For people with criminal records
The Civil Aviation Authority are responsible for regulating the aviation sector.
The National Aviation Security Program (NASP) requires a basic criminal record disclosure for certain roles. This shows unspent convictions only.
There is a detailed section outlining their approach towards people with convictions.
The focus of this information is in registering to become a childminder with a criminal record.
For anybody thinking about becoming a childminder, you will need an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check in order to register with Ofsted. This will be used to assist Ofsted in making a decision as to whether you should be allowed to practice as a childminder.
Although Ofsted give little guidance on how they deal with criminal records, in general they will treat each case on its own merits. It’s important however to know what may disqualify you from becoming a childminder. On the Ofsted website, there is guidance on registration to the Childcare register.
You’ll need to register with Ofsted if you’re a childminder and paid to look after children under the age of 8 for more than 2 days in your home.
You don’t need to register if you:
Further information about registration exemptions can be found here.
Even if there’s no legal requirement for you to do so, there may be some advantage to registering.
Prior to applying for registration you will need to:
Some people are disqualified from registering as a childminder with Ofsted. This is either because they, or somebody they live with has been:
If you are disqualified as a result of your own criminal record or the criminal record of somebody that lives or works in your household (referred to as ‘disqualification by association’) you will need to apply for a waiver from Ofsted before you can work as a childminder.
When coming to a decision about your suitability, Ofsted will consider some of the following:
If, after reviewing your application and carrying out an interview and inspection of your home, your application is successful, Ofsted will issue you with a registration certificate.
Should Ofsted decide to refuse your registration, a ‘notice of intention to refuse’ will be sent to you. If no response or objection is received within 14 days of the notice, a ‘notice of decision to refuse registration’ will be sent, together with information on how to appeal.
Read and share your experiences on our online forum.
Below you will find links to useful websites relating to this page. More specific details (including addresses and telephone numbers) of some of the organisations listed below can be found here.
Help us to add value to this information. You can:
This is a short information page about becoming a local councillor. The aim of this page is to provide further clarification around eligibility, especially if you have been sentenced to a custodial sentence.
It forms part of our information section on looking for (and keeping) employment and volunteering.
You can be a councillor as long as you are:
You can’t be a councillor if you:
If you are already a local councillor and receive a three month custodial sentence or more (including suspended sentences) you will automatically lose your seat.
If you’re looking to stand in an election to become a local councillor, the Local Government Act 1972 (section 80) states that if you have been convicted and received a prison sentence (or suspended sentence) of three months or more in the five years before the election, you are unable to stand in the election.
This ‘5 year rule’ applies even if the prison (or suspended) sentence becomes spent. This is because of section 7 (1)(d) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
For example, in May 2015, you wish to stand for election as a local councillor. In January 2012, you were sentenced as an adult to a prison sentence of 4 months. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, this conviction becomes spent 2 years after the end of the sentence, so May 2014. However, because you have been given a sentence of more than 3 months within the previous 5 years to the election, you are disqualified for that election.
However, the disqualification criteria doesn’t apply to non-prison criminal convictions, nor does it apply after 5 years has passed since the conviction, even if the conviction remains unspent.
Detailed information on becoming a councillor is available at www.beacouncillor.org.uk.
In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that individuals should be able to request the deletion or removal of personal data published online where there is no compelling reason for it to remain. This right to erasure is often referred to as ‘the right to be forgotten’.
This page sets out how to request the removal of online information and how you can appeal the decision if an online search engine refuses your request.
Once your conviction is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, there is no legal obligation for you to disclose it when applying for the majority of jobs. However, information on the internet can stay around, long after a conviction becomes spent.
We’re aware that some employers will do ‘Google’ searches as a way of informally checking someone’s criminal record. If there are stories on the internet which relate to your conviction, an employer may be able to find out more about you than they are legally entitled to know.
If you’re aware of any links to your name on the internet and your conviction is spent, it’s definitely worth applying to have the links removed. If your application is successful, then you can be confident that any future employer or work colleague who searches for your name on the internet, won’t be able to find any information relating to your criminal record.
In May 2014, Google launched a system whereby individuals can request information about them be removed from Google’s search results. This came about because of a ruling on the 13th May by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google’s search results infringed his privacy. The court found in his favour, which has already had wide-reaching consequences for search engines like Google.
The ruling only covers the removing of the search results – the information will still exist on the website that published the original article but Google won’t be able to deliver matches to some enquiries that are entered. Deletion of the original information would still be the responsibility of the website owner, and in our experience, it’s very rare that websites agree to remove details relating to convictions (see more in reporting of criminal records in the media).
Information will only disappear from searches made in Europe. Queries piped through its sites outside the EU will still show the relevant search results.
However, many people are still seeing the ruling as a potential way of dealing with the ‘google effect’ that often haunts people for lots of different reasons, and our Helpline and Forum have already seen this being raised by quite a few people when it comes to past convictions that have been reported online. So the important question for us is whether it will actually help people with convictions?
Under the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ anyone in the UK and EU can make a request to Google (and other search engines) to have information about themselves removed. For the first time, this ruling and the Right to Erasure provides individuals with a legal mechanism through which news articles, images, videos and other digital content can be removed.
In 2022, Google delisted approximately 56% of the “right to be forgotten” requests it received. The percentage of successful requests varied depending on the type of information concerned:
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in their “Court reporting: What to expect – Information for the public guidance”, have also made reference to the removal of links stating:
“If your convictions have been ‘spent’, you may have legal rights to have links to articles about these convictions to be removed from search engines. If you make a formal request to an internet search engine directly, they may remove these articles from search results.”
Google state that they always comply with their legal requirement to remove pages from Google search results and encourage individuals and authorities to contact them if they believe the continued publication of information violates the law.
Google summarises it’s approach as follows:
“We will balance the privacy rights of the individual concerned with the interest of the general public in having access to the information, as well as the right of others to distribute the information. For example, we may decline to remove certain information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials”.
From our point of view, we strongly believe that once a conviction is spent, this should be removed from the internet (on request). Otherwise, protections that are afforded under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are undermined.
It’s highly unlikely that Google will be willing to remove search results that relate to unspent criminal convictions.
Back in 2014, the ICO looked at what the ruling meant for people in the UK. In a blog post, a particular point they made was that;
“It is also important to remember that the exemption for journalism, art and literature under Schedule 2, part 5 (26) of the Data Protection Act 2018 can be applied by media organisations, bloggers and other publishers of information, depending on the circumstances. What this is not, then, is a full or absolute ‘right to be forgotten’.”
This casts doubt over to what extent Google (and others) will remove details such as convictions, where media organisations have claimed a legitimate exemption of the basis of journalism.
The Article 29 Working Party (which the ICO is part of) Guidelines on the implementation of the Courts judgement, gives a good indication as to how the ICO will treat complaints that it deals with. The ICO has also published their search result delisting criteria.
As part of Google’s current system, you have to do a couple of things.
Firstly, you have to provide the URL links for each link appearing in a Google search.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, you have to explain why the search result is “irrelevant, outdated, or otherwise inappropriate”. At the moment, the clearest argument is that your convictions are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and so in most cases, you can treat it as if it had never happened. You should look to put forward any other reasons why you think it meets the definition of “irrelevant, outdated or inappropriate”. Until we begin to see examples of what’s worked and what hasn’t, it’s difficult to give much more guidance at this stage. The ‘representation box’ only allows you to use 1000 characters so you’ll need to keep your argument short and succinct.
Thirdly, you have to provide proof of your identity. Some people have expressed concern to us about this last point. However, we have no reason to think that this should put people off – ultimately, if your information is already available online, this application process cannot make things worse!
We have devised a search engine removal request template which can be used as a guide to completing the online form.
If you’re interested in making an application to Google, the online form is available here.
Once you have a decision from Google, if they refuse your application, we would advise people to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
If you decide to make a complaint to the ICO regarding Google’s refusal to remove a link then, the ICO will consider your request based on a set of criteria. If they believe that any links should be removed they will contact Google and ask them to de-list the information. Google will either agree with the ICO removing the link or refuse and refer back to the ICO.
If Google inform the ICO that they are refusing to remove a link after a request is made, the ICO will review the matter under their case review process with the involvement of senior colleagues, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case and arguments presented by all parties in order to decide whether the original decision was correct.
Where the ICO agrees with Google and decides that the link does not have to be removed from their search engine, you can still make an application to the court under section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018, seeking an order that the court is satisfied there has been an infringement of your rights under the data protection legislation. The court would reach its own view as to whether they are satisfied there has been an infringement of your rights under the act. If you pursue this option you may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Having reviewed the overall circumstances of the case, we have concluded that it is appropriate to amend our assessment and we consider the search results likely to comply with the Data Protection Act. Therefore the ICO will not be requiring Google to delist the search results.
Although we recognise that the conviction is now deemed ‘spent’ for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and we take this into account, we must also consider the public interest in the availability of information about criminal convictions. Our published criteria explain that we are less likely to require the delisting of information about serious offences, and we consider sex offences involving minors to fall into this category.
While a number of years have passed since the conviction, we consider there to be a significant degree of public interest in the availability of information about convictions of this nature and on balance we consider this to mean the information in the search results remains relevant. In reaching this view, we also take account of the fact that you held a position of trust at the time the offences took place.
We recognise that the availability of the search results may be detrimental to you, but the right to have search results delisted is not absolute and does not necessarily entitle individuals to have negative information about them removed. When reaching decisions we must also take into consideration the relevance of the information to the public interest, which in this case we consider to be significant for the reasons I have explained. We have concluded that the original decision provided to you did not adequately take account of these factors.
Whilst the above refers to a sex offence, this does not mean you cannot apply to have your link removed if you have a spent conviction for a sex offence. You need to be aware that under ‘public interest’ a decision could be made that will result in your application to have your link removed declined.
This problem isn’t new, and regardless of this new system, many people with convictions will continue to experience difficulties because of their convictions being reported online.
One option that some people look at is changing their name. Although this doesn’t get you away from your criminal record (because if an employer does a criminal record check, depending on whether your convictions are spent, and depending on the level of check, it will still come back) it does prevent people from getting access to information that they would otherwise not be allowed to (e.g. spent convictions if the job is covered by the ROA).
Another option that some people look at is trying to flood the internet with alternative, positive, stories about them, to ‘force down’ the reports that relate to their convictions.
There are many companies offering services to repair your online profile by replacing negative search results with positive coverage. Some of these can be very expensive, often tying you in to long term contracts and only doing what you can do yourself.
Details of a couple of organisations we would recommend can be found in the useful links section below.
The personal stories below have been posted on our website.
Success with dealing with the ‘google-effect’ – Sam explains how her life has been turned around since Google agreed to remove links to her name
I got the link to my sexual offence conviction removed from a search engine
Read and share your experiences on our online forum.
Key sections include:
Below you will find links to useful websites relating to this page. More specific details (including addresses and telephone numbers) of some of the organisations listed below can be found here.
This page was last fully reviewed and updated in October 2024. If you’ve spotted something that needs updating, please let us know by emailing the details to advice@unlock.org.uk
This page lists those employers that we’re aware of that have particularly negative policies towards people with convictions. This links to our work to support and challenge employers.
Against each employer, we briefly explain why we think their policy is particularly negative.
If you come across an employer with a particularly negative policy, please let us know – email the details (in confidence) to debbie.sadler@unlock.org.uk.
Please note: We are focusing on this page on companies that have negative or blanket policies. Although a company may have refused to employ an individual with a criminal record, this may not necessarily be because of a particularly negative policy, but rather the result of a case-by-case approach. On this page we are looking for general policies or statements that indicate that employers take blanket approaches towards criminal records. However, some employers publicly claim to have a case-by-case approach, when in reality there is little consideration of individual circumstances. In these situations, where may include the company here and explain the reasons for doing so.
Amazon has told us that they have a policy of not employing people with unspent convictions.
In a response on Twitter in August 2016, DHL Express UK said “DHL Express won’t employ anyone with a criminal conviction”.
E.ON told us that they have a policy of not knowingly employing people with unspent convictions.
Royal Mail has a long list of offences which, if unspent, means that you won’t be employed by them. This type of ‘blanket’ policy is something we try to encourage employers against. This list can be found under the Criminal Convictions page of the Royal Mail website.
Mitchells & Butlers Plc runs approximately 1784 pubs, bars and restaurants. Included in their brand is Vintage Inns, Harvester, Toby Carvery, All Bar One, as well as several others. Mitchells & Butlers have confirmed to us that “they do not have a blanket policy of not employing people who have a conviction. Those with spent convictions are welcome to apply, like anyone else, however it is our policy to not consider those with unspent convictions”.
FCA approval is required for positions which perform a ‘controlled function’. This function is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and is therefore eligible for a standard DBS check.
The aim of this page is to set out how your criminal record might affect your application to be FCA approved.
It’s part of our information on looking for (and keeping) employment and volunteering.
It’s important to understand whether a role you are applying for is regarded as a ‘controlled function’ and therefore eligible for a standard DBS check. If it is eligible then being clear about what you need to disclose and how it is likely to be dealt with will hopefully improve your chances of success.
We worked in the FCA in 2014 to update their website with information on the types of roles are regarded as ‘controlled functions‘. The website now has some additional explanation, explaining some general rules of thumb about what constitutes a controlled function (in addition to the descriptive list of titles).
It’s not possible to state which roles do not require FCA approval, but the FCA has offered that anyone with spent convictions who is unclear about whether a role requires approval, and therefore a standard check, can ring the FCA for guidance on their particular case.
Contact details for the FCA are:
UK: 0845 606 9966 (call rates may vary), 0300 500 0597
From abroad: +44 20 7066 1000
Email: firm.queries@fca.org.uk
Not all controlled functions apply to all companies, and it may not be necessary for organisations to have all employees approved by the FCA.
A company that only deals with mortgages and/or general insurance business, does not need to apply for every individual in the company to be approved to advise on mortgages and general insurance products. It would be enough for one individual (for example a director) in the company to be approved.
A retailer whose main business is not financial services but who sells insurance policies will only need approval for the person who holds a senior management role and overseas systems and controls.
Details on what will be disclosed on a standard DBS check can be found here. Further FCA guidance around disclosure can be found on the FCA site under disclosing criminal convictions.
It’s important that you disclose everything that you need to disclose when you apply. Find out whether your cautions or convictions are eligible for filtering before you complete your application. Being open and honest will count in your favour and the success of your application could be affected if the FCA find that you have withheld information or provided false or incomplete facts. If you are in any doubt about what’s on your criminal record then apply for a Subject Access Request so that you’ll be clear about what’s going to be disclosed.
The FCA took over from the FSA in 2013. The FCA doesn’t have any specific documentation available publicly about who they will grant approval to, but details of the FSA’s approach to people with criminal convictions is detailed in Applications for approval – our approach to adverse disclosures.
Every applicant will be considered on their fitness and propriety. The most important considerations will be:
The FCA will review each application on a case-by-case basis and will consider:
Yes. Anybody performing a governing function for an appointed representative must be an approved person.
However, for appointed representatives that carry out general insurance business, incidental to their main business (for example, a vet recommending specific pet insurance), only one person in the company needs to be an approved person. That person should be a director (or equivalent).
The personal stories below have been posted on theRecord, our online magazine.
Read and share your experiences on our online forum.
Key sections include:
Below you will find links to useful websites relating to this page. More specific details (including addresses and telephone numbers) of some of the organisations listed below can be found here.
Help us to add value to this information. You can:
This is a short information page about applying for a shotgun or firearms licence.
It forms part of our information section on other areas of life affected by a criminal record.
To apply for a shotgun or firearms licence, you must apply to your local Police force. For an example of this, see the Sussex Police Firearms Licensing page.
For further information about the application process, have a look at the GOV.UK website here.
Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibits a person from possession of any type of firearm if you have been given a custodial sentence when convicted of a criminal offence.
The prohibition may be lifted on application to the Crown Court. For further advice you should consult a solicitor.
All previous convictions must be declared on the application form. It is an offence under Section 28A(7) of the Firearms Acts 1968-1997 to make a false declaration when answering this question. You are not permitted to withhold previous convictions by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1975 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (see notes in Part A on the application form).
Not all convictions are relevant but your age when they were committed and the length of time without re-offending are factors which are considered in addition to the seriousness of the offence.
The police will also ask for details of cautions/convictions of any person over the age of 18 who will be resident in the property where the firearms are going to be kept. If your partner is prohibited from possessing a firearm because they’ve received a custodial sentence in the past, then the police may refuse your licence application. Alternatively, they may issue you with a licence with certain conditions, for example that your partner doesn’t have any access to any of the weapons; you will be made aware that you would be committing an offence if you allowed your partner access.
If your application is refused, you will receive details of the reasons for the refusal and a full refund of your application fee.
A Freedom of Information request by the BBC to the Isle of Man Constabulary revealed that nearly 40% of all registered gun and crossbow owners on the Isle of Man has a criminal record.
As of 31 March 2019, 2,003 people held certificates for firearms and regulated weapons with 789 of these (39%) having at least one conviction.
Although the above information doesn’t relate specifically to England and Wales, it’s interesting to see that it is possible to get a licence.
A person would usually be disqualified from acting as a foster carer for a local authority if s/he or any adult member of the household has been cautioned or convicted of an offence against a child which involves:-
Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks will be undertaken when you apply to become a foster carer but having a criminal record won’t necessarily disqualify you from becoming a foster carer.
Whether you meet the required fostering criteria depends on the type and circumstance of the offence and how long ago it was committed. Should you have a caution or criminal conviction, it is imperative that you are open and upfront about it. It will be discussed at a very early stage in the application process.
Becoming a Foster Carer (Gov.UK)
There are no regulatory bodies governing the registration or membership of people working within IT.
The checks that are done, and the decisions on whether to employ somebody with a criminal conviction, will depend on the individual employer and what types of relationships they have with other companies (e.g. contractor relationships) and the work that they do.
Download: To disclose or not to disclose [PDF]
On this page:
Although you legally don’t have to disclose unless you’re asked, it’s sometimes not as simple as that. Technically, you won’t have done anything wrong by not disclosing if you’re not asked, but ultimately, it can be hard to challenge an employer who later finds out, particularly if you’ve only recently started the job, as you have very few legal rights. There’s a couple of scenarios that we often come across where, on reflection, individuals may have been better-off disclosing. However, this is ultimately something you have to decide in your own case.
This might apply in the following situations:
You might think that you’ve not been asked about your criminal record. However, if the employer is going to carry out a formal criminal record check, you might be better off disclosing whatever will come back on the level of check that they’ll be carrying out.
Most employment positions that are not covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 will involve a standard or enhanced check. Even if they don’t ask about convictions or criminal records during the initial recruitment process, they might state in their company policy that they will do. Yet remember – they’ll still need your consent before being able to do a criminal record check on you.
Although our general view is that people shouldn’t voluntarily disclose, some people prefer to disclose even if they don’t have to. For some roles, your past might actually help – for example, you might be applying for a ‘peer’ role.
If you’re subject to licence, probation, MAPPA or police notification, you need to be aware that these authorities may come to a decision as to whether they wish to inform a potential employer of your past (or ask you to disclose), even if the employer hasn’t asked you about convictions. This varies on a case-by-case basis, so you should keep them up to date with the details of the jobs you’re applying for.
This is a difficult scenario, because the chance that the employer might find out shouldn’t normally be enough to suggest that you should disclose even if you’re not asked. As a result, this is something which has to be decided on a case-by-case basis – for example, if your case has been featured in the local press, if you’re well-known known locally, or if you’re going into a high-profile role.
If you’re barred from working with specific groups (for example if you’re on the ‘children’ or ‘adult’ barred lists) then it is illegal for you to even attempt to work with the groups that you’re barred from.
This might apply in three particular situations:
Employers are only allowed to ask about certain cautions or convictions. What the employer is allowed to ask, and so what you need to disclose if they do ask, depends on the role that you’re applying for:
If you have strong evidence to suggest that the employer is carrying out an ineligible check, you can decide to challenge this first (particularly if you have spent convictions). For information on the types of jobs not covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, click here.
For example, you might get asked on an application form, but you might decide to disclose at interview instead. For more information on when to disclose, click here
Some people take a risk and choose not to disclose even when they should have.
Download: To disclose or not to disclose [PDF]
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?We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites. Find out more
