The problem with colleges rather than universities, is that a college will often have 16 or 17 year old students, in addition to over 18s. The college might well ask if you have any restrictions on being around under 18s, which is not the same thing as convictions. This is particularly true if you are applying for a course via the jobcentre for example.

The college themselves might refuse to accept you, on safeguarding grounds, even without the police disclosing to them, because of not wanting you to be around 16 and 17 year olds. They might insist on doing a risk assessment first, so then it may involve you having to study remotely, instead of actually going to the college., for example.

I understand the Police have a duty and can disclose spent convictions in certain circumstance, depending on the line of work (or training) I part take in that involves under 18s or vulnerable adults. Since I have absolutely no desire to work with under 18s or adults who would be considered vulnerable, based from the ROA I see no reason why any disclosure should be made. And if disclosure was made, would land Police in quite a bit of trouble it would seem. Something I will absolutely explore more from the official legislation before I challenge the PPU, rather than use AI to help make sense of it all.

I'd advise not using AI for important stuff like this. AI has a tendency to simply make things up on occasion.

The police do have some common law powers that would enable them to disclose spent convictions, but as I previously mentioned, this would have to be proportionate, measured and in response to a specific identified risk. "Because other students are there" doesn't sound like a proportionate response from the police officer involved, to me. A request for clarification from the PPU officer on what they would actually intend to disclose (preferably that you can get in writing/email/text form) would be really ideal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All views, opinions & contributions are my own and do not represent the views of Unlock unless specifically stated.

Well it is a relief I am not going crazy, I have been reading the ROA legislation again but it is so hard to understand sometimes.

I wanted to look it up because I felt if the conviction is indeed considered spent, then do police really have the right to disclose if I am legally allowed to not disclose.
Further information I found regarding disclosing spent convictions stated Police can not disclose spent convictions to anyone with out my consent, as this would technically be considered a breach in data protection. And disclosures on spent convictions should not be given for just merely being in the presence of other students, which is what the PPU was basically telling me was her reason for wanting to disclose to a college. AI could be screwing the search results though perhaps?

I will continue the research another day when I am less tired, Appreciate all of the input

As punter99 rightly states above, being subject to the SOR does not prevent a conviction from becoming spent.

Frequently in these sorts of situations, the police are not confident in the legislation and often don't actually know anything about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Advice would be to speak to the PPU officer in question and ask why they intend to make a disclosure. They do have some common law disclosure powers, meaning it's not necessarily a breach of the ROA for them to disclose your conviction - however, disclosure must be proportionate and in response to a specific identified risk. Assuming you're not wanting to study a course that involves regulated activity, it'd have to be a pretty high bar for the police to use common law disclosure powers in those circumstances, would be my feeling.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All views, opinions & contributions are my own and do not represent the views of Unlock unless specifically stated.

The answer to this can be found on Unlock. You do not need AI.

"A sexual offender notification requirement is not regarded as a “disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty”. This means that the length of time you’re on the Sex Offenders Register is separate to how long it takes for a conviction to become spent. As a result of the reduced rehabilitation periods that came into force in 2014, it is now common for a conviction to become spent, but an individual still be subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003."

My understanding is when sentence and SHPO complete, and any time eg sentence under 30 months is plus 4 years before spent. Sor time is irrelevant

So for the past 45 minutes (probably 2 hours) or so, I decided to do a little digging.
I recently had another visit from the PPU with a different officer this time. I spoke more about colleges and wanting to apply for courses, which I was told if I do end up applying, she would disclose to the college even though by my understanding, my conviction should be considered spent and would breach the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 if she did with out my consent. But is the conviction really considered spent?

With the help of the fancy new AI going around I started asking some questions, based on my findings the answer is no. Remaining on the SOR is still considered a legal requirement of the conviction, while this remains I have not yet completed the rehabilitation period.
I could have sworn when doing my research while applying to discharge my SHPO, that when the SHPO ends. Even while remaining on the SOR the conviction would be considered spent? My barrister even told me this would be the case when I asked.
Unless I have some how woken up to an alternate universe where this is not true, got my wires mixed up and misunderstood the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 or has something been changed?

The main point of me fighting to have my SHPO discharged was so I could apply with out being pressured to disclose the conviction, was I wrong this whole time?