B, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 42 (26th May, 2000)

B, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 42 (26th May, 2000)

Section 64(3B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended, is mandatory and prohibits the use of information derived from a DNA sample that should have been destroyed, both in evidence and for the purposes of any investigation. The court has no discretion to admit such evidence, and any evidence resulting from an investigation using such information must be excluded.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Crim 42
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Reference by Attorney General Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972
Outcome
Reference answered in the negative; judge's ruling upheld.
Legal Topics
DNA Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Statutory Interpretation, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Criminal Law Evidence Law DNA Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Statutory Interpretation Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Defendant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Reference by Attorney General Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judge has discretion to admit evidence derived from a DNA sample that should have been destroyed under Section 64(3B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended, for the purposes of investigating or prosecuting a different offence.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 64(3B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended, is mandatory and prohibits the use of information derived from a DNA sample that should have been destroyed, both in evidence and for the purposes of any investigation. The court has no discretion to admit such evidence, and any evidence resulting from an investigation using such information must be excluded.

Court Disposition

Reference answered in the negative; judge's ruling upheld.

Orders

  • No discretion exists to admit evidence derived from a DNA sample that should have been destroyed under Section 64(3B) PACE; such evidence must be excluded.