The Three Rs: Remorse, Rehabilitation, Right to be Forgotten: How De-listing is Left up to the Courts in NT1 & NT2 and AR v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

摘要

This article re-examines the Google Spain (2014) ruling-the "right to be forgotten" (RTBF)-in the light of spent criminal convictions and acquittal at a rape trial and how it is left up to the courts to decide when an order for de-listing or de-indexing can be made on operators of internet search engines (ISEs). It will be shown how the complexities of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), in conjunction with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), conflict with the RTBF principle and interfere with an individual's privacy right under art.8(1) ECHR. Questions will be asked in relation to three claims-all decided in 2018-how different interpretations of "rehabilitation" and "remorse" can lead to personal information being "delisted" (NT2) or not (NT1), and how disclosure on an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC) can show a rape acquittal (AR). Have the courts become moral rather than legal arbitrators in deciding and downplaying the right to privacy and conveniently ignoring the RTBF principle, depending on the type of charge, length of sentence and remorse? It will be argued that the ROA 1974 is not fit for the digital age and is too complex to interpret for de-listing purposes and completion of an ECRC.