The Court was asked as to the circumstances in which DNA profiles obtained by the police in exercise of their criminal law enforcement functions can, without the consent of the data subject, be put to uses which are remote from the field of criminal law enforcement. The claimant was a prisoner serving a life term for having killed the children’s mother. He asserted that he was the father of the children, and sought contact, but had refused to undergo a DNA test.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Dyson MR aid: ‘if section 22(1) and (2) were to be interpreted as meaning that the police have the power to retain and use DNA or other biometric material for purposes other than criminal law enforcement purposes, then it would violate article 8, since it would not be ‘in accordance with the law’. It would entail the existence of an arbitrary and unjustified distinction between Part II biometric material and Part V biometric material to which sections 63D, section 63R and section 63S apply. It would also mean that the exercise of the discretion given by section 22 would be indeterminate and unclear . . upon its true construction section 22 does not permit the police to retain and use biometric material seized under section 19 for any other purpose than criminal law enforcement.’
If section 22(1) and (2) were to be interpreted as meaning that the police have the power to retain and use DNA or other biometric material for purposes other than criminal law enforcement purposes, then it would violate article 8, since it would not be ‘in accordance with the law’. It would entail the existence of an arbitrary and unjustified distinction between Part II biometric material and Part V biometric material to which sections 63D, section 63R and section 63S apply. It would also mean that the exercise of the discretion given by section 22 would be indeterminate and unclear.
Dyson MR L, McFarlane, Beatson LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 34, [2015] 1 FLR 1100, [2015] 4 All ER 205, [2015] 1 Cr App R 28, [2015] Fam Law 369, [2015] 1 WLR 2501, [2015] WLR(D) 76
Bailii, WLRD
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 22, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Re Z (Children) FD 18-Jun-2014
The father, X, asserted that he was such, but refused to undergo a DNA test, and ‘The question arises in the most appalling circumstances: X murdered the children’s mother, in particularly horrible circumstances. He is serving a sentence of life . .
Cited – CG And Others v Bulgaria ECHR 24-Apr-2008
The applicants alleged that the first applicant’s expulsion from Bulgaria amounted to unjustified interference with their right to respect for their family life, enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention.
‘The Court is naturally mindful of the . .
Cited – Marper 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: . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Human Rights, Information
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.542268
