header-logo header-logo

26 May 2011
Issue: 7467 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Police

R (on the application of GC) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2011] UKSC 21, [2011] All ER (D) 167(May)

The fundamental feature of s 64(1A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was that it gave the police the power to retain and use data from suspects for the stated statutory purposes of preventing crime, investigation of offences and the conduct of prosecutions. But that did not justify a blanket or disproportionate practice. Neither indefinite retention nor indiscriminate retention could properly be said to be fundamental features of s 64(1A). Section 64(1A) clearly delimited the exercise of the discretion of the police to retain DNA data.

Such discretion had to be exercised to enable the data to be used for the statutory purposes and had to be exercised in a way which was proportionate and rationally connected to the achievement of those purposes. Parliament did not intend for there to be a scheme of indefinite retention in all cases. It intended that there would be a proportionate scheme which gave effect to the statutory purposes and which was compatible

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll