Feeds

Supreme Court: DNA database retention regs are unlawful

Judges lob ball into Parliament's court

The Essential Guide to IT Transformation

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. ®

Build a business case: developing custom apps

More from The Register

next story
Arrr: Freetard-bothering Digital Economy Act tied up, thrown in the hold
Ministry of Fun confirms: Yes, we're busy doing nothing
Help yourself to anyone's photos FOR FREE, suggests UK.gov
Copyright law reforms will keep m'learned friends busy
Apple smacked with privacy sueball over Location Services
Class action launched on behalf of 100 million iPhone owners
US judge: YES, cops or feds so can slurp an ENTIRE Gmail account
Crooks don't have folders labelled 'drug records', opines NY beak
ONE EMAIL costs mining company $300 MEEELION
Environmental activist walks free after hoax sent share price over a cliff
UK government officially adopts Open Document Format
Microsoft insurgency fails, earns snarky remark from UK digital services head
You! Pirate! Stop pirating, or we shall admonish you politely. Repeatedly, if necessary
And we shall go about telling people you smell. No, not really
prev story

Whitepapers

Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Top 8 considerations to enable and simplify mobility
In this whitepaper learn how to successfully add mobile capabilities simply and cost effectively.
Seven Steps to Software Security
Seven practical steps you can begin to take today to secure your applications and prevent the damages a successful cyber-attack can cause.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.