The UK’s highest court has rejected Government appeals against a human rights ruling won by some individuals who say their lives are unfairly haunted by minor criminal offences committed long ago.

Supreme Court justices found that a revised criminal records disclosure scheme was “disproportionate” in two respects – the requirement that all previous convictions should be disclosed, however minor, where the person has more than one conviction, and in the case of warnings and reprimands issued to young offenders.

They announced their decision on Wednesday on a challenge by the Home and Justice secretaries against a Court of Appeal judgment in 2017 over the legality of a the scheme.

At the time the decision by three appeal judges was hailed as a landmark that gave hope to many whose ambitions are said to have been dashed by mistakes in their past.

Judgment has been handed down this morning in the case of R (on the application of P, G and W) and R (on the application of P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others https://t.co/dSZX87EDF6 — UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) January 30, 2019

The appeal ruling backed the High Court’s 2016 finding that the scheme was “not in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private life.

The appeal judges said the operation of the scheme as presently devised may in some cases have been disproportionate and therefore not necessary in a democratic society.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether “the statutory requirements in relation to the retention and disclosure of certain convictions and cautions to prospective employers” breaches Article 8.

At the heart of the case was a “multiple conviction rule” and disclosure of all previous convictions relating to certain specified offences.

Following an earlier Court of Appeal ruling in 2013, the Government revised its disclosure scheme – which requires a person’s criminal history to be disclosed in circumstances such as applying for work with children or vulnerable people – to introduce a “filtering process”.

The revised scheme no longer required disclosure of every spent conviction or caution, but required such disclosure only in a limited set of circumstances.

These were where the conviction or caution was “current”, was in respect of certain specified offences, had resulted in a custodial sentence, or where the person had more than one conviction.

Legal action was brought by a number of individuals, who cannot be named for legal reasons, challenging the adequacy of the revised scheme, arguing that the amendments were insufficient to ensure compliance with Article 8.

One of the individuals the Government lost its appeal to is a woman, referred to only as P, who – while suffering from undiagnosed schizophrenia in 1999 – shoplifted a 99p book, which she believed was sending her messages, and then failed to answer bail.

The current rules mean she has to divulge her two convictions when applying and, in explaining the circumstances, reveal details of her medical history.

The Supreme Court also rejected the Government’s appeal in the case of an individual referred to as G, who was arrested at the age of 11 for sexually assaulting two younger boys.

However, the justices allowed the appeal in relation to an individual referred to as W, who had a conviction for assault as a juvenile for which he was given a two-year conditional discharge.