 8. This led to theGovernment introducing a filtering process in May 2013. Despite this, the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court today unanimously dismissed the appeals against the declaration of incompatibility in relation to the 1997 Act. Although the court did allow the appeal against the declaration by the Court of Appeal that the 1975 Exceptions Order was ultra vires, this is unlikely to have any practical impact, as it’s the first aspect of the appeal, which was dismissed, which has more practical relevance.

The Court said the disclosures in the two cases “were not necessary in a democratic society” and “were not based on any rational assessment of risk”.

Christopher Stacey, Co-Director at Unlock, today said “We welcome today’s decision. The way that criminal record checks have worked in the past were disproportionate and not based on any rational assessment of risk. We were pleased that the Government tried to resolve this by introducing a filtering system in May 2013, and we’re glad that this system will remain in force following this judgement.”

“However, the filtering system doesn’t go far enough. We know from our Helpline that many people with minor cautions and convictions continue to be excluded from the filtering system that the Government set up, simply because they were charged with more than one offence. As a result, in the first 3 months that the filtering system operated, only 15% of people with convictions had a conviction filtered from their record. This means that 85% will continue to have convictions disclosed on standard and enhanced checks for the rest of their lives.”

“We believe that the filtering process must go further. We will be looking at this judgement carefully to look at what can be done to widen the scope of the filtering process to better enable people with convictions to move on positively with their lives once they’ve become law-abiding citizens.”

For a useful legal summary of this case, click here to visit the UKSC Blog.

For more information on the current filtering process that applies to standard and enhanced criminal record checks, click here.

– END – 
 

Notes to editors
2. Unlock is an independent award-winning charity, providing trusted information, advice and supportfor people with criminal convictions. Our staff and volunteers combine professional training with personal experience to help others overcome the long-term problems that having a conviction can bring. Our knowledge and insight helps us to work with government, employers and others, to change policies and practices to create a fairer and more inclusive society so that people with convictions can move on in their lives.
3. Our website is unlock.devchd.com.

Unlock article on TheJusticeGap about ‘filtering’

We’ve written an article for The Justice Gap, arguing that the ‘filtering’ process doesn’t go far enough.

You can read the article here.

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