Spent conviction still showing online after rehabilitation
This case study explains how we successfully helped remove nearly 30 damaging search results by using the Right to Be Forgotten, showing that even for serious convictions, rehabilitation and context matter.
Removing 30 damaging Google results from a widely reported £100k fraud
Why online news articles can destroy your chance to rebuild after a conviction
Does the Right to Be Forgotten apply to serious criminal convictions
The challenge of delisting after large-scale fraud with strong public interest
How to improve your chances of removing serious criminal content from Google
How your personal history can help support your delisting case
Outcome: Google delisting success and restored online reputation
Lawyers’ thought about the case
Removing 30 damaging Google results from a widely reported £100k fraud
Our client, let’s call him David, contacted us almost a decade after he had completed a prison sentence for conspiracy to defraud. He had served 27 months for his involvement in a £100,000 fraud involving a car leasing business in Scotland. The case had received wide media coverage at the time and was picked up by more than two dozen regional and national news outlets.
Even though the offence happened over eight years ago and his sentence was completed in 2016, his name was still appearing in around 30 different articles, many on the first page of Google. The stories were harsh.
They included his name, mugshot, location, details of the fraud, and often referred to him as a “swindler” or “fraudster” -terms that linger in people’s minds far longer than the events themselves. None of the articles had been updated, and none reflected his remorse, rehabilitation, or the personal hardships he faced at the time.
Why online news articles can destroy your chance to rebuild after a conviction
David explained the circumstances that led to the offence with deep remorse. He was under severe financial pressure. David became involved in a business venture he neither controlled nor fully understood. Naive and overly trusting of others around him, he found himself drawn into a fraudulent operation.
He had never offended before and had no history of criminal behaviour. He admitted he was weak at the time and gullibly followed others' advice, believing he was doing the right thing. He pleaded guilty, accepted full responsibility, and served his time.
Since then, he has stayed out of trouble, never reoffending. He simply wanted a chance to move on, rebuild, and give his children a future not defined by his past, but search engines wouldn’t let him forget.
Does the Right to Be Forgotten apply to serious criminal convictions
Whilst the Right to Be Forgotten under the UK GDPR gives people the right to ask for the removal of outdated or harmful personal information, the rules become much stricter when the request involves serious criminal convictions. In these cases, search engines apply a much higher standard of review.
If the offence was widely reported, and especially if it involved a large number of victims or public interest issues, Google will examine every aspect of the request with scrutiny. Their goal is to ensure that the public's right to know is not unjustifiably compromised.
However, the law recognises that people can change. Just because someone has committed a serious offence in the past doesn’t mean they should be permanently judged by that moment, particularly when it no longer reflects their current character or life.
The challenge lies in showing that the content is outdated, irrelevant, or disproportionately harmful. Search engines are not courts. They don’t re-try cases. What they need is a balanced, fact-driven presentation of why the person’s current right to privacy outweighs the lingering public interest in old content. That’s where legal expertise and a strong factual narrative become critical
The challenge of delisting after large-scale fraud with strong public interest
What made David’s case especially difficult, but also uniquely important, was the scale and visibility of the offence. The fraud involved over £100,000 in losses, spread across multiple victims. The vehicle leasing scheme in which he had played a part left many people out of pocket, and naturally, the press picked it up.
The media interest was intense, largely because the story involved a significant sum of money and a high number of affected individuals, many of whom were ordinary people misled by a business they thought they could trust. As a result, there was clear public interest in the matter at the time.
It raised questions about commercial trust, business oversight, and the safeguards available to consumers. The press saw it as a cautionary tale, and understandably so but that same attention ensured that David’s name remained digitally attached to the offence long after his sentence ended.
David did not seek to minimise what had happened. In fact, what stood out from our very first call was how deeply he regretted his actions. He expressed genuine remorse not only for what he had done, but for the impact on others. especially those who had trusted him, and the ripple effect on his own children and partner.
Now in his late 40s, David found himself effectively unemployable. No matter how qualified he was or how sincerely he tried to start over, employers, clients, even friends would Google his name and be met with pages of content from a time he’d spent the last eight years trying to leave behind.
How to improve your chances of removing serious criminal content from Google
In many cases involving minor offences, Google may be more readily persuaded to remove search results. But when the offence is serious and widely reported, as it was in David’s case, search engines demand a stronger, more detailed argument.
These are not automatic removals. Every element of the person’s life since the offence can help shift the balance in their favour. The law doesn’t require perfection, but it does expect honesty, growth, and clear evidence that the offending material is no longer relevant In our experience, it’s not only about what happened in the past, but also about who the person is now, what they’ve done since, and how the continued visibility of the information is hurting them.
That’s why we dig into every aspect of our client’s circumstances. A spent conviction alone is not always enough.
Combine that with real remorse, a clean record, a lack of public role, and ongoing harm- especially to family and children- and you begin to build a compelling legal picture. Here are some of the key factors that helped tip the legal balance in David’s favour: his conviction was spent.
He had shown genuine remorse and had not reoffended since the articles were nearly a decade old. He was a private individual, not a public figure He and his family were suffering disproportionate harm
