R, R (on the application of) v A Chief Constable

R, R (on the application of) v A Chief Constable

The requirement of 12 March 2013 was unlawful due to lack of prior inspector authorisation. However, the 26 April 2013 requirement was lawful and proportionate: the statutory preconditions were met, the interference with Article 8 rights was justified by the claimant's criminal history and the legitimate aim of crime detection, and there was no obligation to allow further representations as the relevant facts were undisputed and already before the decision-maker.

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 Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
DNA Sampling, Police Powers, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R (on the application of R)

Claimant

A Chief Constable

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirement to provide a non-intimate DNA sample was lawful and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the statutory preconditions for requiring attendance at a police station were met
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to make representations before the requirement was made

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of 12 March 2013 was unlawful due to lack of prior inspector authorisation. However, the 26 April 2013 requirement was lawful and proportionate: the statutory preconditions were met, the interference with Article 8 rights was justified by the claimant's criminal history and the legitimate aim of crime detection, and there was no obligation to allow further representations as the relevant facts were undisputed and already before the decision-maker.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.