A minor accused of theft was liberated without hail on his mother undertaking that he would attend the pleading diet. Immediately after being liberated two police sergeants caused him to be photographed, and imprints of his fingers to be taken, in order that these might be retained by the criminal authorities and placed in an album and register of criminals. Neither his own nor his mother’s consent was asked or obtained, nor was his mother allowed to accompany him to the room where the photograph and imprints were taken, though she asked leave to do so. The charge against him was subsequently found ‘not proven.’ In an action by him against the Chief-Constable, in whose custody the photograph and imprints were, to deliver to the pursuer the photograph and imprints, or, alternatively, to have them destroyed, and for damages, he averred that the police had acted in obedience to the defender’s instructions and with his authority. Held (1) that the photograph and imprints had been taken without legal warrant, and that the pursuer was entitled to have them destroyed, but (2) (diss. Lord Salvesen) that a mere averment of general instructions was insufficient, and that the conclusion for damages was therefore irrelevant.
Citations:
[1916] SLR 237
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Police
Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618257