What Basic DBS Checks Still Get Wrong

Basic Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are meant to help employers make informed decisions, not retraumatise people who’ve already paid their dues. Yet time and again, individuals report that their spent convictions resurface when they shouldn’t, leaving them vulnerable to judgment, misunderstanding, and exclusion. It’s not just a technical flaw; it’s a moral one. This isn’t about ignoring risk or sweeping history under the rug, instead it’s about recognising when the system itself becomes the obstacle, misfiring at precisely the moment it’s meant to serve justice, not hinder reintegration.

The Purpose of Basic DBS Checks And Where They Go Wrong

In principle, basic DBS checks only reveal unspent convictions. That’s the boundary and the safeguard, and it's what people rely on when applying for work, trying to move forward, or simply hoping to breathe freely again. But for many, that boundary doesn’t hold.

A previous service user of Esther's, when she worked in Probation, recently met with her to talk about his story (his identity has been kept hidden as he is still concerned about judgement) and shared that:

“(A company who he had an interview with and who claims to practice inclusive hiring) got to see everything I’ve done since I was 16. That should never have come up on a basic.” See the 3 minute video at the bottom of the post.

What’s revealed can depend on technicalities, like a breach of license triggering a resentencing, or outdated policies not catching up with law reforms. One sentence becomes a decade-long drag-through, a person’s past becomes an employer’s interrogation script. There’s a word for that: punishment, and it’s long past the expiry date.

The Emotional Toll of Being “Rechecked”

Disclosure laws in the UK are complex, confusing, and often poorly understood, not just by the people they impact, but by employers themselves. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 outlines when convictions become ‘spent’, meaning they no longer need to be disclosed and shouldn’t appear on a basic DBS. But exceptions, updates, and legal jargon mean that individuals often learn what will show up after they’ve already been judged for it.

This isn’t just a policy problem. It’s a psychological one.

Imagine proving yourself again and again through work, training, volunteering, family stability. Then finding out that a technical breach from years ago resets the clock, drags up your entire record, and places your progress under scrutiny by strangers with no context.

“How long do I have to wait? I was re-sentenced for something from 2017, not even another offence, just a breach. And that’s why the drag-through happened. That’s why people can’t move on.”

Each delay tells a story. Not of public safety, but of bureaucratic inertia. And each unwanted disclosure becomes a moment of personal exposure, a reminder that your worth is conditional.

Legal Reform vs Lived Experience

Progress has been made. Unlock, a leading charity advocating for fair treatment of people with criminal records, helped shift legislation so that only serious violent, sexual, or terrorist offences resulting in more than four years in custody remain indefinitely unspent.

But even these reforms can feel hollow when implementation lags.

“That five-year conspiracy charge should be spent after seven years. And it’s been seven. But it still came up, and they say it’ll stop in July. Why not now?”

Policy on paper is not policy in practice. The lived experience often trails behind the legal milestones, and employers, even large ones, frequently lack clarity on what should and shouldn’t be disclosed. This places individuals in a permanent state of uncertainty. Not for what they’ve done, but for what a flawed system chooses to remember.

The Burden of ‘Safe’ Hiring Practices

Employers who rely on DBS checks for low-risk roles may think they’re protecting the business, but they may also be perpetuating discrimination, unintentionally or not. When a basic DBS turns into an interrogation, it creates a chilling effect: people disengage, withdraw applications, or brace themselves for rejection before the interview even begins.

“My supervisor could be bored one day and run a check. Or a customer might decide to dig. And suddenly, it’s all there again, every mistake, every headline. And it blows everything I’ve built out of the water.”

This isn’t fear. It’s lived reality.

True inclusive hiring requires understanding that people are more than their records especially when those records shouldn’t even be in view. It means challenging the idea that visibility equals accountability, and asking instead: what kind of world do we create when people are allowed to grow?

So What You Do?

• Audit your DBS practices. Understand what type of check is appropriate for each role and whether you even need to do one. Many entry-level positions don’t require a DBS or more than a basic DBS, and even that should respect the boundaries of spent convictions.

• Educate your team. HR managers and supervisors need clear training on disclosure laws, rehabilitation periods, and the difference between safeguarding and prejudice.

• Build disclosure-friendly processes. If someone does need to disclose, do it in private, without judgment, and with support. Focus on what they’ve done since, not what they did decades ago.

• Challenge automatic exclusions. Ask why you’re filtering out talent. Is it really about risk or comfort?

• Use your influence. If you’re an employer or stakeholder who sees flaws in the system, speak out. Reform doesn’t happen in silence.

If a basic DBS is supposed to protect, why does it so often punish those who’ve already served their time?

And if your workplace claims to support rehabilitation, but continuously requests DBS checks or interrogates spent convictions when legally not allowed to, are you guarding safety, or gatekeeping change?

Listen to the conversation here that Esther had with a previous service user of hers. Their name has been removed and there are no visuals as they are still concerned about being judged due to their past, and the impact it could have on their future.