Abstract
The Winston Memorial Trust awards travelling fellowships to enable interested citizens to travel to other countries in order to study various practices which could influence policy in England and Wales. The latest fellowship was granted in order to explore how France, Spain and Sweden have responded to the issue of criminal records disclosure and the subsequent impact on rehabilitation. Particular focus was placed on the way convictions were recorded, accessed and eventually removed from records which were accessible to potential employers.
The report highlights two different approaches regarding the use of criminal records checks: ‘Risk-based’ – In England and Wales checks are done to prevent liability falling on employers for negligence should a person commit further offences. Linked with this propensity for risk reduction, the research suggested that as gatekeepers of criminal records, the police in England and Wales ‘blur the lines’ between convictions and intelligence of illegal activity. ‘Trust-based’ – In countries such as Spain people are precluded from certain jobs by the courts and thus checks are usually only done if legally required for a job. If there is no such preclusion then employers in France, Spain and Sweden trust the abilities of staff to conduct diligent and skilled interviews.
Criminal records access
The report identifies several different approached and makes recommendations based on how they may benefit policy and practice in England and Wales: People having easier access to their own records so they know what they are agreeing to disclose. Sweden and the UK criminal records have been circumventing the individual and been accessed by employers directly during recruitment. The recommendation is that this practice is stopped and access only be sought at point of hiring. There is still uncertainty around how useful criminal records are in predicting future offending when a person secures employment. Further research on this issue is needed.
The report states that in the three countries studied, the general approach to protecting employers and the public is to use a barring system, disqualifying people from certain professions only, but not affecting unrelated jobs. This decision is governed by the courts and is thus more robust and considered fairer that being done by potential employers.
Deleting records
This report suggests there is a greater belief in ultimate rehabilitation and an attitude of ‘forgive and forget’ in the three countries studied and this has led to laws which make rehabilitation possible. In England and Wales there are still jobs which are exempt and convictions will still be disclosed. Further research to explore the impact of this is encouraged.
The report also highlights the fact that in the three countries studied the way employers ask questions is considerably clearer than in England and Wales, where interviewees are often asked to disclose more than they are legal obliged to because they lack a full understanding of the law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the author of the report argues that the struggles that ex-offenders have in England and Wales when trying to secure employment is a secondary punishment by the public on top of what has been issued by the Courts. If the Court want to limit someone’s employability for public protection the report suggests that this is done at point of sentence rather than by potential employers after the fact.
The report has highlighted the increased belief in rehabilitation in France, Spain and Sweden, but is unclear without further research what the direct benefits to ex-offenders and society in general may be. The author of the report urges the use of the report to challenge and change policy and practice in the UK.
