Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The applicant�s DNA sample was destroyed in 2015. The PSNI continues to retain, and intends to retain indefinitely within its records the DNA profile, fingerprints and photograph relating to the applicant that were taken from him on 14 October 2008.
The applicant sought leave to bring an application for judicial review challenging the PSNI�s continued retention of his biometric data that is, his fingerprints, photograph and DNA profile. In these proceedings the applicant sought:
�(a) a declaration that the indefinite retention of the data was unlawful and constituted an unjustifiable interference with his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the convention; and
(b) an order of prohibition preventing the respondent from making any use of the relevant data.�
The High Court gave its judgment on 13 November 2012. It found that the retention of the applicant�s biometric data was an interference under Article 8 of the Convention but that interference was justified and not disproportionate for the following eleven reasons (see � 44):
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.