Right to be forgotten for theft and breach of trust conviction: How we helped remove damaging articles from search engines
When old articles on the internet keep resurfacing and damaging your reputation, it can feel like your past is impossible to escape. UK privacy laws, especially the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, offer tools that can help people move on from outdated and unnecessary digital records. Matthew's story shows how this works in practice.
Convicted of theft and can't remove articles from Google
How the right to be forgotten works if you've been convicted of a crime
Old convictions and privacy law: when does it become unfair
Google refused to delist your conviction
How we got Google and Bing to delist search results for our client
Successful right to be forgotten application for theft conviction
Convicted of theft and can't remove articles from Google
Matthew, not his real name, had once worked as a respected travel agent. After a tragic personal loss and a series of poor decisions, he was convicted of theft in the 1990s and received a 12-month prison sentence for theft, a serious matter involving a breach of trust towards his employer. He later repaid the money and spent the following decades rebuilding his life, career, and relationships.
Today, he works as a software manager and has even had success in publishing illustrated books. His professional life was stable, and he had kept a clean record. However, articles detailing his criminal past appeared prominently in search results for his name.
While these articles were accurate, they were decades old and did not reflect the man Matthew had become. More importantly, he was concerned about the impact the outdated articles about his conviction might have on his children and personal relationships.
How the right to be forgotten works if you've been convicted of a crime
In the UK, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 allow people to ask search engines like Google or Bing to delist links containing personal information. This is especially relevant when the information is no longer necessary or relevant to the public interest. This is known as the "right to be forgotten".
However, as many who have tried to remove articles about their previous convictions from the internet have discovered, this isn’t a guaranteed right. Courts and search engines must weigh a person’s right to privacy against the public’s right to know.
One of the key factors is whether the conviction has become "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. When a conviction becomes spent, it is generally treated in law as though it never happened, meaning that people shouldn’t be treated unfairly because of it.
Old convictions and privacy law: when does it become unfair
UK courts have recognised that, after a sufficient passage of time, even convictions that once were public knowledge can become part of someone's private life. When that happens, continuing to publicly link someone's name to those events may no longer be justified.
The law has developed in this area, especially in cases where there’s no longer a public safety reason to keep that information easily searchable. In fact, legal decisions have highlighted important principles that apply to cases like Matthew’s. For example, even though an offence involved a serious breach of trust, the public interest in keeping that information searchable does not last forever.
Courts have found that once a conviction is spent and the person has demonstrated genuine rehabilitation, the continued availability of such information may cause harm that outweighs any residual public benefit. What matters is the balance between harm to the individual and the public’s need to know.
Google refused to delist your conviction
Before coming to us, Matthew had tried on his own to submit a delisting request to Google. He explained that the articles were outdated and causing him distress. However, Google refused the request, pointing out that the conviction involved dishonesty and a breach of trust, and therefore was in the public interest.
This response echoed reasoning seen in other cases, where the seriousness of the offence initially weighed in favour of keeping the links visible. What Google overlooked, and what we were able to show, is that the legal position does not end there.
As established in court judgments, including those involving spent convictions, the key is whether there remains a compelling public interest in continued access. Simply having a serious conviction is not enough if the offence is old, the person has changed, and the content is no longer relevant.
How we got Google and Bing to delist search results for our client
Our legal team submitted a fresh, comprehensive delisting request, drawing on the latest legal guidance and case law. We pointed out that Matthew’s conviction was spent, that he had fully repaid the stolen funds, had committed no further offences, and had long since changed industries.
We explained the lasting harm caused to his private and family life by the ongoing accessibility of these links. Google initially pushed back, but we relied on legal principles developed by the courts that show even convictions involving dishonesty may become private matters once they are spent and no longer serve a real public function. Through well-reasoned legal arguments, we demonstrated that Google’s refusal did not align with this legal framework.
Once we presented this, they accepted the position and Google agreed to delist the URLs. We then conducted a wider search, identifying other search terms under which the same articles appeared, such as Matthew’s name combined with his current employer or town. We submitted further requests, which were also accepted. Bing followed suit and promptly removed all identified links.
Successful right to be forgotten application for theft conviction
In Matthew’s case, the success was largely due to several legal principles. The conviction had become spent, and the content no longer served a useful public purpose. Moreover, the articles were harming his private and family life, without any clear benefit to the public in continuing to make them easily searchable.
This aligns with how UK courts have approached similar cases. In some legal rulings, courts have found that once a person’s conviction is spent, continued easy access to old information about that crime may amount to an unfair and unnecessary interference with their privacy rights.
The courts stress that each case must be judged on its own facts, but where there is real harm and little ongoing public interest, delisting is often the right outcome.
Lawyers thoughts on the case
Matthew’s case reminds us how difficult it can be to remove articles about past convictions from the internet—even after someone has rebuilt their life. The process can be frustrating, especially when search engines refuse initial requests. The law is clear: once a conviction is spent, especially when it’s old and the person has shown change, there may be no good reason to keep it searchable.
In our experience, one of the most important lessons is to be thorough and legally clear when making a delisting request. People often fail when they try to do this alone because they don’t frame their case within the legal tests properly. Simply saying the article is upsetting isn’t enough. You need to show how the content is no longer relevant, causes ongoing harm, and doesn’t serve a real public interest anymore.
We also advise looking beyond just one or two links. In Matthew’s case, we had to track how his name was being searched- alongside his job title, location, and other variations- and address each of these with evidence.
We believe everyone deserves a second chance, and where the law supports it, we’re here to make that happen. If you've tried and failed to remove past reports from search engines, don’t give up. Get legal help to do it properly.
