header-logo header-logo

Police

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

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll