³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Ex-offenders in Northern Ireland are being unlawfully barred from ever having past convictions classed as "spent", a High Court judge has ruled.

Mr Justice Colton declared that an obligation to disclose any prison sentence in excess of 30 months was incompatible with human rights law.

Spent convictions do not have to be declared to employers.

But in NI, people sentenced to more than 30 months in jail can never have their convictions spent.

This is set out in the

The ruling came in a challenge to the law on the rehabilitation of offenders mounted by a man jailed over an arson attack more than 40 years ago.

Now aged in his 60s, and granted anonymity, he claimed the requirement to reveal his criminal past had created barriers in finding work and leading a normal life.

Thousands of offenders in the same category who are trying to reintegrate into society have been carrying past convictions like "the mark of Cain", the court was told.

In 1980, the man at the centre of the case received a five-year term for offences related to the petrol bombing of a house, burglary and theft.

According to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, who backed his challenge, no-one was injured and there was no paramilitary or sectarian link to the crime.

Since completing his sentence, the man has never come into contact with the criminal justice system again.

But the legislation means he will never be treated in law as someone who has not committed a criminal offence.

The court heard the disclosure requirement impacts on everything from employment and education to travel and insurance prospects.

Lawyers for the man said he found the process of revealing details about an historic offence to be oppressive and shaming.

They argued it breached the right to private and family life protected by

Department of Justice lawyers said the position was permissible and lawful.

Ruling on the challenge, Mr Justice Colton identified a clear public interest and benefit to society in providing offenders the chance to fully reintegrate following conviction.

"The disclosure of prior convictions can have an adverse impact on rehabilitation and is an interference with an individual's Article 8 rights," he said.

He described the disputed terms of the 1978 Order as "arbitrary, both in substance and effect".

"The ongoing interference with the applicant's Article 8 rights is not proportionate," the judge said.

"The objectives of protecting the public and ensuring confidence in the justice system can be achieved by the imposition of lesser restrictions which would facilitate the opportunity of the applicant applying to have his convictions deemed to be spent."

He said it would be both "practicable and proportionate to devise a system of administrative review which would enable persons such as the applicant to apply to have their conviction deemed to be spent."

He added: "The court considers that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that an individual's conviction should be deemed to be spent.

"That system of review would involve consideration of such matters as the circumstances of the conviction, the length of sentence, the period of time since the conviction was imposed, the conduct of the individual since the conviction and his current personal circumstances".

However while a consultation process may lead to legislative changes to the regime in Northern Ireland, Mr Justice Colton pointed out that amendments are not guaranteed.

He confirmed: "It is appropriate to make a declaration to the effect that Article 6(1) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Order 1978 is incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR by reason of a failure to provide a mechanism by which the applicant can apply to have his conviction considered to be spent, irrespective of the passage of time and his personal circumstances."