header-logo header-logo

27 June 2012
Issue: 7520 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Police must destroy photos

Photos of people without criminal records must be disposed of

The police cannot keep photographs of people without criminal records or who are not found guilty, the High Court held last week.

Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Kenneth Parker held that it was an unjustifiable breach of a person’s right to a private life to do otherwise, in R (on the application of RMC & FJ) v Commissioner for Police for the Metropolis & Ors [2012] EWHC 1681 (Admin). They dismissed the Metropolitan Police’s argument that keeping photographs of those not convicted was necessary for preventing crime and disorder, and ordered it to revise its guidelines within months.

This may mean the police will need to destroy photographs taken of anyone who has not committed a crime.

RMC was a middle-aged woman of good character who was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a community police officer who stopped her riding her bicycle on a footway. No prosecution was brought.

FJ was arrested at the age of 12 on suspicion of raping his second cousin. Following enquiries, no further action was taken.

Both claimants argued that, once the decision was taken not to proceed, the retention of their photographs was a breach of their Art 8 rights. 

The courts have previously ruled that the police cannot retain DNA or fingerprint data indiscriminately or indefinitely.

John Wadham, general counsel at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, says: “Without the protection of our human right to a private life, the police would be able to hold onto your DNA, fingerprints, and photographs even if you’d done nothing wrong.”

Issue: 7520 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll