This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Judges rule in favour of DNA case DNA database 'breach of rights'
(19 minutes later)
The European Court of Human Rights has found in favour of two British men who argued it was illegal for police to hold their DNA and fingerprints. Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Neither of the men had been convicted of any offence. The men's information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offence.
The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK's national database.The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK's national database.
The men's information was retained by South Yorkshire Police, although they were not convicted of the crimes for which they were arrested. The judges said keeping the information "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
The database may now have to be scaled back following the judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was "disappointed" by the European Court of Human Rights' decision.
The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe.
Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.
DiscriminatoryDiscriminatory
The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.
Both men were awarded £36,400 (42,000 Euros) in costs, less the money already paid in legal aid. The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary
The court found that the police's actions were in violation of Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life - of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judges ruled the retention of the men's DNA "failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests," and that the UK government "had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard".
The court also ruled "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".
The home secretary said: "DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month.
"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 judgement."
One of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001. FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME More from Today programmeOne of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001. FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME More from Today programme
He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped after the couple were reconciled. He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped. He had no previous convictions.
The other man - a teenager identified as "S" - was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but was later acquitted. The other man - a teenager identified as "S" - was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but later acquitted.
In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody.In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody.
The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.
They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life.They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life.
The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.
Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offences.
The Home Office has already set up a "contingency planning group" to look into the potential implications arising from a ruling in favour of the men.