Don’t give up when Google makes delisting feel impossible
Trying to rebuild your life after a spent conviction should be straightforward, but when Google keeps shifting the goalposts for delisting outdated and irrelevant information, it becomes an exhausting uphill battle. Still, as this case shows, persistence paired with the right legal strategy can make all the difference.
Right to be forgotten where Google argue public interest
The problem: a spent conviction still appearing on Google
What the law says about spent convictions and online content
Our legal strategy: challenging Google with a focused right to be forgotten submission
The outcome: swift delisting and restored peace of mind
Why this case matters: the importance of second chances
What can I do if Google won’t remove search results about my past conviction
When harmful content about a past conviction continues to appear in Google search results, even after the conviction is spent, it can make moving on in life incredibly difficult. What makes the situation even more exasperating is when Google refuses to delist those results by citing a so-called public interest that is entirely misplaced.
Often, that so-called interest is nothing more than outdated assumptions or generic justifications. Our client, whom we’ll refer to as Daniel, found himself in exactly this position. He had paid his dues, fulfilled his legal obligations, and was trying to rebuild his life.
Google’s decision to keep these articles indexed meant that every time someone searched his name, they were met with a distorted image of who he was, based on something that had long since lost relevance. Years after a low-level conviction, articles labelling him with prejudicial language were still showing up whenever his name was searched, casting a long shadow over his work life, personal relationships, and emotional health.
The problem: a spent conviction still appearing on Google
Daniel had been convicted of a public indecency offence that occurred in 2019. He was given a 12-month community order and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years.
Though his conviction was spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, local news articles continued to appear in Google search results for his name and hometown. The articles used sensationalist language and failed to reflect the fact that Daniel had served his time and was now leading a law-abiding life.
Daniel initially submitted a "right to be forgotten" request to Google himself, asking them to remove the links from search results. Google refused, citing public interest in the information and even suggesting that it was linked to his profession, despite the fact that he worked in a warehouse at the time.
He also complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), but the ICO declined to intervene on the grounds that the articles didn’t appear under a "valid search term", essentially dismissing the use of both his name and location as identifiers.
What the law says about spent convictions and online content
Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, a conviction becomes "spent" after a set rehabilitation period. Once spent, an individual is not legally required to disclose it in most settings, such as employment checks. When it comes to the internet, this intersects with UK GDPR and data protection laws.
Individuals have the right to request the removal of personal information that is outdated, irrelevant, or causes substantial distress, provided there’s no overriding public interest in retaining it online.
In Daniel’s case, his low-level conviction, the passage of time, his stable employment, and the lack of ongoing risk meant that any public interest in retaining access to the articles was negligible. His continued presence on search engines amounted to a disproportionate interference with his right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Our legal strategy: challenging Google with a focused right to be forgotten submission
We approached Daniel’s case with a sense of cautious optimism, knowing that there were legal and strategic hurdles to overcome, but also recognising that his situation deserved a fair resolution.
The offending article had been part of an open court proceeding, the publisher was likely to rely on what's known as the journalistic exemption under the Data Protection Act. This makes it very difficult, and often fruitless, to pursue the publisher directly for removal.
Instead, our energy was directed at Google, whose role in indexing and surfacing the article in search results was causing the most harm to Daniel. We began by crafting a detailed and focused legal submission aimed at persuading Google to delist the URLs from search results for Daniel’s name.
One of the central points we raised was that Daniel’s conviction was now spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This meant that, legally, Daniel was entitled to move on with his life and not be continually burdened by past mistakes that no longer had relevance to his present or future.
We also emphasised the fact that Daniel’s current role as a warehouse worker posed no public risk whatsoever. There was simply no ongoing justification for the articles to remain visible to the public when searching for his name.
Another key element of our submission focused on the language used in the articles, which was inflammatory and outdated. The terms used painted an exaggerated and damaging picture of Daniel’s character, which we argued was both misleading and disproportionate.
The ongoing presence of these harmful articles on search engines was not only damaging Daniel’s mental health but was also causing distress within his personal relationships, particularly as he attempted to rebuild a normal life with a new partner and her young child.
We didn’t stop at presenting Daniel’s personal circumstances. To support our position, we highlighted important legal precedents, such as the case of NT1 and NT2 v Google, in which the High Court confirmed that search engines could and should delist certain links when they are no longer relevant and where the impact on the individual’s privacy and wellbeing outweighs any remaining public interest.
We made it clear to Google that this was not just a plea for sympathy but a request grounded in current data protection law, supported by judicial authority and Daniel’s undeniable right to rehabilitation and privacy.
The outcome: swift delisting and restored peace of mind
Within days of submitting our legal representations, Google agreed to delist the articles from search results for Daniel’s name and identifying details. They did not require further clarification, and no follow-up was necessary.
This was an excellent result for Daniel, who was finally able to begin the process of moving on from a painful chapter in his life without the internet continually dragging it back into view.
Why this case matters: the importance of second chances
This case is a reminder that people deserve the right to rebuild their lives after a conviction, especially one that is legally considered spent. Search engines like Google have a duty to balance freedom of information with an individual’s right to privacy. When that balance is not struck, legal intervention may be necessary.
Even though Daniel’s case involved a sensitive issue, it wasn’t high-profile or ongoing. It serves as a strong example that even those convicted of more serious matters may still be entitled to have that content removed from search results once they’ve paid their dues.
Lawyers’ thoughts on the case
What stood out in this matter was not just the legal complexity but the human aspect. Daniel came to us having already tried everything he could on his own- he had made the requests, submitted explanations, even escalated the matter to the ICO. Yet, the doors kept closing.
This showed us that the right to be forgotten process can be deeply demoralising for individuals, especially when standardised responses and rigid systems fail to consider the personal impact of digital reputation. We found it particularly troubling that Google cited “public interest” in a case where the only remaining interest seemed to be the morbid curiosity of online readers.
Our role was to bring clarity, expertise, and persistence. Once we reframed the narrative for Google and provided the right legal references, their position changed rapidly. Daniel’s relief was evident and hearing that he could finally go on holiday in peace was a meaningful moment for us.
