Challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ rules
Do you have a caution/conviction that can never be filtered?
The government has now changed the filtering rules meaning:
- reprimands, final warnings or youth cautions will no longer be disclosed
- multiple convictions will be filtered, provided they
- were not for an offence that can never be filtered and
- did not result in a prison (or suspended) sentence
The court did not rule that the list of offences that can never be filtered should be changed. 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 email@example.com 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 dates and a DBS certificate if you have one
- The difficulties you’ve faced 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.
- Since 2013 the filtering rules have 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. The intention of the filtering rules was to prevent unnecessary disclosure of criminal records on standard and enhanced criminal checks. However, in practice the system is ineffective because it is limited by inflexible rules and only came about due to legal challenges.
- Minor offences are being routinely disclosed. Disclosure of minor offences including shoplifting, common assault and possession of various forms of cannabis are some of the most commonly disclosed convictions.
- The list of offences that cannot be filtered is too broad. Robbery (an offence than cannot be filtered) could be used as the offence where a 12-year-old pushes over a classmate and takes their mobile phone. Offence categories fail to take into account specific circumstances. For example, the production and distribution of sexual images of a child could relate to a 16-year-old sending a classmate a naked picture of themselves. When it comes to cautions, people may accept a caution for a relatively serious offence when, if they were charged, that offence would likely be downgraded or they might be acquitted. Offences of ABH and prostitution should not be on the list.
- There is no discretion – The filtering system is made up of ‘bright-line’ rules:
- Age, seriousness and relevance are not considered where someone has more than one conviction.
- Disclosure is automatic – there is no provision to make prior representations if something does not fit within the automatic rules.
- There is no assessment of the relevance of the conviction/caution to the employment sought, or the extent the individual may be perceived as continuing to pose a risk.
- There is no opportunity for review – The Independent Monitor is available to review the decision by a Chief Police Officer to disclose “relevant information” such as arrests and allegations. This function does not currently extend to reviewing the automatic disclosure of old/minor convictions and cautions.
Why it matters
A criminal record can be crippling for employment – Employers are risk-averse, and often assume that if something is flagged on a disclosure, they cannot hire the applicant. Yet it’s a sad irony that a criminal record only becomes a problem when someone decides to get on in life; a criminal record check is not required to sell drugs or join a gang, but it is to get a job or go to university.
It dogs people for decades – The current system affects people with a criminal record for longer and more profoundly than elsewhere in Europe. The current criminal record disclosure system acts as a significant barrier to them doing so and can have profound effects well into adulthood, and often indefinitely.
Large numbers of people are affected – In 2019/20, 237, 790 checks revealed convictions or cautions after filtering rules had been applied. In our experience, disclosure of a criminal record is a fatal blow to an application and it is more common to reject the applicant than to conduct an assessment and proceed to hire them.
What we think should change
We urge the government to take immediate steps to reform the system and make sure that old, minor or irrelevant convictions and cautions are not disclosed on criminal record checks.
We recommend the Home Office and Ministry of Justice:
- Reduce the list of offences not eligible for filtering
- Remove the restriction on prison sentences so they are eligible for filtering
- Introduce a discretionary filtering system: Read more about discretionary filtering.
- Enable applicants to apply for their DBS certificate before applying for jobs
- Create a distinct system of disclosure for criminal records acquired in childhood
A piece on BBC Newsnight in June 2018, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing, featured two cases.
In our response to the Justice Committee inquiry, we included a number of case studies of people affected by criminal records acquired in their youth. These include:
Other interesting cases
October 2020 – We received a response from government to our September open letter
September 2020 – Unlock, Liberty and Just for Kids Law publish an open letter to government ministers, urging the implementation of the new rules
9th July 2020 – Government responds to Supreme Court ruling with plans to change criminal records disclosure regime. Read our response to the government’s plans, and find out more about the impact of these changes.
30th January 2020 – Rights groups condemn government’s failure to fix broken DBS system
30th January 2019 – The Supreme Court judgment – The court has ruled that two aspects of the criminal records disclosure scheme are disproportionate and in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; in particular, the blanket rules which require the automatic disclosure of all convictions where a person has more than one conviction, and the requirement that some childhood cautions be disclosed indefinitely. This is an important ruling which stands to affect many thousands of people with old and minor criminal records who have been unnecessarily anchored to their past. Read Unlock’s response and media coverage of the decision.
For more latest news, you can:
- click here for a full list of news posts
- sign up our mailing list to receive updates by email
- follow the latest on Twitter using the hashtag #dbsfiltering
BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action focused on childhood criminal records in a piece in November 2018. Listen below:
Read more about the Supreme Court case
- In June 2018, a landmark case on disproportionate criminal records disclosure regime reached Supreme Court.
- For the first time in Unlock’s we intervened in a case. Read our submission to the court.
- Watch the Supreme Court hearing (19, 20 and 21 June 2018 – there are more details on the Supreme Court hearing)
- Read a blog with some reflections on the hearing
- Read a summary of the cases at the Supreme Court (P, G, W and Gallagher)
- Read about the Supreme Court judgment
- Read about the Government response to Supreme Court ruling and its plans to change criminal records disclosure regime
- The new filtering rules
Useful links, resources and publications
Joint letter to David Gauke and Sajid Javid (with Just for Kids Law and Liberty, March 2019)
A simple guide to filtering of spent cautions and convictions (Unlock’s Information Hub)
Letter to Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (April 2013)
Filtering old and minor convictions – Effect of the case of T (Unlock, February 2013)
Submission to the Criminal Records Review – Phase 1 (Unlock, December 2010)
Our Proposed Filtering Approach (Unlock, October 2010)
Unlock Member Briefing – A Balanced Approach – Independent Review by Sunita Mason (Unlock, March 2010)
For more information
- Practical self-help information – We have guidance on the DBS filtering process on our information site
- Personal experiences – We have posts relating to our work to challenge the DBS filtering process on our online magazine, theRecord
- Discuss this issue – Share your views and experiences on our online forum