header-logo header-logo

29 April 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7884 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Privacy
printer mail-detail

Overstepping the mark on indefinite retention

19886
Michael Zander reports on a new (definitely unwanted) problem for the government

In brief

  • The Gaughran decision will require changes in the retention rules in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

On February 13, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously upheld Mr Fergus Gaughran’s claim that he had suffered an unlawful interference in his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention by the indefinite retention of his DNA profile, fingerprints and photograph (Gaughran v United Kingdom (App No 45245/15), [2020] All ER (D) 78 (Feb)).

In 2008, twelve years ago, Mr Gaughran was arrested in Northern Ireland for the recordable (ie imprisonable) offence of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded guilty, was fined £50 and disqualified from driving for 12 months. His DNA sample was destroyed in 2015 in line with the ECHR ruling in S and Marper v UK [2008] ECHR 1581, but the Northern Ireland Police Service (PSNI) did not agree to

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll