header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 July 2009 / Keith Soothill , Brian Francis
Issue: 7378 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Keeping the DNA link

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Keith Soothill & Brian Francis question the scientific argument for keeping innocent people on the DNA database

There is no doubt that the government is in a serious dilemma regarding the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered last December (S and Marper v The United Kingdom (App Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04). The unanimous decision by 17 judges produced the damning verdict that the blanket policy in England and Wales of retaining indefinitely the fingerprints and DNA of all people who had been arrested but not convicted was in breach of Art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. However, the court did leave the door slightly ajar by agreeing with the government that the retention of the fingerprint and DNA data “pursues the legitimate purpose of the detection, and therefore, prevention of crime”. The question has become one of how far the door should be pushed open.
Opportunity

The Home Office has suggested a new policy and provided the opportunity to comment on the “reasonableness” of

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll