References: [2005] 3 SCR 99, 2005 SCC 61
Links: Canlii
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the retention of a juvenile first-time offender’s DNA sample on the national data bank. The court upheld the decision by a trial judge who had found, in the light of the principles and objects of youth criminal justice legislation, that the impact of the DNA retention would be grossly disproportionate. In his opinion, Fish J said: ‘Of more concern, however, is the impact of an order on an individual’s informational privacy interests. In R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 SCR 281, at p. 293, the Court found that s. 8 of the Charter protected the ‘biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state’. An individual’s DNA contains the ‘highest level of personal and private information’: S.A.B., at para. 48. Unlike a fingerprint, it is capable of revealing the most intimate details of a person’s biological makeup. . The taking and retention of a DNA sample is not a trivial matter and, absent a compelling public interest, would inherently constitute a grave intrusion on the subject’s right to personal and informational privacy.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Marper -v- United Kingdom; S -v- United Kingdom ECHR (30562/04, Bailii, [2008] ECHR 1581, Times, (2008) 158 NLJ 1755, (2009) 48 EHRR 50, 25 BHRC 557, [2009] Crim LR 355)
(Grand Chamber hearing) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion, samples of their DNA had been taken, but despite being released without charge, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: (Unanimous) The . .
