Google settles out of court with individual who has spent conviction, in the UK’s first ‘right to be forgotten’ case involving criminal records
The problem of spent convictions appearing online is a real and significant problem for many people.
Two individuals with spent convictions brought claims against Google for refusing to de-list search engine results that contained details of their now spent convictions. The cases, the first in the UK on the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’, had a judgment from the High Court in April this year. One case was successful (NT2) and the other one failed (NT1).
The one that failed had appealed to the Court of Appeal and the case was due to be heard today, the 20th December, but the appeal has been withdrawn as the case has been settled. This could be because Google has agreed to de-list. It could be because NT1 has decided not to proceed with the appeal.
We will be doing more work in early 2019 to better understand the implications of the High Court judgment from back in April.
As it stands, we continue to suggest that people with spent convictions apply to Google and other search engines if there are search results that link to articles with spent convictions. If the request to de-list is refused, we encourage people to raise a formal complaint with the ICO and we’re still collecting evidence of responses to these types of requests.
Written by Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock
- Unlock’s co-founder, Bob Turney, becomes a patron Posted on: Jan 9th, 2019
- Book now for our criminal record disclosure training on 24th April 2019 Posted on: Jan 9th, 2019
Our popular 'criminal record disclosure' training workshops continue…
- Winter 2018/19 Newsletter - What we've been up to Posted on: Jan 4th, 2019
Today we've published our winter 2018/19 newsletter. The…
- Some examples of people we've helped Posted on: Jan 4th, 2019
Looking back over the last couple of months, we’ve written up a few…
- Blog - Council sacks a woman with a criminal record that is nearly two decades old because they say she is a substantial risk to their reputation - what are the implications? Posted on: Dec 21st, 2018
The latest blog by Christopher Stacey looks at the news this week…