How we helped a client remove outdated criminal records from Google search results
Having your name linked to outdated criminal records on Google can be more than just frustrating, it can severely impact your personal and professional life, even years after the matter is over. At Cohen Davis Solicitors, we recently helped a client, Jack (name changed for anonymity), remove damaging search results linked to his spent conviction. This article shares how we approached his case and the legal framework that helped achieve a successful outcome.
The problem: a spent conviction that kept resurfacing
Why search results matter even after a conviction is spent
What we did: using a GDPR notice to request removal
What searches are covered by right to be forgotten to search engines
How we went beyond expectations to protect our client’s online reputation
The problem: a spent conviction that kept resurfacing
Over a decade ago, Jack was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice. He served his sentence, showed genuine remorse, and rebuilt his life with his family and a growing business. Yet, despite his rehabilitation, Google search results continued to highlight his past.
Worse still, the articles were misleading. They referenced a serious assault committed by someone else but placed Jack’s name and photograph alongside details of the racially motivated crime. This created the false impression that Jack was the primary aggressor, which he was not.
His actual conviction was related to contacting a relative who had made a false police statement- not for taking part in the assault itself. The articles included personal information such as Jack’s full name, age, and even his home address at the time.
His mother received threatening visits as a result. The emotional toll was ongoing. Jack reported losing business opportunities and being forced to explain his past to new acquaintances and potential clients.
Why search results matter even after a conviction is spent
In the UK, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, convictions become “spent” after a certain period, meaning they no longer need to be disclosed in most circumstances. However, search engines and online media outlets don’t automatically update or remove this information, even when it becomes irrelevant or harmful.
This is where the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into play. Under GDPR, individuals have the right to request the removal of personal data that is no longer necessary, is inaccurate, or infringes upon their privacy and rights.
What we did: using a GDPR notice to request removal
We began by drafting a comprehensive GDPR notice addressed to Google, setting out in clear terms why the ongoing processing of Jack’s personal data was both unjust and unlawful. We framed our legal argument around several pivotal issues, including the fact that Jack’s conviction had long been spent under UK law and that there was no longer any public interest in continuing to circulate outdated and misleading information about him.
The articles in question did more than just record a historical legal matter they misrepresented the events, wrongly portraying Jack as a central figure in a racially motivated assault, which was simply not the case.
In addition to this, we demonstrated the very real and continuing harm that the online presence of these articles was causing. This included the reputational damage to Jack’s growing business, the emotional toll of having to constantly defend himself when meeting new people, and the risk to his family’s safety after personal details such as his name and address were published.
We argued that the ongoing indexing of this information by Google violated Jack’s right to privacy, was a disproportionate use of his personal data, and was causing unwarranted harm for events that had taken place more than a decade ago. Importantly, we showed that Jack had not reoffended, had completely rehabilitated, and was contributing positively to society.
The continued association of his name with these harmful reports was unjustifiable and served only to hinder his efforts to move forward with his life. Google responded positively to the GDPR notice, agreeing to delist the URLs from search results when Jack’s full name was searched.
What searches are covered by right to be forgotten to search engines
Once that initial success was achieved, we strategically extended the delisting request to include variations of his name combined with identifiers such as his town and county. Google also accepted and delisted results associated with these extended search terms.
This layered approach ensured that anyone searching for Jack using a range of likely terms would not come across the damaging articles. In our experience, the most effective results often start by targeting the simplest form of the search query, such as a person's full name, and then progressing to include additional variations. These can differ from person to person but may include the name combined with a street, town, school, business, job title, or even descriptive words like 'arrest' or 'crime.'
Once the main search term has been approved for delisting, it often sets a positive precedent that encourages Google to act similarly on more complex or derivative search phrases. This case demonstrates the value of a carefully crafted legal submission to Google based on both the facts and solid data protection principles.
Jack had made previous attempts to contact Google on his own, but those were rejected, likely because they lacked the structured argument and legal grounding that we were able to present. Through our methodical approach, we were able to secure a much broader and more meaningful result.
How we went beyond expectations to protect our client’s online reputation
Jack was thrilled with the results we achieved and expressed deep appreciation for the outcome of his case. What particularly stood out to him was that we didn’t simply carry out the initial plan- we exceeded it. After successfully securing the removal of the key search results and associated images, we continued to look for additional ways his name might still be linked to damaging content.
Taking initiative beyond what was originally discussed, our team identified alternative search phrases that included Jack’s name with contextual additions like his town, former address, and keywords related to the original news stories. We incorporated these into our request to Google, ensuring those results were also delisted.
This created a far more thorough and lasting outcome. We also provided Jack with guidance to help him protect his reputation moving forward. This included advice on digital footprint management and steps he could take to monitor and manage future online exposure.
Our support extended beyond the core legal work, helping him maintain confidence as he continued building his business and personal life. This wasn’t merely a case of deleting links from Google. For Jack, it was about wiping away a digital legacy that unfairly misrepresented who he had become.
The resolution restored his control over his personal narrative and brought closure to a long and difficult chapter. With his digital reputation repaired, he is now free to focus on the future without being dragged down by an outdated and misleading online past.
Lawyer’s thoughts on the case
From a legal standpoint, Jack’s case exemplifies the critical role that the right to be forgotten plays in safeguarding individuals from ongoing harm caused by outdated online information. Although his conviction was relatively minor and had been spent for years, the way it was represented in the media and indexed by Google, meant that he continued to suffer consequences long after he had paid his debt to society.
This case reaffirmed a fundamental principle of data protection law: that information should be relevant, accurate, and necessary. Where it no longer serves the public interest and instead causes ongoing damage, there is both a legal and moral imperative to act.
The misrepresentation of Jack’s role in the incident and the inclusion of sensitive personal details like his home address only compounded the injustice. What made this matter especially rewarding from a legal perspective was the opportunity to address both legal inaccuracies and ethical oversights in one go.
It also showed how persistence and a well-articulated argument grounded in GDPR principles can persuade even major tech companies to act responsibly.
