Right to be Forgotten Case Studies

How to remove a criminal conviction from another country from local Google search

Being haunted by foreign news articles about a past conviction can make it nearly impossible to move forward, even after serving your sentence and starting over. In this case study, we explain how we helped a client remove outdated international news reports from Google search results and protect their reputation from further harm.

When a past foreign conviction puts your future at risk

Mark, a former youth support worker who had rebuilt his life after a serious personal and legal crisis, contacted us when he became the target of a deeply personal and dangerous campaign of online and offline harassment. Over a decade ago, while living overseas in Australia, Mark had been convicted of an offence for which he served a non-custodial sentence. He returned to the UK several years later, changed his name to avoid the stigma, and focused on creating a new life.

With the support of his wife, he launched a grassroots initiative called Harvest Community Hub, a not-for-profit food redistribution project helping low-income families access healthy meals. The project had grown steadily over the past two years, operating with a team of local volunteers and quietly making a difference in the lives of many.

Then came the breakdown. An individual they once trusted who was someone Mark had hired as an operational coordinator, was dismissed for gross misconduct. Not long after, this person started contacting suppliers, partners, and even local schools, distributing leaflets and emails about Mark’s past conviction.

He publicly confronted Mark’s wife, harassed their children, and made allegations that Mark was profiting from the charity. What had been a deeply buried chapter from the past was now being weaponised to destroy Mark’s present.

When a Google search reveals your past to everyone

To make things worse, Mark discovered that a simple internet search of his current name still returned several news articles from Australian media about his conviction. One article even included a photograph of him from when he worked in mental health services there.

This meant every potential partner or member of the public who looked him up would immediately be met with a version of his past that no longer reflected who he was. These articles gave fuel to the harasser’s campaign, damaged the credibility of the charity, and deeply impacted Mark’s family life. They were forced to withdraw their children from school temporarily out of fear for their safety.

Legal strategy to stop harassment and remove outdated conviction articles

At Cohen Davis, we routinely help people facing a toxic mix of online defamation, outdated search results, and real-world harassment. In Mark’s case, we quickly identified that two legal avenues needed to be pursued simultaneously.

First, we proposed sending a cease and desist letter to the harasser.The letter would formally demand that the harassment stop immediately and warn that continued defamation and harassment could lead to both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. We recommended using a professional process server to deliver the letter to underline its seriousness and help prevent further abuse.

Second, we turned our focus to the internet. The presence of old news articles linking Mark’s current identity with his past conviction was unacceptable. While the conviction was spent under UK law, the search engine results didn’t reflect that. This is where the Right to Be Forgotten comes into play.

What is the Right to Be Forgotten

The Right to Be Forgotten, also known as the right to erasure, allows individuals to request that search engines like Google remove links to content about them that is outdated, irrelevant or causes disproportionate harm. It applies under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Our team drafted a comprehensive and legally grounded Right to Be Forgotten application on Mark’s behalf. We argued that Google was processing sensitive personal data in a way that violated Mark’s right to privacy, especially given that the information was now outdated, the conviction was spent, and Mark no longer worked in a public-facing or regulated profession.

Was the application successful

Yes. After our submission and direct engagement with Google, the search engine agreed to de-list all the links to the articles from search results relating to Mark’s current name. This meant that the majority of the public would no longer see the outdated news stories unless they specifically searched for unrelated details from his past.

This significantly reduced the reputational damage being done and gave Mark and his family the breathing room they needed to return to some normality. The harassment also began to subside after the cease and desist warning was issued, though we remained ready to pursue a High Court injunction had it continued.

What if Google had said no

In many cases, Google may reject a Right to Be Forgotten request. If that had happened, we were fully prepared to escalate the matter. This could involve submitting a formal GDPR notice,which is essentially a pre-litigation legal demand,or making a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), who can order Google to delist content in certain circumstances.

We had laid the groundwork for these steps in Mark’s case, but fortunately they weren’t necessary.

Lawyers’ thoughts on the case

This was a sensitive and meaningful case for our team. It’s not unusual for people to attempt to rebuild their lives after a conviction, especially one that’s now spent and which occurred under very different circumstances in another country. But the internet doesn't forget easily, and this can make true rehabilitation impossible without legal support.

One of the major challenges we often face in these cases is the persistence of foreign news articles appearing in UK-based Google searches. Even when a conviction is spent under UK law, search results can continue to display international content, especially from countries with more permissive publication policies.

The fact that these results are globally accessible exacerbates the reputational damage, particularly for people who have changed their name and are no longer identifiable by any official record. Google, in many instances, refuses delisting requests for foreign content, arguing that the public’s right to information outweighs the individual's right to privacy, especially when the articles are hosted outside of the UK or EU.

Even if delisting is granted, it is often geographically limited. For example, a successful delisting in the UK and Europe won’t affect search results on google.com or country-specific domains such as google.com.au. That means the articles may still be visible to anyone using non-UK or VPN-based search engines.

However, in Mark’s case, the outcome was exceptional. Google agreed to completely delist the articles from all relevant domains, including in Australia, where the original reports had been published. This level of delisting is rare and speaks to the strength of our legal submission and the compelling privacy arguments we presented.

The Right to Be Forgotten is a powerful legal remedy, but it must be carefully argued and backed by experience. Mark’s case also reminded us of the power of online information to be misused in personal vendettas and how a well-timed legal letter can often defuse a volatile situation before it escalates further.

In the end, this wasn’t just about removing a few search results, it was about restoring dignity, protecting a vulnerable family, and allowing a community project to survive.