A successful case study using the right to be forgotten to remove past conviction from Google
For many individuals, past mistakes can linger online long after they’ve rehabilitated. This case study explores how one man’s efforts to rebuild his life were hindered by an outdated online article, and how legal intervention enabled him to move forward with confidence.
Searching for employment while past convictions appear on Google
Understanding the right to be forgotten and why expert legal support could be helpful
Why Google initially refused to delist the news articles and how we overturned it
Google’s decision to delist the article and its impact on rebuilding a career
Why your conviction might still be visible online
When and how to request content removal under GDPR
Searching for employment while past convictions appear on Google
If you’ve ever typed your name into Google and found an old article about a criminal offence, you’re not alone. Many people in the UK are living with the digital aftermath of youthful indiscretions- particularly those involving criminal convictions.
In this case, our client, a private individual who we’ll refer to as Darren, came to us because he was struggling to find employment. Despite being a qualified HGV driver during a national shortage, every job application was met with silence. Eventually, Darren discovered the problem. A news article from 2004 appeared prominently in Google search results for his name.
The article reported his conviction for voyeurism, an offence he committed when he was a young person at the age of 18 or 19. While the article was accurate at the time, it no longer reflected the man he had become. Having served his sentence, completed a three-year community rehabilitation order, and abided by a seven-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order, Darren had kept out of trouble and worked hard to re-enter society.
Unfortunately, search engines don’t automatically take rehabilitation into account. This is where the right to be forgotten came in.
Understanding the right to be forgotten and why expert legal support could be helpful
The right to be forgotten is a provision under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that allows individuals to request the removal of outdated, irrelevant, or excessive personal data from search engines like Google. Importantly, it doesn't require the original article to be deleted from the internet, it simply means that the article won’t appear in search results for the person’s name.
When individuals submit these requests on their own, they are often rejected- particularly in cases involving sexual offences, even if the conviction was from many years ago and the person has long since rehabilitated. Google tends to argue that there is an ongoing public interest in keeping such content visible, although this position is frequentlyinconsistent with actual facts and the principles of proportionality and privacy.
These refusals often do not take into account how severely such exposure can damage a person’s livelihood and mental wellbeing. This is why legal representation makes such a difference.
When a submission comes from a lawyer, it is backed by legal arguments, case law, and where appropriate, supporting evidence such as psychiatric reports or character references. Lawyers can frame the request in a way that directly addresses the factors Google uses to assess these applications.
In Darren’s case, the legal submission included not just a right to be forgotten request for a criminal conviction, but a carefully reasoned argument showing how continued publication served no genuine public interest and caused disproportionate harm. The involvement of experienced solicitors often results in a swift reversal of Google's initial refusal, because it makes the legal and reputational risk of non-compliance much clearer.
Why Google initially refused to delist the news articles and how we overturned it
In Darren’s case, we submitted a formal GDPR notice to Google explaining how the article was causing disproportionate damage to his personal and professional life. We highlighted that the content was now almost two decades old, no longer served the public interest, and was preventing Darren from moving on with his life.
Before seeking legal assistance, Darren had attempted to have the article removed on his own. His request, like many others involving sexual offences, was denied. Google tends to claim that such offences carry an inherent and ongoing public interest, even when the conviction is from decades ago and there has been a complete rehabilitation. This stance, although predictable, often lacks nuance and fails to consider the unique facts of each case.
In practice, these automatic rejections serve as a blanket policy rather than a tailored review of the individual’s rights and circumstances. When we took over, our approach was to construct a comprehensive legal submission that dismantled Google’s position point by point. We provided detailed arguments under GDPR, demonstrating that continuing to process Darren’s data in this way was not just outdated but also disproportionate.
We also added compelling supporting material, including documentation of his efforts at rehabilitation, evidence of employment hardship, and personal accounts of emotional distress. Submissions from lawyers carry significantly more weight: not only are they framed within the correct legal context, but they also present a structured argument that Google’s legal and compliance teams are more likely to respect.
Google’s decision to delist the article and its impact on rebuilding a career
Google reviewed our formal legal submission and agreed that the article should be removed from its search results in Europe. This decision followed a structured and persuasive argument that highlighted the article’s outdated nature, lack of ongoing public interest, and the serious consequences it was having on Darren’s ability to rebuild his life.
While the original article remained live on the news publisher’s website, its visibility dramatically decreased because it no longer appeared in search results for Darren’s name. This distinction is crucial. By delisting the article, Google helped ensure that potential employers, colleagues, and acquaintances wouldn’t easily find and judge Darren based on something that happened nearly two decades ago.
For Darren, this change meant much more than just cleaning up a search engine. It represented the lifting of a digital shadow that had followed him for years. It gave him a renewed chance to secure employment, regain dignity, and move forward in life without being continually punished by the past. In many similar cases, such delisting can be the turning point between ongoing hardship and genuine recovery.
Why your conviction might still be visible online
Many people don’t realise that even after a criminal record is spent- or even in cases where it never becomes spent- news articles and online discussions can continue to affect their lives. Google’s algorithms are designed to display content that matches names and phrases, which means that even rarely visited or outdated pages can resurface to the top of search results.
This is particularly likely when there is little other information about you online. If you don’t have a broad digital presence, Google tends to give more weight to whatever content it can find, even if that content is highly dated and no longer relevant. This often results in historic articles dominating search results and misrepresenting who you are today.
If you find yourself in this situation, help is available. It’s common for past convictions to come back to haunt people, especially when applying for jobs, seeking housing, or simply trying to protect their privacy.
When and how to request content removal under GDPR
To request content removal under GDPR, it must be shown that the information is no longer relevant, is excessive, or is causing unwarranted harm. Google is required to balance your right to privacy with the public’s right to know.
In many cases -especially when the conviction is old, the individual has clearly rehabilitated, and there is no pressing public interest in the information remaining searchable- Google will delist the content.
At Cohen Davis Solicitors, we specialise in crafting compelling GDPR submissions tailored to our clients’ personal circumstances. This often includes building a strong case for removal based on emotional impact, professional consequences, and the passage of time. If Google refuses, the next step may involve pursuing legal action. We regularly assist clients in preparing draft claim forms for breach of privacy and personal data, which are sometimes enough to prompt a change in Google’s position.
Lawyers’ thoughts on the case
What stood out most in Darren’s case was how something from his late teens was still dictating the course of his life well into adulthood. The law recognises rehabilitation, but unfortunately, the internet often does not. This is why legal tools such as the right to be forgotten are vital in restoring balance and offering people a second chance.
Darren’s successful application was the result of a strategic and detailed submission, supported by genuine evidence of rehabilitation and hardship. As lawyers, our role goes beyond paperwork. We support clients through what can be an emotionally taxing process, especially when old stories resurface.
The right to be forgotten is not just about digital housekeeping; it’s about restoring dignity and fairness in a digital age. If you or a loved one are in a similar situation, we are here to guide you through the process and help reclaim your future.
