By O Brown - 23 Jun 25 9:02 AM
Has Anyone Experienced a Breach of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA)? Looking for Advice
Hi all,I recently started a new role and, on my very first day, I was shown a press article referencing a historic criminal conviction of mine. I was asked to explain it there and then. Soon after, I was suspended and, a few weeks later, my contract was terminated. The conviction is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and I believe referencing it and using it as a basis for termination may be a breach of that Act. I'm looking to connect with anyone who’s been through something similar—especially in terms of how you handled it, what steps you took (legally or otherwise), and what outcomes you had.Any insight or shared experiences would really help. Thank you.
|
By Evan Davis - 27 Jun 25 11:30 AM
+x+xIf your employer/colleagues become aware of your conviction and you find yourself being bullied, harassed or otherwise mistreated because of it, then you should raise this informally with your line manager. If your manager is the cause of the bullying etc then you can either arrange to talk to them and try to rectify the issue or seek out their immediate superior. Hopefully you’ll be able to sort out the problem at this point.If not, then you will need to consider whether to make a formal complaint, via your company’s grievance procedure. If your employer has an HR department, they should be able to provide you with a copy of this. Your trade union (if you are a member) will also usually be able to provide you with advice . You may also want to have a look at the ACAS guide to grievance procedures.The most obvious and serious form of mistreatment resulting from a knowledge of your spent conviction is dismissal. Any dismissals which are based on a failure to disclose a spent conviction will be deemed unfair (and will guarantee a finding of unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal). If you are dismissed, then it is possible that your former employer will claim a different reason for their decision at a tribunal, so you should gather as much evidence as you can to support your claim that it was your conviction that was the main motivating factor behind the decision. This can include: - Communication between yourself and the employer
- Information about other employees
- Internal communications within the organisation
It should always be your aim when going through disciplinary proceedings to avoid dismissal. You could try to enlighten the company about it’s legal obligations, by pointing out to them that they cannot legally dismiss you solely because you have a spent conviction. You might want to refer them to the ROA and the case of Property Guards Ltd v Taylor and Kershaw [1982] IRLR 175. This case contains an explicit reference to the relevant part of the ROA 1974 (S.4 (3)(b)) and clearly states that a decision to dismiss for not revealing a spent conviction is legally unfair. It may be that your employer is unaware of this and that this information leads them to change their position.
Spent and unspent convictions and employment law - Unlock
If it was actually referenced in your letter of dismissal, you'll likely have a clear-cut claim for wrongful dismissal. This will be treated as "automatically unfair" (if the sole given reason was the spent conviction) and therefore you don't need the ordinary 2 years of work service to make a claim.
If it wasn't directly referenced in your dismissal letter (which is much more likely), then you'll have a mighty fight on your hands and you'll need some proof that your spent conviction played a 'significant' part in the decision - not your suspicion or a "fair inference", but actual black & white evidential material. Companies (generally) aren't stupid enough to put such things in writing, the ones who do go out of business quickly because of legal fees!
Thanks for your reply. Some more contents After my press article surfaced, everything changed. The company suddenly claimed that I would require additional vetting something that was never mentioned during the application process, interview, or even the initial employment checks. Despite my willingness to go through this extra vetting, the company consulted an internal security controller who advised that I would not be successful, due to the press article and a spent conviction. However, the actual vetting process is handled by a separate, independent institution that assesses candidates on a case-by-case basis and does not automatically disqualify anyone based on past convictions. Despite this, the company has since failed to explain the rationale for this additional vetting, the criteria involved, or why the opinion of someone unqualified to make such determinations was given such weight. In short, my dismissal appears to be based entirely on speculation and assumptions—that I might not pass a vetting process—due to my spent conviction. This decision lacks transparency, fairness, and a proper foundation. This is not a small company but a global company. They have also not replied to my dismissal appeal or replied to my various grievances raised. To help further they have not said it in my termination letter but I feel anyone who looks into this will see it this was the reason. I will seek legal advise and provide an update
When the company dismissed you, you should have received a letter of dismissal giving the specific reason.
What's important is what is written here. If they say you failed a vetting check, which you say did not take place, then this is factually untrue and so, I would argue, could potentially be seen "automatically unfair". It seems from your explanation of events that no vetting check ever took place, but "advice" was given from somebody internal that you wouldn't pass.
So I'd say a big part of this would hinge on what the letter of dismissal says.
This is absolutely not to discourage you from pursuing this, it's just very important with these cases that there isn't an option for the other side to argue the dismissal was somehow fair, or, in this case, given that you didn't have 2 years of service, that it wasn't "automatically unfair". Now, it's established that dismissing somebody for non-disclosure of a spent conviction for a role that isn't covered by the Exceptions Order is "automatically unfair", so if there is clear proof that this was the reason or a significant factor, you potentially would have a case. In any event, this is quite a specific scenario - while Unlock can certainly give general advice about the process and the law in terms of the ROA 1974, it is certainly not something we are legally trained specialists in and therefore is something I'd advise you consider speaking to ACAS about: https://www.acas.org.uk/contact
|
|