Fred Bauder writes:
I think you might start with an inquiry regarding what makes Gregory Lauder-Frost notable. Is it is political views and activities or is it his personal life?
This issue has actually been raised on the talk page. It is generally accepted that it is Gregory Lauder-Frost's political activities prior to 1992 which make him notable. Some argue that his activities as a genealogist are also sufficient to make him notable. A small group believes he may also be notable for the child custody dispute in which he was involved (which was contended by his counsel to be connected to his conviction).
However, that question surely does not help resolve the issue of whether it is reasonable to mention his conviction. In my view the principle is clear: if a person meets notability for a biographical article, then the whole of their life is notable even if on its own it would not qualify them. For example, Bill Clinton is not a notable saxophone player - he would not qualify for an article based on having played the saxophone - but it is reasonable to mention this fact in his article because it is a significant part of how he was perceived.
To take another example, how about politicians whose careers have been terminated by external scandals? One could not plausibly argue in the case of [[Peter Baker (UK politician)]] that because the financial scandal that caused his expulsion from the House of Commons was unrelated to his political career, it ought not to be mentioned.
The legal issues relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost have all been considered and there is nothing which would prevent a suitable, balanced, neutral, sourced and factual article being written. In order to be fully comprehensive, it would have to mention, in its proper context, the fact of his 1992 conviction.