- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 5,823
Yeah, and what have the Romans ever done for us?
Police forces in much of the UK could be forced to destroy the DNA details of hundreds of thousands of people with no criminal convictions, after a court ruled today that keeping them breaches human rights.
The European court of human rights in Strasbourg said that keeping innocent people's DNA records on a criminal register breached article eight of the Human Rights Convention, covering the right to respect for private and family life.
Keeping DNA material from those who were "entitled to the presumption of innocence" as they had never been convicted of an offence carried "the risk of stigmatisation", the ruling said.
Attacking the "blanket and indiscriminate nature" of the power to retain data, the judges said protections offered by article eight "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 decision could oblige the government to order the destruction of DNA data belonging to those without criminal convictions among the approximately 4.5m records on the England, Wales and Northern Ireland database.
Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people, who are eventually not charged or who are later acquitted.
The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said existing laws would remain in place while ministers considered the judgment.
"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," she 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 decision follows a lengthy legal challenge by two British men. Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in March 2001 and charged with harassing his partner, but the case was later dropped.
Separately, 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".
They applied to the European court after their case was turned down by the House of Lords, which ruled that keeping the information did not breach human rights.
megadeth16 said:Big Brother police to get 'war-time' power to demand ID in the street - on pain of sending you to jail.
....this sounds sinister.
sonofajoiner said:megadeth16 said:Big Brother police to get 'war-time' power to demand ID in the street - on pain of sending you to jail.
....this sounds sinister.
What if you don't possess any i.d.? I currently have absolutely nothing with which to prove my identity, no passport, driving licence, not even a library card. And I have yet to be compelled to forkout for an id card. So I could be sent away for simply being too lazy to fill out forms? What the balls is wrong with this fracking country?
Well, I did mention Speakergate a few posts ago! 8)ted_bloody_maul said:Why haven't I heard the name Watergate mentioned a lot more in the last week or so? :?
That's the generic suffix for any kind of scandal nowadays but it does strike me that there are some similarities re motive. If the police's instructions came from somewhere higher up the political food chain then the motives in these two cases are not really that far apart.rynner said:Well, I did mention Speakergate a few posts ago! 8)
sonofajoiner said:What if you don't possess any i.d.?
wembley8 said:How would you suggest the police identify suspects, or rule out non-suspects? If there is no way of identifying someone, it might be a little difficult.
Police turn blind eye to scouring pictures from outside burglary victim's home
WHEN Angela Mannion's house was burgled she was sure the thieves would be caught on CCTV cameras on the street outside her home.
But when she asked police and council chiefs to examine the Leeds Watch camera footage she was told they wouldn't – because the job was too time consuming.
Police told Ms Mannion, 29, the eight hours in which the offence happened would take too long to analyse.
When she contacted Leeds City Council she was told they would only look through one hour of footage.
West Yorkshire Police have now apologised to Ms Mannion.
She said: "I even offered to sit through the tapes myself but they wouldn't allow it.
"There could quite easily be footage of the burglars lugging my TV off up the street but they were not interested. Whoever has done this could be responsible for lots more offences."
The break-in at Bellbrook Place, Harehills, Leeds, took place some time between 3am and 11am on November 29. Burglars stole a 42-inch TV, laptop, digital camera, £350 Christmas cash and the passports of Ms Mannion and her five-year-old daughter Ava.
She added: "The officers said that unless I could pinpoint exactly when the break-in took place there was nothing they could do. That's absolutely crazy.
"I wasn't at home at the time of the break-in. You expect a burglar to target properties when no one is inside so there must be countless other crimes that will also get ignored.
"If this is their policy it is absolute nonsense. It seems pointless spending money on these cameras in the first place if they don't take advantage of them properly."
She added: "To make matters worse, my house insurance had just lapsed, I am still paying for the TV and this week I have been made redundant. It all feels like one massive kick in the teeth,"
Police said a senior officer has contacted the complainant and "expressed our regret in terms of how this incident was handled".
A spokeswoman said: "Following the incident we undertook extensive enquiries to arrest potential offenders and recover stolen property.
"We have agreed a course of action with the complainant to take this investigation forward."
A spokeswoman for Leeds City Council said: "Leeds Watch are not permitted to release CCTV footage to members of the public. All the relevant information regarding this case was provided to the police."
Yep, sounds like one for the Dumb Cops thread! 8)tonyblair11 said:Have they not heard of fast forward? What a bunch of morons!
ted_bloody_maul said:I don't know whether to laugh or feel pity here:
Jacqui Smith's husband behind series of defensive letters
sonofajoiner said:Well at least they won't be allowed to smash holes in our walls, just our front doors, so that's something.
Under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a police officer of the rank of inspector or above may issue a written authorisation for additional search powers on the basis of a reasonable belief that incidents involving serious violence may take place or that people are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in the area without good reason. The powers relate to pedestrians and vehicles in a specified locality, for a specified period, not exceeding 48 hours at a time.
There must be some basis for the officer’s belief, related to you personally, which can be considered and evaluated by an objective third person. Mere suspicion based on hunch or instinct might justify observation but cannot justify a search.
Quite takes me back to the days in which the TV series 'Ashes to Ashes' was set.rjmrjmrjm said:I was stopped and searched last week whilst I was on a night out with a few friends. We were stone cold sober (at that point!) so I could easily remember that I was informed I was being searched under 'Section 60'.
...