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.
Stephen Cragg QC (instructed by Bhatia Best) for the Claimant Dijen Basu (instructed by Jason Woodman, Solicitor) for the Defendant Hearing date: 16 July 2013 ____________________
In his first witness statement the claimant says that he was told by PC Woodcock that he "had to make arrangements within 7 days to provide a non-intimate sample to be placed on the Police National DNA Database". He continued, "I was informed...that if I did not consent voluntarily to give a sample then I could be arrested and a sample could forcibly be taken". The claimant did not give his consent.
Schedule 2A, which was added by section 6(2) Crime and Security Act 2010, came into force on 7 March 2011. The alleged requirement of the claimant was made on 12 March 2013 or 26 April 2013. However, one of the claimant's previous convictions was for manslaughter, and another was for kidnapping, both of which are qualifying offences under section 65A(2)(b) and (d) of the 1984 Act. Accordingly, the time restriction imposed by paragraph 11(2) of schedule 2A did not apply to the claimant.
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.