London Borough of Lewisham v D and Others: FD 29 Mar 2010

The local authority was investigating allegations involving the family history of children in their care. They sought disclosure by the respondent police authority of the results DNA comparison tests to assist their investigations. The court considered whether a matching report on a DNA sample itself was derived from the sample.
Held: Disclosure could not be made. The information requested by the Local Authority does fall within the definition of ‘information derived from the sample’ (section 64(1B)(b)) and should not be disclosed except for one of the specified purposes. Though the authority was investigating issues at the same time that the police were investigating crimes, their investigations were not themselves criminal investigations: ‘the provisions of PACE 1984 are directed to those who are specifically charged with investigating of criminal offences, with a view to bringing them to justice, and are not directed to Local Authorities conducting their child protection responsibilities.’

Stephen Cobb QC J
[2010] EWHC 1239 (Fam), [2010] Fam Law 795, [2011] 1 FLR 908
Bailii
Children Act 1989 31, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64(1A) 63A(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedS v S; in re S (An Infant, by her Guardian ad Litem the Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court) v S; W v Official Solicitor (Acting as Guardian ad Litem for a Male Infant Named PHW) HL 1970
Lord Hodson said: ‘The interests of justice in the abstract are best served by the ascertainment of the truth and their must be few cases where the interests of children can be shown to be best served by the suppression of truth. Scientific evidence . .
CitedIn re H and A (Children) (Paternity: Blood Tests) CA 21-Mar-2002
The right to know one’s parentage and identity is a fundamental part of private life. Thorpe LJ said: ‘first, that the interests of justice are best served by the ascertainment of the truth and secondly, that the court should be furnished with the . .
CitedMarper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedIn re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
CitedThe London Borough of Lambeth v SCVJ and others FD 2006
A court was unable to direct the commissioner of the police for the metropolis to disclose or release any sample of the DNA taken from a child for the purposes of comparing it with the DNA taken by other children. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Children, Local Government

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.417776