Supreme Court Judgment
In May 2011, the Supreme Court made a declaration that that the Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) guidelines on the retention of DNA, fingerprints and Police National Computer (PNC) records (adopted in 2006) are unlawful because they are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Supreme Court's judgment means that:
- The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Marper case now applies to the UK courts
- The current police guidelines for the retention of DNA, fingerprints and Police National Computer (PNC) records in England and Wales are unlawful
- The Government has a "reasonable time" to adopt new rules on retention (currently being considered by parliament in the Protection of Freedoms Bill). If it fails to do so up to a million innocent people could bring cases to court.
- External links
Exceptional Case Requests - Consideration for the Removal of DNA, Fingerprints and PNC Records (8th June 2011)
Police guidelines issued in response to the Supreme Court confirm that the police will continue operating its existing (unlawful) 'exceptional cases' procedure for the removal of records on the Police National Computer (PNC), DNA database and fingerprint databases until parliament has finished consideration of the Protection of Freedoms Bill.
- Exceptional Case Requests - Consideration for the Removal of DNA, Fingerprints and PNC Records (8th June 2011)
- Official documents
- Press articles
- The Guardian: DNA retention judgment won't see discriminatory policy destroyed (18th May 2011)
- The Register: Supreme Court: DNA database retention regs are unlawful (18th May 2011)
- The Guardian: Police breaking law by keeping DNA of the innocent, supreme court rules (18th May 2011)
- BBC Online: DNA and fingerprint guidelines 'unlawful' (18th May 2011)
- The Independent: Guidelines on DNA samples unlawful (18th May 2011)
- Public Service: Police DNA retention policy 'unlawful' (18th May 2011)
- UK Human Rights blog: Retention of DNA breaches human right to privacy, says Supreme Court (18th May 2011)