Spanish Conviction Deleted from UK PNC: The Reciprocal Deletion Breakthrough

In April 2026, we secured the deletion of a Spanish conviction from the UK Police National Computer – the first written acceptance we are aware of, under the post-Brexit framework, that an EU conviction should be deleted from the PNC once it has been cancelled by the sending state. We secured a similar outcome in 2020 under the pre-Brexit EU regulations (see our earlier case analysis); the significance of the new decision is that ACRO has now accepted the same reciprocal deletion principle under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020 (TCA). In doing so, ACRO has expressly acknowledged – in writing – that retaining a fully active PNC record which no longer corresponds to the individual’s legal status in the sending state raises concerns of “accuracy and proportionality”.

This article sets out the background to the decision and the questions it now opens up for future cases.

Background

In our 2020 case on overseas convictions and the PNC, acting for a UK national whose historic EU conviction had long since been weeded in the convicting state, we persuaded the NPCC Chief Constable responsible for the PNC to delete the record. Our argument then, under the pre-Brexit EU framework, was that once a conviction had been deleted by the sending state’s central register, the UK had a reciprocal duty to delete the corresponding record from the PNC. That application succeeded and the record was removed.

What did not happen in 2020, however, was a public concession of the principle. ACRO referred the matter out for external advice, the record was deleted without any published reasoning, and ACRO’s published guidance then quietly changed to say that weeded foreign records would be considered “on a case by case basis”. The substantive decision was not made public.

The UK then left the EU. The legal framework for the exchange of criminal records between the UK and EU member states was replaced by the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020 (TCA). Anticipating that the same retention issue would arise under the new framework, over the last twelve to eighteen months we have used freedom of information requests directed at ACRO to force the position into the open.

Their responses were consistently evasive. There was no stated public policy on the issue, just a reluctance to engage with it directly. That changed earlier this year.

The Case

Our client was convicted in Spain of ABH (causing minor bodily injury) and of criminal damage. The conviction information was exchanged with the UK under the TCA and recorded by ACRO on the PNC as equivalent UK offences in accordance with UK retention guidelines. Because ABH is a specified offence for DBS filtering purposes, the record would have been fully disclosable on an Enhanced DBS certificate, and on an ACRO Police Certificate, for the remainder of our client’s life, with the professional consequences that follow.

Acting on our advice, our client first secured the formal cancellation of the conviction in Spain. The Spanish Ministry of Justice cancelled the record under Article 136 of Organic Law 10/1995 (the Spanish Penal Code) and the corresponding implementing provisions of the Royal Decree which governs the Central Registry of Convicts. Cancellation in Spain is not analogous to the UK concept of a spent conviction, nor to DBS filtering. It is a formal legal deletion: the offence is treated in Spain as though it never legally existed, and the record is unavailable for employment, administrative or vetting purposes, accessible only internally by judicial authorities for strictly procedural reasons.

With cancellation secured, we applied to ACRO for the reciprocal deletion of the record from the PNC. The application turned on a careful construction of the TCA’s notification and storage provisions, and on parallel arguments under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 concerning accuracy, proportionality and storage limitation.

The Decision

Following an extended period during which we were informed that the case had been escalated for “high-level review from senior members of staff” due to its complexities, ACRO issued its resolution on 24 April 2026. The conviction was removed from the PNC in full.

ACRO accepted that the Spanish Ministry of Justice had formally cancelled the conviction, with the effect that the offence is now treated in Spain as though it never legally existed, and the record is unavailable for employment, administrative or vetting purposes. Retaining a fully active and disclosable conviction on the PNC would, by contrast, create an ongoing criminal record that no longer corresponds to the individual’s legal status in the issuing state, raising concerns regarding accuracy and proportionality.

So, our client now has a clear PNC record.

Why the Decision Matters

The reasoning is significant in two respects.

First, “accuracy” and “proportionality” are the language of Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018, which governs law enforcement processing of personal data. The first data protection principle requires processing to be lawful and fair; the third requires personal data to be accurate; the storage limitation principle requires that data not be kept for longer than necessary. By framing its decision in those terms, ACRO has anchored the reciprocal deletion principle within the statutory data protection framework, rather than leaving it to an unreviewable discretion. That has consequences for future cases, because it means the analysis is no longer only about the construction of the TCA; it is also about whether continued retention is lawful under Part 3 DPA 2018.

Second, ACRO has acted on a formal cancellation by the sending state’s central authority. Spain operates a clean, binary cancellation regime: either the conviction exists on the Spanish register and is disclosable, or it has been cancelled and ceases to exist for all external purposes. Where that has happened, and the cancellation has been notified to ACRO, the case for reciprocal deletion is, in our view, now very difficult for ACRO to resist.

The Open Question: A Different Approach for Each EU State

The harder issue, and the one that will shape the next cases, is what counts as a qualifying deletion in the sending state. The direct consequence is that the route to ACRO will look materially different depending on which EU state the conviction originated in.

Spain’s cancellation regime is unusually clean. Not every EU state operates the same way. Some national registers move convictions through a structured retention lifecycle: on expiry of a retention period, the conviction may cease to be disclosable for employment, licensing or vetting purposes, but is not necessarily erased from the register in the Spanish sense. The legal effect in such a regime is closer to the UK step-down process, or to DBS filtering, than it is to cancellation under Spanish law. Other regimes are closer to the UK rehabilitation model, under which the record continues to exist but ceases to be disclosable after a prescribed period. Where any given EU state sits on this spectrum is a question of its domestic law and has to be established case by case.

Whether a non-disclosure or time-based regime of that kind is sufficient to trigger ACRO’s obligation to reciprocally delete is the live question. In our view the answer will turn on two things: the precise legal effect of the regime in the individual state, and the content of the notification that ACRO actually receives from the sending state’s central authority.

The practical implication is that the application strategy for an EU PNC record cannot be generic. What is required, what must first be secured in the sending state, what evidence must be put before ACRO and what legal arguments will succeed will vary from country to country. A conviction from Spain follows one path. A conviction from a state with a time-based non-disclosure regime will follow another. A conviction from a state with a hybrid regime may require a different approach again. In each case the analysis is fact-sensitive, turns on local law as much as on UK law, and requires concrete evidence from the sending state about what has actually happened to the record and what has been communicated to the UK. This is an analytical and evidential exercise we are well-placed to undertake on behalf of clients.

A Post-Brexit Limitation

The TCA framework applies only to convictions exchanged between the UK and EU member states. It does not govern the transfer of criminal record information from the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or any other non-EU jurisdiction. Records from those countries reach the PNC through the International Criminal Conviction Exchange managed by ACRO’s NEU-ECR team, and the grounds on which deletion may be sought are narrower and more technical than under the TCA. Possible grounds include the absence of an equivalent recordable offence in England and Wales, that the foreign disposal does not in substance amount to a “conviction” within the meaning of UK law, errors in the data exchanged, and others which depend on the specifics of the case. These are fact-sensitive arguments and, in practice, rarely succeed without close legal analysis of both the foreign disposal and the UK recording rules.

Summary

The April 2026 decision is a significant development in the law and practice of PNC retention. In short:

• ACRO has deleted an EU conviction from the PNC on the basis of the sending state’s formal cancellation of the underlying record.
• The reasoning is grounded in accuracy and proportionality, which anchors the reciprocal deletion principle within the Part 3 DPA 2018 framework.
• The reciprocal deletion principle, which we previously secured in a 2020 case under the pre-Brexit EU framework, has now been accepted in writing under the post-Brexit TCA framework.
• The outstanding issue, which we expect to be litigated through future cases, is whether EU states operating time-based non-disclosure or retention-lifecycle regimes produce a qualifying “deletion”. The application strategy will be different for each EU state, and will turn on the legal effect of the regime in that state and on the notification actually received by ACRO.
• The TCA framework does not assist with convictions transferred to the PNC from outside the EU. Those cases turn on narrower technical grounds such as the absence of an equivalent recordable offence in England and Wales, or whether the foreign disposal amounts to a conviction in the UK sense.

This is a narrow and technical area of practice. We are not aware of any other lawyers that has pursued the reciprocal deletion argument to a successful outcome, first in 2020 under the pre-Brexit EU framework and now in 2026 under the TCA. The specific grounds of application, the order in which steps are taken, and the evidence assembled in support will in each case determine whether ACRO will agree to delete. If you have an overseas conviction on your UK PNC record, and particularly if the conviction has been cancelled, weeded, or has otherwise ceased to be disclosable in the sending state, please get in touch.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an EU conviction be removed from the UK Police National Computer?

Yes, in appropriate cases. In April 2026 ACRO accepted that where an EU conviction has been formally cancelled by the sending state, retaining a fully active and disclosable record on the UK PNC raises concerns of accuracy and proportionality. The application turns on the construction of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and on parallel arguments under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Each case is fact-sensitive and will require tailored grounds and supporting evidence.

Can a Spanish conviction be deleted from the UK PNC?

Yes, where the conviction has been formally cancelled by the Spanish Ministry of Justice under Article 136 of Organic Law 10/1995. Cancellation in Spain has the effect that the offence is treated as though it never legally existed and the record is unavailable for employment, administrative or vetting purposes in Spain. We have secured a written ACRO decision accepting that, in those circumstances, the corresponding record should be removed from the UK PNC.

What is reciprocal deletion and why does it matter?

Reciprocal deletion is the principle that where a sending state has deleted, cancelled or otherwise removed a conviction from its own national register, the UK should make a corresponding deletion from the PNC record created when that conviction was originally transferred to the UK. The principle matters because, without it, a person whose record has been cleared in the country of conviction continues to carry a fully disclosable UK criminal record for the rest of their life, with all the employment, vetting and professional consequences that follow.

Does this apply to convictions from outside the EU?

No. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement framework applies only to convictions exchanged between the UK and EU member states. Convictions originating in the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand or any other non-EU jurisdiction are not within scope. For non-EU records the grounds on which deletion may be sought are narrower, and may include the absence of an equivalent recordable offence in England and Wales, or that the foreign disposal does not amount to a conviction in the UK sense, among others.

Does the same approach work for every EU country?

No. EU member states operate different regimes for the retention and deletion of criminal records. Spain has a clean cancellation regime. Other states operate retention-lifecycle or time-based non-disclosure regimes which are closer to the UK step-down process or to DBS filtering. Whether the regime in the sending state is sufficient to trigger reciprocal deletion in the UK will depend on the precise legal effect of the local regime and on the content of the notification received by ACRO. The application strategy must be tailored country by country.

How do I apply to have an overseas conviction removed from my PNC record?

The ACRO dispute process is the formal route, but a successful application in this area requires more than simply filing the ACRO form. In EU cases it may be necessary first to secure action by the central authority of the sending state. The grounds of application, the order in which steps are taken and the supporting evidence will all materially affect the outcome. Given the technical nature of the law and the evolving ACRO position, we would recommend taking specialist legal advice before making an application.