Where a defendant gave a sample of DNA during an investigation, but the sample was not destroyed on his acquittal, evidence obtained from a cross match relating to a different crime was not admissible. The statute requires the samples to be destroyed, and evidence based upon samples not so destroyed cannot be admitted.
Swinton Thomas LJ, Butterfield J, Rafferty J
Times 16-Jun-2000, Gazette 06-Jul-2000,  EWCA Crim 43,  3 WLR 1164,  Crim LR 994,  4 All ER 360,  2 Cr App R 416
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64(3B)
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999 (Lynn) CACD 26-Mar-1999
There was an obligation to destroy fingerprints and samples in respect of persons who were acquitted. Nevertheless, if such material was unlawfully retained, it could be used for the purpose of investigating another offence, and the evidence could . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, Regina (Marper) v Same CA 12-Sep-2002
The applicants had been charged with offences, but later acquitted. On arrest they had had DNA samples and fingerprints taken, and the details added to the national DNA database. The police refused to remove the records after the acquittals.
Appeal from – Regina v Forbes (Anthony Leroy) (Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999) HL 19-Dec-2000
The provisions of the Code of Practice regarding identification parades are mandatory and additional unwritten conditions are not to be inserted. Where there was an identification and the suspect challenged that identification, and consented to the . .
Cited – S, 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 . .
Appeal from – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn) HL 15-Dec-2000
A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence . .
Appeal From – Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.158693