Offenders in Northern Ireland ‘unlawfully barred from having past convictions spent’

Mr Justice Colton declared that an obligation to disclose any prison sentence in excess of 30 months is incompatible with human rights legislation.

The verdict came in a challenge to law on the rehabilitation of offenders mounted by a man jailed over an arson attack more than 40 years ago.

Now aged in his 60s and granted anonymity, he claimed the requirement to reveal his criminal past has created barriers in finding work and leading a normal life.

Thousands of offenders in the same category trying to reintegrate into society have been carrying past convictions like “the mark of Cain”, it was contended.

Under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NI) Order 1978 anyone sentenced to more than two-and-a-half years imprisonment can never have their convictions classed as spent.

In 1980 the man at the centre of the case received a five-year term for offences related to the petrol bombing of a house, burglary and theft.

According to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, who backed his challenge, no-one was injured and there was no paramilitary or sectarian link to the crime.

Since completing his sentence the man has never come into contact with the criminal justice system again.

But the legislative provisions mean he will never be treated in law as someone who has not committed a criminal offence.

The court heard the disclosure requirement impacts on everything from employment and education to travel and insurance prospects.

Lawyers representing the man said he finds the process of revealing details about an historic offence to be oppressive and shaming.

The current obligation breaches entitlements to private and family life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), they argued.

Counsel for the Department of Justice insisted that the position was permissible and lawful.

Ruling on the challenge, Mr Justice Colton identified a clear public interest and benefit to society in providing offenders the chance to fully reintegrate following conviction.

“The disclosure of prior convictions can have an adverse impact on rehabilitation and is an interference with an individual’s Article 8 rights,” he said.

He described the disputed terms of the 1978 order as “arbitrary, both in substance and effect”.

“The ongoing interference with the applicant’s Article 8 rights is not proportionate,” the judge said.

“The objectives of protecting the public and ensuring confidence in the justice system can be achieved by the imposition of lesser restrictions which would facilitate the opportunity of the applicant applying to have his convictions deemed to be spent.”

Even though a consultation process may lead to legislative changes to the regime in Northern Ireland, Mr Justice Colton pointed out that amendments are not guaranteed.