No breach of privacy to request DNA sample from ex con

24 September 2013 by

DNA code analysisR (on the application of R) v Chief Constable  [2013] EWHC 2864 (Admin) 24 September 2013 – read judgment

The High Court has ruled that it is not a breach of the right to private life to request DNA samples from those who were convicted of serious offences before it became commonplace to take samples for the production of DNA profiles for the investigation of crime.

Background Facts

The claimant was asked, by reason of his previous convictions, to provide a DNA sample under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to enable the police compare the his DNA profile with those held by the police in connection with unsolved crime.  He refused to give the sample when it was sought initially, so he was sent a letter requiring him to attend at a police station to provide the sample on pain of arrest. He applied for judicial review of this requirement, arguing that it was an unlawful incursion on his right to privacy under Article 8.

In the light of the fact that the claimant’s previous convictions had been for manslaughter and kidnapping, the police had identified him as falling within the criteria for a nationwide operation to ensure that those convicted of homicides and/or sexual offences have a confirmed DNA profile held on the National DNA Database.  The sample requested from the claimant was destined for comparison with the 158,191 crime scene profiles held in the NDNAD. The issue therefore for the court in this case was  whether the collection of the claimant’s sample for the purpose of speculative checking against other samples and the retention of his DNA profile once produced was a proportionate exercise of the statutory power under PACE.

The Court’s decision

It was the defendant’s case that the fact that the claimant’s profile was not already held on the NDNAD was simply an accident of timing. After 5 April 2004 any person convicted of any one of the offences committed by the claimant would expect his sample to be taken and his DNA profile to be retained indefinitely.

In S and Marper v United Kingdom (2009) the Strasbourg Court found that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences was a disproportionate interference with Article 8.  PACE has been subsequently adjusted to take account of this judgment. But that case did not deal with the taking of a sample without the individual’s consent  when that individual had in the past been convicted of serious offences. In S, it was the “indiscriminate reach of the statutory power” that rendered the retention objectionable, in particular, “its tendency to stigmatise unconvicted persons who had come under suspicion”.

Pitchford LJ, giving the main judgment,  accepted the defendant’s contention that the statistical probability that any one of the samples gathered would produce a match with the crime scene database was not determinative of the issue of proportionality:

In my judgment, acceptance of propensity to commit offences as a measure (albeit an imprecise measure) of probability in the detection and proof of further offences is now so widespread that the defendant was fully justified in placing weight upon it. [40]

In the light of this, and their finding that “significant weight” was to be attached to the legitimate interest in the detection of crime, the Court dismissed the claim that the claimant’s Article 8 rights had been inadequately protected.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. Anyoldiron says:

    It certainly is NOT a breach of privacy to request DNA sample from ex con. Absolutely spot on. It may well be a breach of privacy however, if a sample is taken without the person’s consent.

  2. 2speeddriver says:

    As predicted by Amnesty International and almost everyone else the “fishing excercise” begins

  3. pawisuPaWiSu says:

    The thing is, the judge was subject to a barrage of publicity of the dire consequences if he found in the man’s favour – including a claim, I understand from Radio 4, that 6,000 cases might have to be abandoned. Given all this pressure it could be argued that his judgement was not unbiased. As laws didn’t use to be back-dated and people are subject to the law as it was when they committed the crime I would argue that they should whistle for his DNA and the police should concentrate on cutting current crime rather than trawling back 20, 30, 40 years.

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations 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 Facial Recognition 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 hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office 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 nuisance Obituary ouster clauses 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: