The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, represented by Jason Beer, successfully resists an application for judicial review of the decision to retain biometric samples

Jason Beer appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in the case of R (on the application of GC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of C) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Secretary of State for the Home Department (16th July 2010).  This case has wide-reaching implications for the retention of DNA and fingerprint samples by police forces.
 
The two Claimants, GC and C, had each given biometric samples (DNA and fingerprints) in the course of criminal investigations. In the event neither was convicted, and both requested the destruction of their biometric samples. In addition, one of the Claimants sought destruction of a photograph held by police and the other sought removal of the matter from his PNC. The Commissioner refused their requests pursuant to the policy of the Association of Chief Police Officers to retain biometric data save in exceptional circumstances. The Claimants sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision on the basis that the policy constituted a a disproportionate interference with their Article 8 right to respect for private life.

Moses LJ, giving the judgment of the court, refused the application, holding that the Administrative Court was bound to follow the decision of the House of Lords in R (on the application of S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (2004} UKHL 39 (retaining biometric samples did not infringe an individual’s Article 8 rights), rather than the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in S v United Kingdom (30652/04) 48 EHRR 50 (the blanket and indiscriminate nature of police powers to retain fingerprint and DNA material indefinitely of a person suspected but not convicted if an offence did infringe an individual’s Article 8 rights).

For now, therefore, police forces may continue to retain biometric data obtained in these circumstances, but police practitioners should be aware that leave for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court was granted. Watch this space.

Jason Beer, Treasury Counsel A Panel, has extensive experience in police and constitutional law.