How we helped a Cambridge student remove links to past conviction from Google
We helped a student remove outdated articles about a spent conviction from Google search results. This restored his online reputation and cleared the path for his return to university.
The problem: a spent conviction that refused to disappear online
In this case, our client (a postgraduate student at a prestigious university) approached us after facing years of hardship caused by news articles relating to a past criminal case. Although he had been cleared of the most serious charges, and only convicted of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH), for which he received a suspended sentence, the articles published online painted a much darker and misleading version of events.
These articles, still available on Google searches of his name years later, were jeopardising his return to university and threatening his future career. They also omitted key details that could have shifted public perception, such as the fact that he had acted in self-defence during a domestic argument that escalated unexpectedly.
Despite the passage of time and his efforts at rehabilitation, search engines and news outlets were continuing to display a narrative that no longer reflected reality. His spent conviction was still being perceived as if it were current, and the consequences were crippling.
The legal background: what does "spent conviction" mean?
In the UK, a conviction becomes “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (a law designed to help individuals move forward with their lives) once they’ve completed their sentence and stayed out of trouble for a set period.
Once a conviction is spent, it generally does not need to be disclosed when applying for jobs, housing, insurance, or educational opportunities. This legislation was later enhanced by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and most notably updated under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which shortened rehabilitation periods for many offences.
This means people convicted of less serious crimes could move on with their lives more quickly. The Offenders Rehabilitation Act 2014 further supported these reforms by reducing disclosure times and promoting the idea that rehabilitation should be encouraged, not hindered.
However, the internet doesn’t forget. Even if a conviction is spent under the law, outdated content can remain online- on news websites, social media, or police press releases- and still appear in search engine results. This leads to what is often called digital punishment: a situation where someone continues to suffer consequences long after serving their sentence.
That’s where the Right to be Forgotten, enshrined under UK and EU GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), comes in. It allows individuals to request the removal of links to outdated, irrelevant, or misleading content from search engines, especially when the information unfairly impacts their current and future prospects.
From inaccurate media reports to clearing a spent conviction online
Our client had originally been charged with multiple offences, including rape and false imprisonment, after a heated disagreement with a woman he had met online. The altercation began when they disagreed over political issues and escalated.
Evidence later showed that the woman was the first to become physically aggressive, and CCTV revealed they left the scene together amicably. The jury cleared our client of five out of the six charges- including all the sexual offences- but he pleaded guilty to ABH on the grounds of excessive self-defence.
The court acknowledged this context and imposed a relatively lenient six-month suspended sentence and 200 hours of community service. Nevertheless, the online articles reported the charges without giving the full picture, making it appear as if our client had committed far more serious offences. They focused on the initial allegations but failed to clarify that he was ultimately acquitted of the majority of them.
Online search results blocked his return to university
Although the university had initially permitted him to continue studying, growing online publicity around the case eventually led them to suspend him for two years, primarily due to concerns about the reputational damage linked to his name.
As he prepared to return and reapply, a major hurdle loomed: a university risk assessment. This review would heavily rely on online searches to assess whether allowing him back could pose any reputational or safety concerns. Given that the internet still linked his name to multiple serious criminal allegations, despite him being cleared of all but one lesser charge, he had reason to be worried.
The online articles failed to mention the acquittals and distorted the context of the case, casting him in an unfair light. This meant strangers evaluating his academic future could be misled by outdated, one-sided content.
While friends, family, and tutors understood what really happened, search engines did not. This digital legacy of the past became a major threat to his future, something many individuals with spent convictions continue to face.
How we removed outdated and damaging articles from Google search results
To help our client reclaim control of his online reputation, we began with a Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) application to Google. We argued that his criminal conviction was now spent, and the articles appearing in search results were outdated, misleading, and damaging to his future.
Despite the clear facts, Google initially rejected the RTBF application. Their justification was that the content remained in the public interest- a common hurdle in these types of cases, particularly when media coverage has been widespread.
Not deterred, we proceeded to issue a formal GDPR Notice, explaining how the presence of these articles in search results breached our client's rights under both UK and EU data protection laws. Our Notice pointed out that:
• The articles misrepresented the outcome, focusing on allegations rather than acquittals.
• Key context was missing, including that our client acted in self-defence and the jury cleared him of serious charges.
• The continued publication of the content was causing unjust harm to his education and career prospects.
• Multiple variants of his name, including translated versions, were indexing the same outdated information, compounding the damage.
We persisted with follow-ups, responding to every resistance from Google. After sustained advocacy, Google agreed to delist all URLs associated with the outdated articles across UK and EU search domains. This result meant that individuals searching our client’s name online would no longer be misled by distorted or incomplete reporting.
This was not just a legal victory, it was a crucial step toward restoring our client’s right to privacy, accuracy, and a fair chance at moving forward.
Success story: how search result removals helped our client resume his academic journey
This result marked a turning point in our client’s life. With the harmful and misleading content removed from Google UK and other European domains, he finally had a fair shot at rebuilding his academic future without outdated accusations shadowing his name.
By clearing his digital reputation, we enabled him to reapply to university with confidence. No longer would search engine results misrepresent his past or mislead decision-makers. The content that once threatened his future was gone, allowing him to move forward on his own terms.
He expressed deep gratitude for our persistence and expertise, knowing that without this legal intervention, his opportunity to finish his degree and pursue a career would have been permanently compromised.
Lawyers' thoughts about the case
This case left a lasting impression on our legal team. It’s a strong reminder that the law must continuously evolve alongside technology, not just in its text, but in how it protects people.
As internet lawyers, we’ve seen how often the digital world continues to punish individuals long after the justice system has deemed them rehabilitated. A spent conviction should mean closure, yet the internet often keeps that chapter wide open.
For our client, being legally cleared of the most serious charges didn’t prevent the internet from telling a different and harmful story. Search engines and automated systems often lack the nuance to interpret legal outcomes and rarelt take the time to understand context.
That’s where we come in, not just to argue the law, but to present the truth behind it in human terms. Our client wasn’t just asking to “hide” his past; he was fighting for an accurate reflection of it.
We also learned that persistence matters. Legal victories in internet law often require pushing through silence, bureaucracy, and default denials. But with thoughtful advocacy and well-argued data protection claims, we can shift the narrative.
Ultimately, this case reinforced a truth we see every day: everyone deserves the right to move forward without being defined by outdated, misleading, or inaccurate information online. Our role is to make sure the law supports that journey.