Tag: youth criminal records

Landmark case on disproportionate criminal records disclosure regime reaches Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will tomorrow hear the Government’s appeal in a long running case about the disclosure of criminal records. The Government is arguing that their current approach to disclosing old and minor cautions and convictions on standard and enhanced criminal record checks, often decades later, is fair. We disagree. And so did the High Court when in January 2016 it ruled that the current system is unlawful. Appealing against the ruling, the Government lost again at Court of Appeal in May 2017. The Government is now taking the case to the Supreme Court. The hearing will run from Tuesday 19 to Thursday 21 June 2018.

Unlock has intervened in the case to help to make sure that the Supreme Court understands the importance of the issue, the failings of the current system, and how it could be changed for the better. This is a first for Unlock; it is the first time we have acted as an intervener before the courts, reflecting the importance of this issue and these appeals.

We’ve put forward strong arguments on behalf of people who are unfairly affected by the criminal records disclosure regime because of its blunt rules which result in, for example, indefinite disclosure in all cases where someone was convicted of more than one offence, no matter how old or minor those offences were.

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, a charity for people with convictions, said:

“Our research shows the significant number of people who are being unnecessarily anchored to their past as a result of a DBS filtering system which is blunt, restrictive and disproportionate. In the last 5 years alone, over 1 million youth criminal records were disclosed on standard or enhanced criminal record checks that related to offences from over 30 years’ ago.

“The current system has multiple, harsh consequences and damaging effects on individuals – in particular it deters people from applying for employment, and for those that do apply it brings high levels of stress, anxiety and feelings of shame and stigma. It acts as an additional sentence that often runs for life. It desperately needs reform.

“A fairer, more proportionate and flexible system should be developed that protects the public without unduly harming people’s opportunity to get on in life. We hope that the Supreme Court will reject the Government’s appeal. We stand ready to work with the Government to reform and implement a system that takes a more calibrated and targeted approach towards disclosing criminal records.”

Rosie Brighouse, Lawyer for Liberty and solicitor for P, one of the individuals in the case, said:

“The criminal records disclosure scheme has twice been ruled unlawful – but instead of putting in place the urgent reform that’s so desperately needed, the Government has chosen to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

“All P wants to do is move forward with her life. She is unable to do so because of two extremely minor offences committed nearly 20 years ago. We hope judges will agree that this situation is deeply unfair and disproportionate, and that it’s time for the Government to put things right.”

ENDS

Notes

Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence.
There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account.
Unlock’s report, A life sentence for young people, was published in May 2018 and can be downloaded at https://unlock.org.uk//youth-criminal-records-report/
Unlock has published a briefing on the DBS filtering process – available to download at https://unlock.org.uk//wp-content/uploads/misc/DBS-filtering-Briefing-May-2018.pdf
Unlock is represented in these appeals by Salima Budhani and Theodora Middleton, Bindmans LLP, and barristers Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jesse Nicholls, Doughty Street Chambers.
There is no date for when the judgment will be handed down. It is not likely to be until late 2018, at the earliest.

About the cases

These appeals consist of 4 cases: P, G, W (appeals from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales) and Gallagher (an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland). In all four cases, the Government is appealing, having lost in the Court of Appeal. There are summaries of the cases on Unlock’s website – https://unlock.org.uk//policy-issues/specific-policy-issues/filtering/cases-challenging-dbs-filtering-system/

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 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 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.

New research finds thousands of people every year struggle because of youth criminal records from decades ago

Unlock, the country’s leading charity for people with convictions, has today published research on the impact of criminal records acquired in childhood and early adulthood.

New data in the report, A life sentence for young people, shows that hundreds of thousands of people are being affected every year, and often many decades later, because of mistakes they made when they were children or young adults. In the last 5 years alone, over 2.25 million youth criminal records were disclosed on standard/enhanced checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) that were over 15 years old.

Commenting on the report, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“This report shines a spotlight on the sheer number of very old and minor criminal records being routinely and unnecessarily disclosed on standard and enhanced DBS checks, raising serious questions about the effectiveness of the criminal record disclosure regime and in particular the DBS filtering process.

“From employment, volunteering and studying at university, to travelling abroad and buying home insurance, this report shows how a criminal record represents a significant barrier to thousands of people, even decades later. In the last 5 years, nearly 1 million youth criminal records on standard/enhanced checks were over 30 years old. This shows that the regime is in desperate need for reform.

“That’s why we’ve today launched a CrowdJustice appeal. Money raised will help cover Unlock’s legal costs for intervening in a landmark Supreme Court case next month. We will make sure that the court understands the importance of the issue, the failings of the current system, and how it could be changed for the better.”

The report was featured today by the Guardian.

Key findings in the report

In the last 5 years alone on standard/enhanced DBS checks:

Nearly 850,000 people have been affected by the disclosure of a youth criminal record on a standard/enhanced check.
Over 3.5 million youth criminal records have been disclosed
Over three-quarters of youth criminal records disclosed (almost 2.75 million) were over 10 years old.
Over 2.25 million youth criminal records disclosed were over 15 years old.
Nearly 1 million youth criminal records disclosed were over 30 years old.

CrowdJustice appeal

Today’s report coincides with the charity launching a crowdfunding appeal to help raise money to pay for the charity’s legal costs in intervening a landmark Supreme Court case next month.

In June, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the Government which is arguing that their current approach to disclosing old and minor criminal record on standard and enhanced DBS checks, often decades later, is fair. Unlock disagrees. In fact, a criminal record that someone gets in their youth can, in effect, be a life sentence of stigma and discrimination.

This is the first time in its 18-year history that Unlock has intervened in a legal case.

Update: We are pleased that we reached our crowdfunding target. Thank you for your support.

Notes

Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence.
There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account.
The report is available to download at https://unlock.org.uk//wp-content/uploads/misc/youth-criminal-records-report-2018.pdf. A summary of the report can be downloaded here.
Unlock has been granted permission by the Supreme Court to intervene in the case. We want to put forward strong arguments on behalf of everyone who is unfairly affected by the criminal records disclosure regime because of its blunt rules which result in, for example, indefinite disclosure in all cases where someone was convicted of more than one offence, no matter how old or minor those offences were. Intervening will help us to make sure that the Supreme Court understands the importance of the issue, the failings of the current system, and how it could be changed for the better. So we’re raising money now to pay for the legal costs that will help us to do this.

Case studies

Under the current system for jobs involving standard or enhanced DBS checks, Michael & Anita’s criminal record will be disclosed for the rest of their lives

Michael (not his real name)

When he was 17, Michael was convicted of theft of a coat from a market stall. He was fined £30. Ten months later, 23 days after turning 18, he was convicted of stealing a motor cycle and driving without insurance. He was fined £50 and sentenced to 24 hours at an attendance centre. That was 36 years ago; he’s come a long way since then. He’s now in his fifties. However, Michael’s long-forgotten past has come back to haunt him and he’s concerned about his work as a finance director. He could lose his job and a career that he’s worked hard for.

Anita (not her real name)

When she was 11, she was playing with a lighter in the girls’ bathroom at school and set a toilet roll alight causing around £100 of damage. She was arrested for Arson and told that the reprimand she was given would come off her record when she turned 19. Then after months of being bullied in secondary school, she was involved in a fight. She and the other pupil were both arrested for Actual Bodily Harm. She was encouraged by the police to accept a reprimand rather than challenge it in court and was told it would come off her record in five years. Now nearly in her thirties, she’s a qualified English teacher. However, not only was her record not removed like she was told it would be, but her two reprimands come up on enhanced DBS checks and will do under the current DBS rules for the rest of her life. The hopelessness of trying to find work has led her to working abroad and to bouts of depression and anxiety.

Unlock letter to Justice Committee on Government’s response to report on youth criminal records

Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ) have written to the Justice Select Committee (JSC) regarding our concerns over the Government’s response to the JSC’s inquiry into the disclosure of childhood criminal records.

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, sets out our concerns that the Government is using the Supreme Court case on DBS check filtering, expected to be heard in June, as an excuse for not addressing the recommendations made by the JSC.

The letter also discusses specific concerns, for example that the proposed new guidance by the Government on criminal records disclosure will simply have to be reviewed once reform takes place. We ask the Government to publish the Civil Service’s Ban the Box implementation plan, and to commit to undertake research into the costs of unemployment among people with a criminal record, as recommended in the Lammy review. We also raise concerns around clarifications needed in housing allocation guidance.

The full letter is available here.

Press release – Criminal records regime is failing children and young people and anchoring them to their past for decades

Unlock responds to Justice Committee report into disclosure of youth criminal records

In response to today’s Justice Committee report into the disclosure of youth criminal records, Unlock, a leading independent charity for people with convictions, is calling on the government to drop its legal appeal and get on with reforming the criminal records regime.

Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, who gave evidence to the Committee, said:

“Today’s report from the Justice Committee shows how the current approach to disclosing criminal records is failing children and young people who get caught up in the criminal justice system. Their lives are being dogged by a minor criminal record for decades, often for life, and it anchors people to their past.

“Thousands of people contact us every year because of problems they’re facing as a result of minor criminal records acquired in childhood and early adulthood. There is now overwhelming evidence that the government’s approach to criminal records disclosure needs to change. In the last year alone, there have been three significant reports that together set out the case for reforming the regime while maintaining public protection and safeguarding.

“The government is the criminal one here. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the current criminal records regime is blunt, disproportionate and not in accordance with the law. The government is dragging its heels by appealing to the Supreme Court and it is clearly not listening to the compelling evidence that shows the significant and unnecessary barriers to rehabilitation that the current regime is creating. The fact that someone has disclose two shoplifting offences from when they were 15, 40 years ago shows that the government needs to take immediate steps to respond to this problem. We’re calling on the government to drop its legal appeal and instead immediately focus its resources towards reforming the criminal records regime.

“A fairer and more flexible system for disclosing records on standard and enhanced criminal record checks would be one with expanded automatic filtering rules and a discretionary filtering process with a review mechanism so that individual circumstances can be considered before cautions and convictions are disclosed. This would enable those with old and minor criminal records to move on positively with their lives and to more easily gain employment.

“For jobs not involving basic criminal record checks, the Criminal Records Bill, a Private Members’ Bill from Unlock’s President, Lord Ramsbotham, reflects a broad consensus for the need to reduce the rehabilitation periods for both adult and child custodial sentences. We urge the government to support this Bill when it reaches its second reading in the House of Lords.

“It is common sense that, while certain offences need to be disclosed to employers, we should not be unnecessarily blighting the lives of people who are trying to get on in life by disclosing old, minor or irrelevant information that holds them back and stops them from reaching their potential.

“We are committed to continuing our work with government, the DBS, employers and other key stakeholders to drive forward these much needed reforms.”

Chair of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, Ali Wigzell, said:

“The Committee’s findings should act as a rallying cry for reform: a system that creates barriers to children turning their lives around is destructive and not in the interests of society. It urgently needs to change.

“Young lives are being ruined by a ham-fisted and draconian criminal records regime that goes far beyond what is necessary to protect the public.

“This is the third expert body to urge reform of the childhood criminal records system in less than a year. The government should listen to its experts, stop wasting taxpayers’ money on fighting its unnecessary legal case – which has cost at least £160,000 so far – and take immediate action to reform the system instead.”

ENDS

Notes

Unlock is an independent, award-winning national charity that provides a voice and support for people with convictions who are facing stigma and obstacles because of their criminal record, often long after they have served their sentence.
There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account.
We asked the Justice Committee to look at this issue.
As part of the Justice Committee’s short inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records we took a small group of people with convictions to a private session to give evidence.
We submitted written evidence to the inquiry.
A copy of the Justice Committee’s report into the disclosure of youth criminal records is available online at parliament.uk/justicecttee (from Friday 27th October).
Names of case studies below have been changed to protect identities.

Background

Over 240,000 standard and enhanced DBS checks every year disclose convictions or cautions. Since the filtering scheme was introduced in 2013, it’s helped some people with old and minor records to be free of the stigma and discrimination that so many face when they have something they have to disclose to an employer. However, the current system doesn’t go far enough. It operates with inflexible rules meaning that, for example, someone with more than one conviction on their record will have to disclose all of their convictions indefinitely, regardless of the nature or circumstances of the conviction or the length of time that has since passed. The system acts as an additional sentence that often runs for life. It desperately needs reform.
In September 2015 Charlie Taylor was asked to lead a departmental review of the youth justice system for the Ministry of Justice. The Taylor Review, published in December 2016, recommended significant reform of the childhood criminal records system, including shortening rehabilitation periods and preventing many childhood cautions and convictions from being disclosed once they are “spent”. Mr Taylor’s report is available here, paragraphs 82-89 cover criminal records reform.
In 2016 the then Prime Minister David Cameron asked David Lammy MP to conduct a review into bias against Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic minorities. In September 2017, he published the Lammy Review, which included recommendations to introduce a system of “sealing” criminal records, with a presumption “to look favourably on those who committed crimes either as children or young adults but can demonstrate that they have changed since their conviction”.
In July 2016 the Law Commission were asked by the Home Office to review one specific aspect of the criminal records disclosure system, known as “filtering”. The Law Commission published its report in February 2017 and stated that “the present system raises significant concerns in relation to ECHR non-compliance and, what may be considered to be, the overly harsh outcomes stemming from a failure to incorporate either proportionality or relevance into disclosure decisions….This is an area of law in dire need of thorough and expert analysis. A mere technical fix is not sufficient to tackle such interwoven and large scale problems.”
In May 2017, the Government lost the case R (P, G and W) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others [2017] EWCA Civ 321, in the Court of Appeal. The case was about the legality of the criminal records filtering system, particularly the “multiple conviction rule and the serious offence rule”, which the Court found to be incompatible with the human right to privacy and ruled that the current system was disproportionate. The Government has appealed the case to the Supreme Court and the hearing is listed to be heard in June 2018. A summary of the cases before the courts can be found here.

Case study – Anita

I am a 27 year old qualified English teacher. Since going into teaching, I have faced many hurdles because of the childhood mistakes I made. When I was 11 years old I set fire to some toilet roll in the school bathroom, there was a small amount of damage (my parents had to pay a fine of £200). I was given a reprimand for Arson and was told that it would come off my record after 5 years, or when I turned 19. Later, when I turned 15 years old I had a fight in the school playground with another pupil. In my defence, it was a result of bullying I had received for many years prior to this. The other girl’s mother called the police and I was, again, arrested, this time for ABH. The police convinced my parents to just accept the reprimand rather than take it to court and fight it, as it would come off in 5 years. Because of my chosen profession, I have had to declare these offences EVERY time I apply for a job in the UK. I was almost removed from my teaching course a year into my degree because they found out I had a criminal record when I had a DBS prior to my teaching placement. Needless to say, I got my degree and did extremely well, receiving excellent feedback for my teaching. When I realised that my records were not going to go away but would stay for life I decided I would leave the UK to teach for a few years, because I was so embarrassed by it.

Since returning to the UK, almost a year ago, I have had to deal with so much stigma. I have applied to many teaching positions, and have not heard anything back, despite attending a return to teaching course. I am now teaching adults on a part-time basis at a college and had to be vetted by a stranger on the reasons why I did the crimes. I was planning to get more experience within schools on the other days of the week by doing supply work. My supply agency has just informed me that many schools do not want someone with a criminal record working at their school.

This is something I feel is unfair. This piece of paper (the DBS) represents me. It’s the first thing my future employers see. Of course they judge me, I have TWO violent offences which brand me. Do I really need to leave the career I am so passionate about?

I have suffered with depression and anxiety issues as a result of my past, which I desperately want to forget. I am a good citizen now, and would not dream of doing the things I did as a child.

Case study – David

At 16 I dropped out of school and started hanging around the wrong people, shoplifting and being anti-social became the everyday thing. By the time I was 18 I ended up in court being sent to a young offender’s institute. When I had finished my sentence I struggled to find any work and found myself long term unemployed. By time I turned 24 I was in debt and got caught for handling stolen property where I ended up spending 3 months in prison.

The whole of my twenties I struggled to find employment, applying for hundreds of jobs only to be turned down because of my convictions. When I did find work it was often just short term or as and when. In my early thirties after my convictions became spent I started to find more opportunities and meeting people who were willing to give me a chance.

I am now in my forties, I have gained many different qualifications including two degrees, worked in positions of trust including working with ex-offenders and joined the military but despite all this I still find I am being judged when applying for certain job roles and even to this day have found myself discriminated against for having a criminal record.

Case study – Jane

Jane’s retaliation against a school bully had led to her receiving a police warning for actual bodily harm at the age of 15. As a result, her university place to study nursing was revoked. She appealed against the decision, which involved writing a disclosure statement explaining the circumstances of the warning to a risk assessment panel. After qualifying, she eventually obtained employment in nursing but has found career progression difficult because of her criminal record, which she is continually having to explain.

Case study – Kate

At the age of 16, Kate took the decision to move out of her family home and began renting a room from somebody she’d met through a friend. After she’d been there for three months and, without any warning, she returned home from college to find that her landlady had thrown the majority of her possessions out of the house and onto the street.

Realising that not all of her possessions had been returned, Kate went back to the house to pick them up. This resulted in an argument with her former landlady and Kate leaving empty handed after the landlady started to physically attack her. Several days later her parents received a phone call from the police asking Kate to report to the police station as soon as possible.

Kate said: “My father accompanied me but was not allowed in the interview room. We asked if I needed legal representation and was advised by the policeman that I would get home a lot quicker without it and that it wasn’t necessary. I gave the police a detailed and honest account of events but it was apparent that the woman whose room I had rented had not and I was subsequently arrested for common assault”.

In court Kate was found guilty of using violence to enter the premises and battery and had to pay compensation of £100.

That was over 10 years ago now. Since then, Kate has successfully completed a degree in social work at university. She has applied for several social work positions and been invited to interviews where she has been told that she was an outstanding candidate and been offered the job. However, as her convictions do not meet the eligibility for filtering (she has two) every job offer has been revoked as soon as she has disclosed her convictions.

Case study – James

I was convicted of ABH 37 years ago, 1979. It sounds really bad but it was in self-defence protecting a pregnant woman from assault. I was 18 years old.

The magistrate said it was commendable, however I took the law in to my own hands. It was not premeditated, I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, like most people. I received a 1 year conditional discharge and a fine of £75 in May 1979.

I note on the filtering list that this offence has to stay on. Why? It was 37 years ago and I have never been in trouble since. I got educated so I could get well paid and look after my loved ones, I feel so bad about this being disclosed as I work in private education and recently I had to do a self-certification for the school. They knew about my conviction because it came up on the DBS prior to appointment. You may think I am being over sensitive but it really does affect me privately. I cannot prove it, but it has also held me back on occasions when applying for jobs.

I know on at least five job applications I have applied for and met every detail of the job specification, qualifications and experience to do the job and because I was honest i.e. declared my conviction, I never even got an interview!

I understand the police wish to keep it on their PNC and oddly enough I agree with that, but surely after 37 years I shouldn’t have to declare the offence on a DBS, I am completely rehabilitated, happy family man who made one error when I was 18 years old.

Case study – Hilary

When she was 19, Hilary was found guilty of possession of a prohibited weapon and prohibited ammunition after her then boyfriend forced her to hide them in her handbag as they travelled in a car together and were pulled over by the police. When the case went to court, she received a 2 year conditional discharge.

At the time of going to court, Hilary had been studying for a law degree but believed that as a result of her criminal record she would find it difficult to convince the Law Society that she would be a suitable candidate to enter the legal profession.

After eight years of moving from one mediocre job to another, Hilary took a short course in counselling skills and realised that she wanted to undertake further study in this field. However, she was worried that she could potentially be wasting time, effort and money if her conditional discharge meant that she would never be allowed to practise.

Another ten years passed before the filtering provisions were introduced in May 2013. Hilary believed that her conditional discharge would be eligible for filtering and contacted the Disclosure and Barring Service to find out whether she needed to make a request in writing. The DBS explained that although her offence was likely to be eligible for filtering, and although it resulted in a conditional discharge and not a conviction, this would be treated as multiple offences. They also confirmed that conditional discharges were treated as convictions for the purposes of filtering, so they wouldn’t be filtered.

Hilary said: “I continue to study but I do worry that I may just be wasting my time and will be left disappointed again. There are job opportunities that I just allow to pass me by without even trying because of my belief that I will be judged and discriminated against. I hate having to relive my conviction every time I attend a job interview. I really wish the filtering system could be reformed to allow people like me the chance to move on from their past and not be haunted by it every time the opportunity to pursue a dream job comes up”.

Watch our oral evidence to the Justice Committee inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records

Earlier today co-director, Christopher Stacey, gave evidence to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records.

You can watch the session here or below.

More information

Posts about our work on youth criminal records can be found here.
The specific details of the inquiry are here
There are more general details about the work of the Justice Committee here

Justice Committee hears first-hand experiences of people with convictions

Today we took a small group of people with convictions to a private session with the Justice Committee as part of their short inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records.

We’re grateful to everybody who took part, and we have no doubt it will have helped committee members better understand the issues as they look into this issue and make recommendations in 2017.

Youth justice review recommends reformed criminal records system for children

“A reformed criminal records system for children”

That’s the recommendation of Charlie Taylor, whose review into youth justice was published today.

In a wide-ranging review, there’s a specific section on criminal records (pages 25 and 26).

He proposes that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office should:

“Develop a distinct approach to how childhood offending is treated by the criminal records system. (Paragraph 85)
This should include:

consideration of distinguishing between under-15s and 15-17 year olds in terms of the retention and disclosure implications of offending; (Paragraph 86)
further reductions in the periods before which childhood convictions become spent; (Paragraph 87)
all childhood offending (with the exception of the most serious offences)
becoming non-disclosable after a period of time; (Paragraph 88) and
the circumstances in which police intelligence on childhood conduct can be disclosed being further restricted. The Home Office should consider the introduction of a presumption that police intelligence dating from childhood should not be disclosed except in exceptional circumstances. (Paragraph 89)”

In its response, the government said:

“We recognise that criminal records in childhood can impact on future life chances. However, there are a number of cases before the courts in relation to disclosure policy as it currently stands. We also look forward to the findings of the current inquiry being carried out by the Justice Select Committee in this area. We intend to work with the Home Office to consider these and the Taylor Review’s recommendations more fully following the Court’s judgement.”

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, said:

“We very much welcome the proposals for reform to childhood criminal records that Charlie Taylor has set out in his report. We encourage the government to undertake proactive work in making these recommendations a reality. The ongoing legal cases challenge a narrow aspect of the system and could be settled if the government withdrew its appeal against the January 2016 ruling in the High Court. Regardless of this, there is a pressing need for work to be undertaken in the meantime, ready for when the Court of Appeal makes it judgement in 2017, and we stand ready to work positively with government on this important issue.”

Useful links

We submitted evidence to the review in May 2016
The review, alongside the government’s response, can be downloaded from Gov.uk.

Our evidence to the Justice Committee inquiry into Youth Criminal Records published

Our written evidence to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of youth criminal records has been published on the Parliament website.

Alongside a number of recommendations, we’ve included five anonymous personal experiences. Next week, we’re taking a small group of people to Westminster to share their personal stories with MP’s on the Committee.

The specific details of the inquiry are here

There are more general details about the work of the Justice Committee here

Justice Committee inquiry into youth criminal records – have your say!

We’re pleased that, after joint efforts by Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice (SCYJ), the Justice Committee has launched a short inquiry into the system governing the disclosure of criminal records in relation to offences committed by people when under 18 years old. Given the Committee’s recent inquiry into young adults in the criminal justice system, the Committee also welcomes views on whether the regime governing disclosure of such criminal records should be extended to apply to records of offences committed by older people, for example up to the ages of 21 or 25.

The inquiry is an opportunity to build on the work we’ve been doing with the SCYJ as part of the ‘Growing up, moving on’ campaign, which was launched in April 2016.

It’s also a good opportunity to explain the disproportionate impact that criminal records have on people that obtain them in early adulthood, and to make the case for this to be reflected in the way disclosure laws operate.

In particular, the Committee welcomes written submissions on:

The appropriateness and effectiveness of the statutory framework applying to the disclosure to employers and others of criminal records relating to offences committed by people when under 18 years old
whether that framework and the way in which it is operated in practice strike an appropriate balance between protection of employers and the public, on the one hand, and the rehabilitation of people committing offences when young, on the other hand
the effects in respect of the disclosure of such records of changes made in 2013 to the filtering of offences from criminal records checks and in 2014 to rehabilitation periods.

The deadline is Friday 11th November 2016.

What can you do?

It’s important that as many individuals and organisations put forward their evidence, comments and experiences on the disclosure of youth criminal records. This is the best way to help the Committee to understand the extent of the issue.

In particular, we think it’s extremely important that the inquiry receives evidence from those people with personal experience of having a criminal record from when they were young. For those who find that it continues to hold them back, or created a significant barrier to them moving on, these personal stories can help MP’s on the Committee to understand the problem and identify what needs to change.

We’re in the process of putting together a response, so if you’re planning to submit evidence to the Committee, please let us know and send us copies of the evidence you submit. Email policy@unlock.org.uk.

Further information

Details about the Justice Committee inquiry are on the Parliament website.

Details about our policy work on rehabilitation periods.

Details about our policy work on filtering.

Unlock submits evidence to review of Youth Justice

Today we have published our submission to the review of youth justice.

Our submission focuses on criminal records, disclosure and young people.