Feeds

Supreme Court: DNA database retention regs are unlawful

Judges lob ball into Parliament's court

New hybrid storage solutions

The Supreme Court has ruled that guidance on the running of the national DNA database – which states that all collected DNA signatures should be retained other than in "exceptional" circumstances – is unlawful. However the court, noting that Parliament is considering the matter, has declined to specify any remedy for the situation.

The ruling (53-page PDF/182KB) follows appeals brought by two men, referred to as GC and C, against judgments which had seen their signatures kept on file indefinitely, even though GC had been released without charge following his sampling and C – facing allegations of rape – had been acquitted.

Police routinely collect DNA data on people they arrest, and in the vast majority of cases this data is kept on file indefinitely even if no charges or convictions ensue. The European Court of Human Rights ruled against this practice in 2008, but current guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) states that chief constables have discretion to keep DNA data on file – even in the case of innocent persons requesting to have it deleted – unless "exceptional circumstances" exist.

It is this ACPO guidance which the Supreme Court has now deemed unlawful in a majority ruling, with seven judges agreeing and two saying that GC and C's appeals should have been dismissed. However the judges have not ordered deletion of GC and C's data, nor ordered ACPO to change the offending document.

"Where Parliament is seized of the matter, it is not appropriate to make an order requiring a change in the legislative scheme within a specific period or an order requiring the destruction of data," says the judgment.

The government has planned legislation to deal with the previous European court decision. Under the proposed new laws, the DNA data of those arrested for minor offences but not convicted would not be kept. People arrested for more serious crimes, even if not convicted, would see their data kept on file for three to five years. Convicted criminals' DNA would be retained indefinitely. ®

Security for virtualized datacentres

More from The Register

next story
Found inside ISIS terror chap's laptop: CELINE DION tunes
REPORT: Stash of terrorist material found in Syria Dell box
Show us your Five-Eyes SECRETS says Privacy International
Refusal to disclose GCHQ canteen menus and prices triggers Euro Human Rights Court action
Heavy VPN users are probably pirates, says BBC
And ISPs should nab 'em on our behalf
Former Bitcoin Foundation chair pleads guilty to money-laundering charge
Charlie Shrem plea deal could still get him five YEARS in chokey
NORKS ban Wi-Fi and satellite internet at embassies
Crackdown on tardy diplomatic sysadmins providing accidental unfiltered internet access
'Serious flaws in the Vertigan report' says broadband boffin
Report 'fails reality test' , is 'simply wrong' and offers ''convenient' justification for FTTN says Rod Tucker
FAIL.GOV – Government asks Dropbox for accounts that don't exist
Storage locker's transparency report shows rise in government data gobble attempts
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile
Data demand and the rise of virtualization is challenging IT teams to deliver storage performance, scalability and capacity that can keep up, while maximizing efficiency.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.