Skip to main content

Category: When spent

Criminal Records Bill to receive its second reading in House of Lords tomorrow

Lord Ramsbotham’s Private Members’ Bill on amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 will have its Second Reading in the House of Lords tomorrow, Friday 23rd February.

The Bill, which would shorten the rehabilitation periods that apply under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), proposes a number of changes. One of the most significant elements is that sentences of over 4 years in prison would become spent 4 years after the end of the full sentence. Currently, they can never become spent.

Private Members’ Bills rarely succeed unless they have the backing of government.

Lord Ramsbotham, who is Unlock’s President, had a similar Bill that reached Second Reading in January 2017 and despite widespread support in the House, the Government responded by saying that they “do not consider that the proposals in the Bill are appropriate”.

Watch it on Parliament TV – the session starts at 10am and we expect them to get to this Bill around midday.

We’ll be tweeting what happens during the Second Reading using the hashtag #CriminalRecordsBill

More information

  1. You can follow the progress of the Bill on the Parliament website.
  2. You can find out more information about our work to get further reform to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  3. There is practical information on how the law currently operates on our information site.

Blog – Is ‘sealing’ criminal records the best way to help people turn their lives around?

The latest blog by Christopher Stacey looks at David Lammy’s recommendation to ‘seal’ criminal records and explains why it’s a good idea and how it could work.

Read it here.

Unlock comment – Lammy review

Commenting on the report by David Lammy MP and his recommendations for reform to the criminal records disclosure regime, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“This important review rightly recognises the significant negative impact that the current criminal records disclosure regime has on people’s chances of finding work after they’ve turned their lives around. It unnecessarily anchors people to their past, locks them out of the labour market and has a considerable financial cost to society through out-of-work benefits. The regime is in desperate need of reform.

 

“Unlock has long supported the introduction of a criminal records tribunal, a process that would enable individuals to apply to have their criminal record deemed spent or filtered and, if granted, would mean it must no longer be disclosed to employers on a relevant criminal record check. There is evidence from overseas that this approach works, and it would help to address the injustice that many people face as a result of what are currently arbitrary fixed rules that take no account of the positive steps people have taken since their criminal record.”

Press/media enquiries

Following publication of the report, Unlock has featured in the following  publications/programmes.

CIPD

Personnel Today

The Express

BBC Radio Kent

The Independent

 

Criminal Records Bill receives its first reading in House of Lords

Lord Ramsbotham’s Private Members’ Bill on amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has today had its First Reading in the House of Lords.

The Bill, which would shorten the rehabilitation periods that apply under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), proposes a number of changes. One of the most significant elements is that sentences of over 4 years in prison would become spent 4 years after the end of the full sentence.

Second reading – the general debate on all aspects of the Bill – is yet to be scheduled.

 

More information

  1. You can follow the progress of the Bill on the Parliament website.
  2. You can find out more information about our work to get further reform to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  3. There is practical information on how the law currently operates on our information site.

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

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

Second Reading in House of Lords for Bill to amend Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Lord Ramsbotham’s Private Members’ Bill on amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has today had its Second Reading in the House of Lords.

The Bill, which would shorten the rehabilitation periods that apply under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), proposes a number of changes. One of the most significant elements is that sentences of over 4 years in prison would become spent 4 years after the end of the full sentence.

You can read the debate or watch online (from 12:55).

Despite widespread support in the House, the Government responding by saying that they “do not consider that the proposals in the Bill are appropriate”.

Private Members’ Bills are rarely successful without support from Government.

The Bill will now move to Committee stage.

In closing the debate, Lord Ramsbotham said:

“I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. When I represented the Bill as having been in close contact with a number of organisations—particularly Unlock, of which I am president, which is the national association of ex-offenders and therefore in touch with the difficulties that they are experiencing day after day—they did not put their concerns about the Bill lightly.”

 

“What I am suggesting is that in the context of the White Paper, it would be sensible for the Government to look at all aspects of resettlement, including this one. My offer to the Minister is that all those who have raised problems on the outside are more than willing to take part in that process.”

 

“I intend to table amendments in Committee. In the interim, I hope that the Minister will reconsider his rejection of what is on offer, because the issue is far too serious to be let go with the prospect of annual Bills and annual making progress on small points.”

 

Extracts from the debate

Lord Ramsbotham

“I believe that it should be that no one released from prison should face a lifetime of disclosure, without the prospect of review”

 

“The 48-month spent limit should be removed, with determinate sentences of over four years becoming spent four years from the end of the sentence, as proposed by the Government in their 2003 response to Breaking the Circle. Those serving an indeterminate sentence should be given the opportunity to achieve rehabilitated status through a process of evidence submission to a criminal records tribunal administered by members of the judiciary. As an incentive to desist from crime, anyone recalled to prison would automatically have their disclosure period reset.”

 

“The Government should establish an effective system for identifying and stopping ineligible checks, which too many of the 4 million checks each year currently are.

 

“Any rehabilitation programme worth its salt should include a disclosure scheme devised specifically to assist the employment process. The ineffectiveness of the existing Act has been compounded by the many changes since 1974, including sentence inflation, that have shifted the way in which offenders are treated by the criminal justice system in both sentencing and rehabilitation, rendering it unfit for purpose.”

 

Lord McNally

“One of the things I am most proud of is Section 139 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Unlock described it as positive but not perfect, and of course that is perfectly true. The fact is, though, that the reforms were as much as we could get our coalition partners to agree to.”

 

“The Taylor review is clear that we should develop a distinct approach to treating childhood offending. “Children first, offenders second”, is the mantra that Charlie Taylor advocated.”

 

“There is a strong case for following the logic of the Taylor report and the Government accepting the Carlile recommendation for the expungement of criminal records at attaining the age of 18, excluding homicide, serial sexual offences and other violent crime.”

 

Lord Carlile of Berriew

“If I have a slightly adverse comment about the Bill it is that, for my taste, it goes nothing like far enough. I do not believe that there is any really convincing evidence that using criminal records to prevent people obtaining perfectly ordinary jobs after a conviction that comes somewhere in the middle of the criminal calendar does anything other than send them back to prison. My view is that we should be very radical about these matters.”

 

“The Bill makes proportionate provisions that would make a significant, if not complete, contribution to people whose lives have started badly but whose potential can be unlocked.”

 

The Earl of Listowel

“The Bill is timely, at a time when the Prime Minister has recognised that so many people and families in this country have been left behind.”

 

Lord Dholakia

“More than 7,000 people a year are given sentences of over four years. At present they can never be rehabilitated for the purposes of the Act, however much they do to change their ways and over however long a period.”

 

“Unfair discrimination against ex-offenders is wrong in principle, because it imposes an additional illegitimate penalty of refusal of employment on people who have already served the judicially ordered punishment for their crime. It also reduces public safety, because an ex-offender’s risk of reoffending is reduced by between a third and a half if he or she gets and keeps a job.”

 

Lord Berkeley of Knighton

“Hope can be achieved in a number of ways, but certainly the ability to feel that a debt to society has been paid, to wipe clean a slate and to be rewarded by having an offence and sentence regarded as spent is a vital part of rehabilitation, especially in the young, whose youthful indiscretions might otherwise permanently blight adulthood.”

 

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

“The existing Rehabilitation of Offenders Act provides no opportunity for an ex-offender’s sentence to be spent if a custodial sentence of four years or more is imposed. Although it is widely accepted that custodial sentences are reserved for more serious crimes, it must be said that many offenders in this category are left with little option when any hope of gaining employment is taken away from them.”

 

“Experience shows that the existing Act will not prevent the dishonest from lying to gain employment. However, it impedes the progress of those who could otherwise lead progressive and law-abiding lives, contributing to the economy through gainful employment.”

 

“We must also recognise that the entire notion of modern, balanced, restorative justice is built on the belief that an individual has the capacity to rehabilitate, to learn to make positive life choices and to become a productive, contributing member of society.”

 

“That Act is now completely inconsistent with contemporary sentencing practice. The result is that, far from allowing reformed individuals the second chance that is promised in the Act, its shortcomings leave many excluded from any prospect of rehabilitation and meaningful employment after they have completed their sentences.”

 

“For those serving sentences of over four years, convictions can never be spent. Individuals are therefore forced to live with the shadow of their convictions, through a lifetime of disclosure and without the prospect of review.”

 

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie)

“The noble Lord’s Bill seeks to allow determinate custodial sentences of any length to become spent. I recognise that he would like the current legislation to go further by enabling determinate custodial sentences of any length to become spent, but the Government consider that the present amendments to the Act that came into force in 2014 achieve the correct balance between rehabilitation of offenders and public protection. This is a two-sided coin and these issues have to be balanced. We do not feel there is a case for the law to go further at this stage.”

 

“The Government understand the noble Lord’s concerns and we are, of course, committed to helping ex-offenders who wish to make a fresh start and put their criminal history behind them. We are desperately anxious to ensure that people do not simply leave the prison gate one day and return another. Despite this, we do not support the noble Lord’s Bill, given the reasons I have already outlined. I note the noble Lord’s views, I understand them and I would welcome the opportunity to engage further with him about how we can increase the support that is available to ex-offenders.”

 

“Since 2016, we have been running a campaign to encourage more businesses to provide training and work opportunities for offenders and ex-offenders. This has been carried out in close collaboration with the Department for Work and Pensions’ See Potential campaign. The present campaign emphasises the general advantage to society of securing employment for ex-offenders and thereby reducing reoffending and unemployment.”

 

Lord Ramsbotham

“I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response. When I represented the Bill as having been in close contact with a number of organisations—particularly Unlock, of which I am president, which is the national association of ex-offenders and therefore in touch with the difficulties that they are experiencing day after day—they did not put their concerns about the Bill lightly.”

 

“What I am suggesting is that in the context of the White Paper, it would be sensible for the Government to look at all aspects of resettlement, including this one. My offer to the Minister is that all those who have raised problems on the outside are more than willing to take part in that process.”

 

“I intend to table amendments in Committee. In the interim, I hope that the Minister will reconsider his rejection of what is on offer, because the issue is far too serious to be let go with the prospect of annual Bills and annual making progress on small points.”

 

More information

  1. You can follow the progress of the Bill on the Parliament website.
  2. You can find out more information about our work to get further reform to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  3. There is practical information on how the law currently operates on our information site.

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

  1. We submitted evidence to the review in May 2016
  2. 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.

Lord Ramsbotham introduces Private Members Bill to shorten rehabilitation periods

Lord Ramsbotham, Unlock’s President, has introduced a Private Members Bill into the House of Lords which would shorten the rehabilitation periods that apply under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA).

The Bill, which had it’s first reading yesterday, proposes a number of changes. One of most significant elements is that sentences of over 4 years in prison would become spent 4 years after the end of the full sentence.

Although the Bill is a long way from becoming law, it’s a welcome step forward in getting further reform to the ROA back on the agenda.

More information

  1. You can follow the progress of the Bill on the Parliament website.
  2. You can find out more information about our work to get further reform to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
  3. There is practical information on how the law currently operates on our information site.

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 million people have criminal records in the UK. We need your help to help them.

Help support us now