header-logo header-logo

DNA proposals disproportionate

13 August 2009
Issue: 7382 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Storage proposals fail to meet Convention requirements

Government proposals  for the retention of the DNA of innocent people are disproportionate and are unlikely to satisfy the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

The Law Society, writing in response to a Home Office consultation, said that the proposed application of lengthy retention periods, “fails to strike the correct balance between the needs of the state to detect crime and the right to privacy of the individual”.

The consultation, Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database, was issued after a finding by the European Court of Human Rights that the blanket policy of the indefinite retention of fingerprints and DNA from those arrested but not convicted was in breach of Art 8. The court said that the retention of DNA profiles was “a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life”.

The government proposals would result in the DNA record of those arrested but not convicted of a recordable offence being automatically deleted after six years. Those arrested for a serious violent

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll