143:. Both claimants had asked the Police Chief Constable for the samples of their DNA that had been taken to be destroyed. The Administrative Division of the High Court refused an application for judicial review in 2002 of the decision not to destroy the fingerprints and samples, and this decision was in turn upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2003. That judgment noted that the Police Chief Constable did retain the power to destroy samples in the rare instance in which he was completely satisfied that the individual was free from all suspicion whatsoever, and when the retention of samples had enabled information to be used for the legitimate purpose of combating crime.
241:, but to remove other profiles from the database after a number of years. The practice of taking DNA profiles upon arrest is not affected by the decision – for adults arrested but not actually convicted of any crime, it is proposed that their profiles will deleted from the database after 6 years, except for those whose arrest was in connection with a serious violent or sexual crime; their profiles will be stored for 12 years before deletion. Young people arrested but not convicted will have their profiles removed when they turn 18 years of age, as will youths convicted of some less serious offences.
123:: Mr. S. and Michael Marper. Mr S. was arrested on 19 January 2001 at the age of eleven and charged with attempted robbery. His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. He was acquitted on 14 June 2001. Michael Marper was arrested on 13 March 2001 and charged with harassment of his partner. His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. The charge was not pressed because Marper and his partner became reconciled before a pretrial review had taken place.
217:, had provided an example of a proportionate, more rational approach in regard to DNA retention, in that samples were to be destroyed if an individual was not convicted or was granted an absolute discharge; an exemption however exists for the authorities to retain samples if the individual is suspected of certain sexual or violent offences (Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police National Computer 2006).
200:
psychological integrity of a person, restrict personal development, inhibit ability to establish personal relationships, or the right of self-determination. The DNA profile was merely a sequence of numbers which provided a means of identifying a person against bodily tissue and was not materially intrusive; the retention of data was a legitimate aim because it assisted in the identification of future offenders.
158:’s observation, later mentioned by the European Court of Human Rights judgment, retention of both fingerprint and DNA data constituted an interference by the State with a person's right to respect for his private life which attracted the protection of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore required justification by the state.
191:
its storage, retention and constant automatic corroboration against other samples taken from current criminal investigations, caused them to suffer unwanted stigma and adverse psychological consequences. This was especially so in the case of S, as he was a child at the time of having his samples taken and relied on
Article 40 of the
220:
Through this ruling, the
European Court of Human Rights has further developed its body of jurisprudence on what measures are likely to fall outside a state's margin of appreciation. The Court determined that where there is no consensus between member states as to how important a matter at stake is,
199:
In response, the United
Kingdom submitted that the use of the DNA samples was permitted under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and did not fall under the scope of Article 8 of the Convention. According to the United Kingdom's government, retention of the data did not impair the physical or
252:
to limit the scope of the DNA database and comply with the Marper ruling. Under the new scheme the DNA profiles of those arrested or charged with a minor offence would be destroyed if they are not convicted. The vast majority of the one million people on the DNA database who have been arrested but
190:
The applicants stressed that the nature of DNA samples, which included a myriad highly personal data pertaining to an individual's unique identity, susceptibility to certain medical conditions and was linked to genetic information of their relatives, meant that not only the taking of the data, but
244:
As of
January 2011, this consultation remains unimplemented. The Northern Irish High Court has ruled that the regulations Marper declared breached article 8 should be followed despite the Marper decision. They said it was up to the government to change the law. This decision has been criticised,
212:
42,000 to each of the applicants. The Court did therefore not go on to consider whether the retention of DNA was also a breach of
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) as the applicants had also argued that they had suffered detrimental treatment on the basis of an acquired status. Notably,
274:
on 27 July 2011, the UK government "has indicated that destroying the DNA of the innocent would be impossible because the records are mixed up in batches alongside the DNA of the guilty." The "Home Office minister James
Brokenshire has revealed that these profiles will be retained by forensic
111:
member states allow the compulsory taking of fingerprints and DNA samples in the context of criminal proceedings; however the United
Kingdom (specifically, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) was the only member state that expressly permitted the systematic and indefinite retention of such DNA
345:"House of Lords - Regina v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (Respondent) ex parte LS (by his mother and litigation friend JB) (FC) (Appellant) Regina v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (Respondent) ex parte Marper (FC)(Appellant) Consolidated Appeals"
195:
of 1989, which states that it is the right of every child alleged to have infringed a penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's dignity and worth, reinforcing the respect for the child's human rights and fundamental freedoms.
221:
the margin ought to be wider, however as the facts in this instance involved the interference with intimate details of utmost importance to the individual, the margin allowed to the state was narrow and the United
Kingdom had not struck the right balance.
532:
527:
107:. Even if the individual was never charged, if criminal proceedings were discontinued, or if the person was later acquitted of any crime, their DNA profile could nevertheless be kept permanently on record. The majority of the
264:
guidelines allowing indefinite retention of DNA profiles were unlawful, in line with the ECHR ruling. However given that
Parliament was already legislating on the issue they decided that no further action should be taken.
174:
were granted permission to file third-party submissions and submitted scientific evidence on the private nature of genetic material and information contained in DNA samples. Liberty stressed that general principles of
517:
411:
183:” and have a legitimate aim to answer a “pressing social need"; even then an identified interference must be proportionate and remains subject to review by the Court (
154:, in that it had been enacted to replace the previous law which had provided that DNA samples could be destroyed following the acquittal of an accused. However, in
83:
samples of individuals arrested but who are later acquitted or have the charges against them dropped is a violation of the right to privacy under the
542:
192:
112:
profiles. In contrast, DNA samples taken in
Scotland when individuals are arrested must be destroyed if the individual is not charged or convicted.
245:
particularly since it was open to the court to declare the blanket DNA retention policy incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.
537:
284:
151:
104:
469:
237:
on how to comply with the ruling. The government proposed to continue retaining indefinitely the DNA profiles of anyone convicted of any
84:
522:
180:
412:"JR 27′s Application, DNA samples, fingerprints and how the courts are not giving effect to the Human Rights Act » Law Think"
489:
131:
The decision of the European Court of Human Rights overturned judgments favourable to the government from the United Kingdom's
419:
76:
179:
human rights law dictated that interference by a member state with an individual's rights under the Convention must be “
249:
166:
When the matter was before the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber, the non-governmental organizations
208:
In a unanimous verdict, the seventeen-judge bench held that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded
167:
344:
499:
171:
140:
234:
238:
96:
150:
also observed the considerable value of retained fingerprints and samples, and commented on the
108:
257:
270:
253:
not convicted of a crime would be removed from it within months of the bill becoming law.
136:
388:
132:
511:
155:
72:
48:
95:
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, since 2004, any individual arrested for any
433:
326:
230:
147:
366:
304:
116:
451:
214:
120:
176:
209:
275:
science laboratories. The retained samples will be anonymised."
533:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom
528:
European Court of Human Rights cases decided by the Grand Chamber
261:
100:
80:
229:
In May 2009, nearly 6 months after the court decision, the
494:
518:
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
103:
sample taken and stored as a digital profile in the
55:
44:
36:
28:
23:
390:JR 27, Re Judicial Review [2010] NIQB 143
248:In February 2011 the government announced the
8:
452:"DNA and fingerprint guidelines 'unlawful'"
434:"How Protection of Freedoms Bill will work"
213:another part of the United Kingdom, namely
20:
146:On appeal to the House of Lords in 2004,
193:UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
51:; Application nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04
470:"Leading article: DNA: a data disgrace"
295:
115:The case involved two claimants from
7:
305:"Q&A: The national DNA database"
285:United Kingdom National DNA Database
152:Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
490:European Convention on Human Rights
327:"'Blanket DNA retention' ruled out"
85:European Convention on Human Rights
503:, "Throw It Out," December 4, 2008
367:"Time limits on innocent DNA data"
14:
181:necessary in a democratic society
347:. www.publications.parliament.uk
303:Casciani, Dominic (7 May 2009).
543:2008 in United Kingdom case law
538:Genetics in the United Kingdom
495:European Court of Human Rights
77:European Court of Human Rights
32:European Court of Human Rights
1:
69:S and Marper v United Kingdom
24:S and Marper v United Kingdom
250:Protection of Freedoms Bill
559:
307:. BBC News (Home Affairs)
75:is a case decided by the
60:
523:English privacy case law
79:which held that holding
476:. London. 27 July 2011.
185:Coster v United Kingdom
369:. BBC News. 7 May 2009
187:(2001) 33 EHRR 479)).
172:Privacy International
105:National DNA Database
16:MarperUnited Kingdom
333:. 5 September 2007.
256:On 18 May 2011 the
416:www.lawthink.co.uk
393:, 23 December 2010
239:recordable offence
127:Procedural history
97:recordable offence
422:on 17 March 2012.
109:Council of Europe
65:
64:
550:
478:
477:
466:
460:
459:
448:
442:
441:
430:
424:
423:
418:. Archived from
408:
402:
401:
400:
398:
385:
379:
378:
376:
374:
363:
357:
356:
354:
352:
341:
335:
334:
323:
317:
316:
314:
312:
300:
258:UK Supreme Court
21:
558:
557:
553:
552:
551:
549:
548:
547:
508:
507:
486:
481:
474:The Independent
468:
467:
463:
450:
449:
445:
440:. 1 March 2011.
432:
431:
427:
410:
409:
405:
396:
394:
387:
386:
382:
372:
370:
365:
364:
360:
350:
348:
343:
342:
338:
325:
324:
320:
310:
308:
302:
301:
297:
293:
281:
271:The Independent
260:ruled that the
227:
206:
164:
137:Court of Appeal
129:
93:
40:4 December 2008
17:
12:
11:
5:
556:
554:
546:
545:
540:
535:
530:
525:
520:
510:
509:
506:
505:
497:
492:
485:
484:External links
482:
480:
479:
461:
458:. 18 May 2011.
443:
425:
403:
380:
358:
336:
318:
294:
292:
289:
288:
287:
280:
277:
226:
223:
205:
202:
163:
160:
133:House of Lords
128:
125:
92:
89:
63:
62:
58:
57:
53:
52:
46:
42:
41:
38:
34:
33:
30:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
555:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
515:
513:
504:
502:
501:The Economist
498:
496:
493:
491:
488:
487:
483:
475:
471:
465:
462:
457:
453:
447:
444:
439:
435:
429:
426:
421:
417:
413:
407:
404:
392:
391:
384:
381:
368:
362:
359:
346:
340:
337:
332:
328:
322:
319:
306:
299:
296:
290:
286:
283:
282:
278:
276:
273:
272:
268:According to
266:
263:
259:
254:
251:
246:
242:
240:
236:
232:
224:
222:
218:
216:
211:
203:
201:
197:
194:
188:
186:
182:
178:
173:
169:
161:
159:
157:
156:Baroness Hale
153:
149:
144:
142:
138:
134:
126:
124:
122:
118:
113:
110:
106:
102:
98:
90:
88:
86:
82:
78:
74:
71:
70:
59:
54:
50:
47:
43:
39:
35:
31:
27:
22:
19:
500:
473:
464:
455:
446:
437:
428:
420:the original
415:
406:
395:, retrieved
389:
383:
371:. Retrieved
361:
349:. Retrieved
339:
330:
321:
309:. Retrieved
298:
269:
267:
255:
247:
243:
235:consultation
233:announced a
228:
225:Significance
219:
207:
198:
189:
184:
165:
145:
130:
114:
94:
68:
67:
66:
61:DNA, privacy
18:
231:Home Office
162:Submissions
512:Categories
148:Lord Steyn
141:High Court
99:has had a
117:Sheffield
73:ECHR 1581
49:ECHR 1581
45:Citations
456:BBC News
438:BBC News
331:BBC News
279:See also
215:Scotland
204:Judgment
177:European
56:Keywords
397:24 July
373:26 July
311:26 July
168:Liberty
121:England
37:Decided
351:10 May
291:Notes
91:Facts
29:Court
399:2019
375:2010
353:2010
313:2010
262:ACPO
170:and
139:and
101:DNA
81:DNA
514::
472:.
454:.
436:.
414:.
329:.
135:,
119:,
87:.
377:.
355:.
315:.
210:€
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.