OUR LATEST ISSUE
SITE SEARCH
Gay news: Gay rights group Galop is often contacted by gay men who want their convictions under expired laws deleted
By: John Howard
Expired laws continue to damage gay men
Expired laws continue to damage gay men
The gay man still paying the price for 1959 buggery conviction
A gay man convicted of buggery 51 years ago has discovered that he is legally obliged to disclose it when applying to work with vulnerable people.
He has begun a landmark legal campaign against the residual consequences of now expired laws which continue to damage the lives of gay men.
Retired butler John Crawford, 70, was convicted at Winchester crown court in 1959 aged 19 of having consensual gay sex with another man following a confession beaten out of him by police over a period of weeks, he told the Guardian.
He discovered his sexual offence conviction was still registered on the police national computer (PNC) eight years ago, after seeing the results of routine criminal records check conducted when he applied to work as a volunteer at Wormwood Scrubs prison.
He said: "I saw John Crawford. 1959. Charged on two counts of buggery. Since then, I've analysed my life and found out the amount of my jobs that I've lost because I've got a criminal record."
Although some police forces have proactively "weeded out" convictions for repealed crimes from the PNC, others have not.
Retired butler John Crawford, 70, was convicted at Winchester crown court in 1959 aged 19 of having consensual gay sex with another man following a confession beaten out of him by police over a period of weeks, he told the Guardian.
He discovered his sexual offence conviction was still registered on the police national computer (PNC) eight years ago, after seeing the results of routine criminal records check conducted when he applied to work as a volunteer at Wormwood Scrubs prison.
He said: "I saw John Crawford. 1959. Charged on two counts of buggery. Since then, I've analysed my life and found out the amount of my jobs that I've lost because I've got a criminal record."
Although some police forces have proactively "weeded out" convictions for repealed crimes from the PNC, others have not.
Hampshire police agreed to treat Crawford as an "exceptional" case only after being threatened with judicial review by Crawford's lawyer, Anna Mazzola of Hickman and Rose.
Despite the deletion, Crawford could be prosecuted if he applies to work with vulnerable people and fails to disclose his conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
"What I want to do is apply for voluntary work and, when it comes to the box on the application form that says 'do you have a criminal record', I want to be able to say no," he said.
Crawford initially approached gay rights group Galop, which campaigns for an improved criminal justice system and is often contacted by gay men wanting their convictions under expired laws deleted.
Yesterday, Hickman and Rose informed justice secretary Jack Straw that unless the rules are changed they will initiate judicial review proceedings at the high court to challenge Rehabilitation of Offenders Exceptions Order 1975.
Despite the deletion, Crawford could be prosecuted if he applies to work with vulnerable people and fails to disclose his conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
"What I want to do is apply for voluntary work and, when it comes to the box on the application form that says 'do you have a criminal record', I want to be able to say no," he said.
Crawford initially approached gay rights group Galop, which campaigns for an improved criminal justice system and is often contacted by gay men wanting their convictions under expired laws deleted.
Yesterday, Hickman and Rose informed justice secretary Jack Straw that unless the rules are changed they will initiate judicial review proceedings at the high court to challenge Rehabilitation of Offenders Exceptions Order 1975.
This Order compels those working with vulnerable people to disclose their conviction history, even if the record is spent or deleted.
Mazzola said: "According to the current state of the law, it is irrelevant that the conviction was for an offence which has since been decriminalised on the basis that it was discriminatory."
Mazzola said: "According to the current state of the law, it is irrelevant that the conviction was for an offence which has since been decriminalised on the basis that it was discriminatory."
