Law reports Edited by the All England Law Reporters

Human Rights—Privacy—Retention of fingerprints and DNA samples
S and another v United Kingdom (App Nos 30562/04 and 30566/04)
European Court of Human Rights, 4 December 2008
The blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences constitutes a violation of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

The police lawfully took fingerprints and DNA samples from the applicants in two separate cases after each had been arrested and charged. Neither had previous convictions. One of the applicants was acquitted and proceedings against the other were discontinued.

Section 64(1A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) authorised the police to retain such fingerprints or DNA samples after they had fulfilled the purposes for which they had been taken, and provided that they were not to be used “except for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution”. The chief constable decided to retain the fi ngerprints and DNA samples taken from

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Law reports Edited by the All England Law Reporters

Issue: 7349 / Categories: Features , Human rights

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

Error message

Law reports Edited by the All England Law Reporters

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven