Courts entitled to ignore European Court decision on DNA and fingerprint retention

23 July 2010 by

DNA database impact on human rightsUpdated, 1/9/10 | R (C) v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2010] WLR (D) 193 – Read judgment

When faced with conflicting authorities from the European Court of Human Rights and the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) on the indefinite retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints by the police, the Divisional Court held that they were bound to follow the House of Lords.

This was so despite clear indications from the previous and current governments that the law would be changed to take account of the Strasbourg decision. However, as leave to appeal was granted, the Supreme Court will now have the opportunity to revisit the issue and determine the law in this controversial area.

The Claimants, GC and C, sought judicial review of the decision of the Defendant, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, to retain their DNA profiles and fingerprints on the Police National Computer even though they had not been convicted of any crime. They argued that the Divisional Court should give effect to the Strasbourg decision in S and Marper v United Kingdom (30562/04) (2009) 48 EHRR 50, which held the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers given to the police to retain such information was contrary to Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for privacy and family life). The Defendant, supported by the Home Secretary as an Interested Party, argued that the Divisional Court was bound by the doctrine of precedent to follow the earlier House of Lords decision in R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (2004) UKHL 39, where the same policy of retention was found not to contravene article 8.

The Claimants drew on three factors in support of their position: first, that the parties in the cases before the House of Lords and the Strasbourg court were the same; second, that the Labour and Coalition governments had both indicated that legislation would be introduced to reflect the decision of the European Court; third, that the case involved Convention rights and the associated concept of proportionality, principles that derived from the ECHR. All of these factors, they argued, militated in favour of following the Strasbourg decision rather than that of the House of Lords.

In his leading judgment, Moses LJ said that he had decided the case on the issue of precedent, rather than the substantive merits. In his view, the relevant principles were established by Lord Bingham in Kay v Lambeth Borough Council [2006] 2 AC 465 [44], in which it was held that the doctrine of precedent required the domestic courts to follow a House of Lords decision where there was a conflict between that authority and a judgment of the Strasbourg Court. This was so despite the matters raised by the Claimants. This approach was the same as that taken by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in the case of McCaughey and Quinn’s Application [2010] NICA 13, the subject of an earlier blog.

While finding for the Defendant, the Court granted leave (with the agreement of all parties) for a “leapfrog” appeal to the Supreme Court. Moses LJ said that the issue of the propriety of retaining DNA and fingerprints needed to be addressed, and hence the courts should not wait for the anticipated legislation, there being no certainty when, what or whether such legislation would be passed.

The granting of leave means that the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to revisit this question in light of the Strasbourg ruling. Most immediately, this opens up the prospect of a change in the law in this contentious area. However, it also raises the question of the extent to which decisions of the Strasbourg Court shape the law of the United Kingdom. As has been noted in several recent blogs, a number of senior judicial figures have expressed concern about what they see as the unwarranted encroachment of Strasbourg into areas best determined by the domestic courts. It will be interesting to see whether the retention of DNA is an issue on which the Supreme Court seeks to make a stand on this point.

Update, 01/09/10: See our follow-up post

Read more:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy private nuisance private use Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities public inquiries public interest immunity quango quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: