Keeping DNA samples from people with no criminal convictions is a breach of their human rights, a court ruled today.
The verdict from the European Court of Human Rights could force the Government to remove the DNA details of hundreds of thousands of Britons from the current total of about 4.5 million held on the England, Wales and Northern Ireland database.
Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offences.
Today the Strasbourg judges said keeping the DNA of innocent people on a criminal register amounted to discrimination and a breach of the "right to respect for private life" safeguarded by the Human Rights Convention.
The result is a victory for two Britons who have been fighting to change the law after police insisted on retaining their DNA records.
Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in March 2001 and charged with harassing his partner, but the case was dropped three months later after the two were reconciled. He had no previous convictions.
In a separate case, a 19-year-old named in court only as "S" was arrested and charged with attempted robbery in January 2001 when he was 12, but he was cleared five months later.
The men, both from Sheffield, asked that their fingerprints, DNA samples and profiles be destroyed.
South Yorkshire Police refused, saying the details would be retained "to aid criminal investigation".
The men's claims were later thrown out by the House of Lords, which ruled that keeping the information was not illegal under the Criminal Justice and Police Act, and did not breach human rights.
But earlier this year, when the cases came before the Human Rights Court, lawyers for the two men argued that keeping the DNA of innocent citizens left them under a cloud of suspicion.
It violated their "right to respect for private life" and "prohibition of discrimination" safeguarded by the Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was "disappointed" with the ruling.
The existing law would remain in place while ministers considered the judgment, she said.
"DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month, and I am disappointed by the European Court of Human Rights' decision," Ms Smith said.
"The Government mounted a robust defence before the Court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice.
"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgment."
The judgment ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of the Human Rights Convention's Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life.
The judgment stated: "The protection afforded by Article 8 would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests."
The judges said any country claiming a "pioneer" role in the development of new technologies bore special responsibility for striking the right balance.
And they attacked the "blanket and indiscriminate nature" of the power of retention of data in England and Wales.
"In particular, the data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature of gravity of the offence for which an individual was originally suspected, or of the age of the suspected offender; the retention was not time-limited; and there existed only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or to have the materials destroyed," they said.
The judgment went on: "The court expressed a particular concern at the risk of stigmatisation stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants (Marper and "S"), who had not been convicted of any offence and were entitled to the presumption of innocence, were treated in the same way as convicted persons."
The retention of private data could not be equated with the "voicing of suspicions", acknowledged the judges.
They added: "Nonetheless, their perception that they were not being treated as innocent was heightened by the fact that their data was retained indefinitely in the same way as the data of convicted persons, while the data of those who had never been suspected of an offence was required to be destroyed."
Keeping the data of unconvicted people would be especially harmful in the case of minors such as "S", bearing in mind the importance of their development and integration in society.
The ruling said: "Particular attention has to be paid to the protection of juveniles from any detriment that could result from the retention by the authorities of their private data following acquittals of a criminal offence."
The judgment concluded: "The court found that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of any offence failed to strike the right balance between the competing public and private interests and that (the UK) had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard.
"Accordingly, the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
Click here to comment on this story...
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article