Skip to main content
For people with criminal records
For people with criminal records

Category: Employment discrimination

New guidance and tools published to help charities and individuals deal with changes to charity rules and criminal records

Update – 1st August 2018 – Changes to the rule come into force and we publish updates to the guidance mentioned below

Unlock, a leading independent charity for people with convictions, has today published guidance to help charities, as well as those involved in them, understand and prepare for changes to charity rules and its impact on people with criminal records.

From 1st August 2018, changes to the ‘automatic disqualification’ rules mean that there will be more restrictions on those who may run a charity.

Today’s guidance, Leading charities with conviction, coincides with the opening of the Charity Commission’s new ‘waiver’ system. From 1st February 2018, people affected by these changes may use the system to apply for advance clearance.

Commenting on today’s guidance, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock and author of the guidance for charities, said:

“There are over 11 million people in this country with a criminal record, and they play a vital role in contributing to charities.

 

“We would rather not have had to write this guidance. We believe the changes to the rules are unnecessary and ineffective. But as they are coming in, people need to act now. It’s important that neither individuals nor charities think that these changes mean people with criminal records can’t be involved in charities – they can and they should.

 

“Unlock’s message is this: don’t wait until August. If you’re involved in a charity and find that, from reading our guidance you’ll be disqualified from August 2018 because of your specific criminal record, today is the first day from which you may apply for a waiver. If you’re granted a waiver, it means you’re no longer disqualified.

 

“It’s also important that charities get to grips with these changes too. Understanding of the current rules is low, so it won’t be surprising if these changes are met with confusion and uncertainty by charities. Charities will need to update their recruitment processes to reflect the changes to the rules. That’s why we’ve worked with Clinks, the national infrastructure charity that supports the voluntary sector working in criminal justice in England and Wales, to produce simple, easy to use guidance and tools that will help boards of trustees, senior staff and HR managers understand what they need to do to prepare.”

Anne Fox, Chief Executive Officer of Clinks, the national infrastructure charity that supports the voluntary sector working in criminal justice in England and Wales, said:

“At Clinks we know that people with convictions have as much to offer civil society and the voluntary sector as anyone else. We believe that with the right support every individual can transform their lives.

 

“For charities working in criminal justice people with lived experience of the system are key to the difference we can make in the lives of people with convictions and their families – improving the quality and impact of the services on offer, and enabling services users to build a new identity which supports their journey to desistance from crime. For the wider voluntary sector a diverse range of trustees and staff is vital to ensure a broad range of perspectives, skills and knowledge.

 

“It is vital that organisations understand and prepare for these changes and how they might affect their trustees and senior staff. We are delighted to be working with Unlock to support the sector to do this”.

 

For more information

  1. 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.
  2. There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
  3. Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
  4. High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account.
  5. Our guidance for charities is available to download from http://recruit.unlock.org.uk/guidance/charities/
  6. Our guidance for individuals is available from http://unlock.org.uk/advice/leading-charities-with-conviction/
  7. An online tool to help individuals work out if they’re affected is available at http://unlock.org.uk/information-and-advice//charitytool
  8. Landing page on our website – Changes to charity rules
  9. Details of the policy work we’ve been doing on the changes to the rules

 

Background

The current rules only apply to trustees. People with unspent convictions for certain offences, including dishonesty and deception offences, are prevented from being a trustee until they apply for, and are granted, clearance from the Charity Commission.

There are two main changes happening in August 2018:

  1. There are more offences covered – including people on the sex offenders register
  2. There are more roles covered – the rules will apply to senior manager positions such as chief executives and chief finance officers

Today we’ve published two pieces of guidance – one for charities and one for individuals – as well as a simple online tool that helps people work out if the changes affect them.

Basic criminal record checks launched today by the DBS

From today, the 17th January 2018, basic criminal record checks can now be obtained directly from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

This is a significant development for both people with criminal records and employers in England & Wales.

Basic checks are a type of criminal record check that can be used by employers and other organisations, for example when they are recruiting staff. They can also be used by insurance companies in validating claims. Basic checks show any ‘unspent’ criminal records (as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974). Once a conviction or caution is ‘spent’, it no longer shows on a basic check.

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

“We cautiously welcome today’s news. A basic check from the DBS is long overdue, and it should help to make the system clearer, ensuring that employers carry out the appropriate levels of checks instead of carrying out standard or enhanced checks which can often be unlawful.

 

“However, we’re concerned about a number of aspects to the way the DBS plan to operate basic checks, including allowing them to be sent directly to an employer. This runs the risk of employers being sent information that they’re not entitled to see, and is why this practice was reversed in 2012 for standard and enhanced checks. We’ve raised these concerns with both the DBS and the Home Office, but for the time being we’re advising any individual that thinks they have a spent conviction to make sure they apply for a basic check directly from the DBS and get it sent to their home address.”

On a practical level, we’ve developed a landing page dedicated to basic DBS checks as a one-stop-shop for the latest information, advice and updates. It’s been written primarily for people with convictions, but with employers and others in mind too, covering things like:

  1. How to get a basic check
  2. Should the check be sent to the applicant or the employer?
  3. What are eCertificates & eResults?
  4. Our advice for individuals
  5. Our advice to employers

Why is this important?

  1. It’s been a long time coming – The introduction of basic checks has been in the business plan of the DBS since 2002 (back when it was the CRB, the Criminal Records Bureau).
  2. It’s highly likely to mean an overall increase in criminal record checks – The DBS is anticipating around 1.7 million basic checks in the first year. This compares to just under 1.2 million in 2015/16 when it was done by Disclosure Scotland.
  3. It means criminal record checks will be available online – The basic DBS check will be available in both paper form and online. The setting up of an online account (for both applicants and organisations) will allow access to what are referred to as “eCertificates”.
  4. It makes the type of DBS check being done even more important – Employers often refer to a role “involving a DBS check”. Up until now, reference to “a DBS check” could be taken as code for meaning a standard or enhanced check, which meant the disclosure of cautions and convictions, even once spent. Now, with the DBS doing a basic level check, it’s even more important that employers explain what type of check a specific role involves to make sure that applicants clearly understand what they need to disclose.
  5. It’ll hopefully reduce ineligible checks – We’ve been cautiously encouraging the introduction of basic checks as a key part of how to reduce the numbers of employers carrying out levels of checks (i.e. standard or enhanced checks) for roles that are not eligible for them.

We expect to learn more about the day-to-day practices of basic checks in the coming days, weeks and months. As we learn more, we’ll do our best to reflect this in our guidance.

For more information, and the latest details, visit our information page on basic DBS checks.

 

Decade-old criminal record disclosures? The need for reform

With the disclosure of old and irrelevant criminal records in the spotlight, Christopher Stacey looks at how the system is unfairly holding people back

Over four million jobs every year involve employers requesting an enhanced criminal record from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

Although these were originally for roles that involve close contact with children and vulnerable groups, the types of positions that often involve them has now gone way beyond the core purpose. For example, Unlock is regularly contacted by people who have been told they need an enhanced check for a job, for example, as a delivery driver or a receptionist.

These checks alone would not be so much of an issue, if it were not for the fact that, given the current rules for disclosing old and minor criminal records, it means that around 250,000 people every year are affected by old and minor cautions and convictions being revealed on enhanced DBS checks.

Couple that with the known negative reactions (and often blanket policies) of employers towards applicants with a criminal record, it is unsurprising that they are the least likely ‘disadvantaged group’ to be employed.

Against unnecessary disclosure

We need to make sure that enhanced DBS checks do not unnecessarily disclose information that is old, minor or irrelevant to the job being sought. Up until now, there has been very little detail on what type of information gets disclosed on DBS checks, which is why the briefing published by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies is so welcome.

The research shows that in 2015, over one million criminal records were disclosed on standard or enhanced checks. Yet nearly three-quarters of those criminal records (742,482) were more than ten years old.

We know that the length of time since their last offence is one of the most important factors in establishing the likelihood of someone committing an offence in the future, so why is it that these criminal records are being disclosed over a decade later?

The desperate need for reform

The crux of the issue are the current ‘filtering’ rules. Although these are complex, they essentially mean that if someone has a certain criminal record, it will be disclosed on an enhanced DBS for the rest of their life. This includes someone:

  1. With more than one conviction on their record, or
  2. has been cautioned or convicted for a certain type of offence (there are over 1,000 of these, including aggravated bodily harm and soliciting for the purposes of prostitution), or
  3. who has received any type of prison (or suspended prison) sentence.

This can affect somebody who stole two chocolate bars when they were 14 and who is now in their fifties. This puts a lot of people off applying and unnecessarily anchors people to their past. The routine rejection by employers locks people out of the labour market and has a considerable financial cost to society through out-of-work benefits.

At Unlock, we have argued that the filtering rules are in desperate need of reform. Earlier this year, Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that the current system is disproportionate and not in accordance with the law. The government is dragging its heels by appealing to the Supreme Court. It is clearly not listening to the compelling evidence that shows the significant and unnecessary barriers to rehabilitation that the current regime is creating.

Recent reports by David Lammy MP and the Justice Committee have also added weight to the need for changes.

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

A fairer and more flexible system would be one with expanded automatic filtering rules and a discretionary filtering process, with a review mechanism so that individual circumstances can be considered.

Alongside changes to the filtering rules, Unlock has long supported the introduction of a criminal records tribunal. This would allow enable individuals to apply for an end on the disclosure of their criminal record to employers on a relevant criminal record check.

There is evidence from overseas that this approach works. 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 that people have taken since the actions that resulted in their receiving a criminal record.

 

New briefing published – “Criminal record checks: is the volume of disclosures proportionate?”

Three-quarters of a million criminal records that are more than a decade old are being revealed to employers on DBS checks each year. That’s one of the findings of a new briefing published by the Centre for Criminal and Justice Studies (CCJS).

The research, which we have supported, was featured in The Observer on Sunday 26th November. The article looked at the need to reform the disclosure rules that are unnecessarily holding people with convictions back, and featured a quote from Unlock’s co-director, Christopher Stacey.

Over four million roles every year involve an enhanced DBS check, and although these were designed for jobs that involve close contact with children and vulnerable groups, it’s gone way beyond that now. Unlock regularly gets contacted by people who have been asked to do an enhanced check to be a delivery driver or a receptionist.

This can affect somebody who stole two chocolate bars when they were 14 and they’re now in their 50s. Having to relive one of the worst moments in their lives by explaining it to a stranger puts a lot of people off applying and unnecessarily anchors people to their past. The routine rejection by employers locks people out of the labour market and has a considerable financial cost to society through out-of-work benefits.

Unlock has called for reforms to the DBS filtering process, as well as the introduction of a criminal records tribunal, so individuals could apply not to have their criminal records disclosed in particular circumstances.

 

More information

  1. The briefing can be downloaded here.

Forcing adults to admit to petty crime from their teen years is unfair and counter-productive

 

 

 

 

 

 

Following the release of the Justice Committee report into disclosure of youth criminal records, The Independent published a letter from Unlock’s Co-director, Christopher Stacey. In his letter Christopher, who gave evidence to the Committee, wrote:-

 

“Thousands of people contact ex-offenders charity Unlock every year because of problems they’re facing as a result of minor criminal records acquired in childhood and early adulthood.

 

The Justice Committee are right to recommend significant reforms to the way that youth criminal records are disclosed to employers later on in life. The report shows how the current approach 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, which 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 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 still has to disclose 2 shoplifting offences from when they were 15, 40 years ago, shows that the Government needs to take immediate steps to respond to this problem.

 

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 move on by disclosing old, minor or irrelevant information that holds them back and stops them from reaching their potential.”

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

  1. 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.
  2. There are over 11 million people in the UK that have a criminal record.
  3. Unlock’s website is unlock.devchd.com.
  4. High-resolution images for media use are available from Unlock’s Flickr account.
  5. We asked the Justice Committee to look at this issue.
  6. 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.
  7. We submitted written evidence to the inquiry.
  8. 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).
  9. Names of case studies below have been changed to protect identities.

 

Background

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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”.
  4. 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.”
  5. 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”.

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.

Basic DBS checks are coming soon – find out more

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is introducing basic criminal record checks for people in England & Wales. This replaces the service previously provided by Disclosure Scotland.

This is a significant development for both people with criminal records and employers in England & Wales, so we’ve developed a new information page dedicated to basic DBS checks as a one-stop-shop for the latest information, advice and updates. It’s been written primarily for people with convictions, but with employers and others in mind too, covering things like:

  1. How to get a basic check
  2. Should the check be sent to the applicant or the employer?
  3. What are eCertificates & eResults?
  4. Our advice for individuals
  5. Our advice to employers

Basic checks are a type of criminal record check that can be used by employers and other organisations, for example when they are recruiting staff. They can also be used by insurance companies in validating claims. Basic checks show any ‘unspent’ criminal records (as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974). Once a conviction or caution is ‘spent’, it no longer shows on a basic check.

Why is this important?

  1. It’s been a long time coming – The introduction of basic checks has been in the business plan of the DBS since 2002 (back when it was the CRB, the Criminal Records Bureau).
  2. It’s highly likely to mean an overall increase in criminal record checks – The DBS is anticipating around 1.7 million basic checks in the first year. This compares to just under 1.2 million in 2015/16 when it was done by Disclosure Scotland.
  3. It means criminal record checks will be available online – The basic DBS check will be available in both paper form and online. The setting up of an online account (for both applicants and organisations) will allow access to what are referred to as “eCertificates”.
  4. It makes the type of DBS check being done even more important – Employers often refer to a role “involving a DBS check”. Up until now, reference to “a DBS check” could be taken as code for meaning a standard or enhanced check, which meant the disclosure of cautions and convictions, even once spent. Now, with the DBS doing a basic level check, it’s even more important that employers explain what type of check a specific role involves to make sure that applicants clearly understand what they need to disclose.
  5. It’ll hopefully reduce ineligible checks – We’ve been cautiously encouraging the introduction of basic checks as a key part of how to reduce the numbers of employers carrying out levels of checks (i.e. standard or enhanced checks) for roles that are not eligible for them.

What is happening and when?

From 1st September 2017, the DBS will begin processing basic criminal record check applications.

There will be a transition phase between 1st September and 31st December, where basic checks will still be available from Disclosure Scotland too. After the 31st December 2017, basic checks will no longer be available to applicants in England & Wales from Disclosure Scotland.

To start with, the basic check service from DBS will be open to a small number of large registered organisations. This will be followed by an online process for individuals, expected to be from 1st January 2018.

Disclosure Scotland will continue to process basic check applications for people in Scotland.

We’re waiting for more information from the DBS about the exact timescales, and once we have these, they’ll be on this page.

We’re expecting the DBS to publish its own online guidance on basic checks soon. Once it’s available, we’ll link to it from here.

For more information

The information in this post is likely to develop over time. For more information, and the latest details, visit our information page on basic DBS checks.

This was originally published as an update on our information site. 

Conservative Party commit in manifesto to encourage employers to recruit people with convictions

The Conservative Party has included a commitment in their 2017 manifesto that aims to encourage and support employers to take on people with convictions.

It states:

“We will also work to help those groups who have in the past found it difficult to get employment, by incentivising employers to take them on. So for businesses employing…those who have committed a crime but who have repaid their debt to society…we will offer a holiday on their employers’ National Insurance Contributions for a full year”

An extract of the manifesto is below:

You can download the Conservative Manifesto 2017.

We recently called on the next government to pilot tax incentives to encourage employers.

Landmark Court of Appeal ruling – Government loses appeal against DBS filtering regime

Press release: 3rd May 2017

Ruling gives hope to thousands of people trying to put their past behind them

The Court of Appeal has today rejected the Government’s appeal to a decision of the High Court in January last year, which ruled that the criminal records disclosure scheme was disproportionate and unlawful.

The judgment, handed down today, involves a number of cases that were heard in the Court of Appeal in February this year, including cases brought by Liberty and Hodge, Jones & Allen, supported by Just for Kids Law.

The court ruled that the disclosure scheme has insufficient safeguards to be lawful, and that the scheme is disproportionate. In one case, a man was convicted in the 1980’s of ABH when he was 16-years-old and received a conditional discharge. The President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, said in his judgment:

“It is difficult to see how publication of this detail, 31 years on, is relevant to the risk of the public, or proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.”

Christopher Stacey, Co-director of Unlock, a leading charity for people with convictions that supported the legal challenge and who attended the hearing in the Court of Appeal, said:

“Thousands of people contact us every year because they are being unnecessarily anchored to their past as a result of a criminal record disclosure system and DBS filtering process which is blunt, restrictive and disproportionate.

 

“We’re delighted with the Court of Appeal’s ruling in this important case, which stands to affect many thousands of people with old or minor criminal records. Over 240,000 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. These shortcomings have today been recognised by the Court of Appeal.

 

“We strongly urge the next government to take immediate steps to respond to today’s ruling by reforming our criminal records system. A fairer and more flexible system would be one with expanded automatic filtering rules and a discretionary filtering process with a review mechanism so that individual circumstances can be considered. This would enable those with old and minor convictions to move on positively with their lives and to more easily gain employment. 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 and 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.”

Debaleena Dasgupta, Legal Officer at Liberty and solicitor for P, said:

“This important ruling gives hope to huge numbers of people whose ambitions have been dashed because of minor mistakes they made in the past.

 

“The Government must urgently fix this broken system that needlessly prevents people from rebuilding their lives and contributing to society. We look forward to seeing a fairer scheme which has the capacity to consider individual circumstances where appropriate.”

 

Notes

  1. Unlock has made a number of recommendations for reform to the DBS filtering system. These are available here.
  2. The judgement is available online.
  3. This judgement does not have any immediate impact on the current DBS filtering scheme.
  4. We have practical self-help information on how the current filtering system works on our information hub.
  5. Find out more information about our policy work on the DBS filtering process here.
  6. Summaries of the facts of the cases involved in the legal challenge are explained here.
  7. The current system is explained below:

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 and cautions. 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 new 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.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which governs the circumstances in which a person has to admit to a previous conviction if asked, operates in a similar way. A person applying to work with children or vulnerable adults does not have to disclose a conviction which is “filtered”.

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