Fingerprints DNA etc

[Loosehead]

If the police take prints DNA etc following an arrest and the arrestee is susequently found not guilty or not prosecuted at all, does the arrestee have the right to have the samples destroyed? If not why not? and do the police have a verifiable mechanism for this? What if the arrestee was arrested and prosecuted years later on fingerprint / dna evidence that the police shouldn't have in stock would that then be inadmissable?

[JudgeJ]

No, the person arrested does not have the right to have the records destroyed even if he was wrongly arrested. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2003 allows samples and records to be retained indefinitely from people arrested (whether lawfully or not) and from people who voluntarily gave samples in (for example) a mass screening exercise aimed at identifying a specific offender.

There have been one or two test cases where people have sought to have their samples destroyed but, as far as I know, none has succeeded.

It seems (without delving too deeply) that once your DNA has been obtained, there is little you can do to have it destroyed and the records removed. It would therefore seem to follow that the records may be used at any time in the future to help secure a conviction.

[Loosehead]

Thanks Judge, so even volunteers can't have their prints etc destroyed. When the police ask for people to volunteer to remove themselves from enquiries, they often say that samples taken will be destroyed after they are checked. Is this a blatant lie then or do they have the mechansim in place and how would someone verify?

[JudgeJ]

I don't really know the answer to that one, Loosehead. I imagine that since the introduction of the new legislation they might have re-worded the phrases they use when asking for volunteers. It certainly seems unlikely that the authorities will now voluntarily give up samples which they have taken, and so I suppose they see no need to have in place a mechanism to demonstrate that they have done so.

It always was a bit iffy anyway because, of course, they may have said (and might have been able to show) that they have destroyed the original sample (or fingerprints). There was nothing to stop them retaining copies of the prints and the results of the DNA profiling. Even the law-abiding amongst us must begin to think we live in worrying times.

[munchhausen]

It's actually section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Police act 2001 not 2003. It came into froce on 11th of May 2001

Prior to that it was unlawfull (section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) for the police to retain samples.