R, R (on the application of) v A Chief Constable [2013] EWHC 2864 (Admin) (24 September 2013)

R, R (on the application of) v A Chief Constable [2013] EWHC 2864 (Admin) (24 September 2013)

The requirement of 12 March 2013 was unlawful as it was made without prior inspector authorisation, contrary to statutory requirements. However, the 26 April 2013 requirement was lawful and proportionate: the claimant's convictions for serious offences justified the interference with his Article 8 rights, and the statutory scheme was properly followed. The absence of specific suspicion did not render the requirement disproportionate, and the claimant's Article 8 rights were adequately protected as he had the opportunity to present his case before the inspector's authorisation.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2864 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: R (on the application of R); Defendant: A Chief Constable
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
DNA Sampling, Police Powers, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Judicial Review, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Public Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law DNA Sampling Police Powers Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Judicial Review +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R (on the application of R)

Claimant

A Chief Constable

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirement to provide a non-intimate DNA sample was lawful under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the requirement constituted a disproportionate interference with the claimant's Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to make representations before the requirement was imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of 12 March 2013 was unlawful as it was made without prior inspector authorisation, contrary to statutory requirements. However, the 26 April 2013 requirement was lawful and proportionate: the claimant's convictions for serious offences justified the interference with his Article 8 rights, and the statutory scheme was properly followed. The absence of specific suspicion did not render the requirement disproportionate, and the claimant's Article 8 rights were adequately protected as he had the opportunity to present his case before the inspector's authorisation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • No order quashing the 26 April 2013 requirement.