S and Marper v United Kingdom
The blanket and indefinite retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints of people who had been arrested but not convicted was a disproportionate interference with private life.
Facts
S, aged 11, was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but acquitted, and Mr Marper was arrested and charged with harassment of his partner, but the case was discontinued. Under the law in England and Wales, the police were entitled to retain their fingerprints, DNA samples and DNA profiles indefinitely, even though they had not been convicted. The House of Lords held that the retention was lawful.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held unanimously that there had been a violation of article 8. The court said that the retention of cellular samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints interfered with private life, and that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention, which applied irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence or the age of the suspect, and was not time limited, failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests. The United Kingdom had overstepped its margin of appreciation. The law was changed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Related cases on private and family life (article 8)
- Big Brother Watch v United Kingdom (2021) Application no 58170/13
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 149
- Evans v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 34
- Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 18
- Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60, [2016] 1 WLR 4799
- HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338
- Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11, [2007] 2 AC 167
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
