2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against the retention of police records following unfounded allegations of sexual assault. The appellant argued that the retention violated his Article 8 rights under the Human Rights Act. The court dismissed the appeal but acknowledged the need for a review mechanism for retained records, citing strategic implications on the balance of power between the State and individuals.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE LAWS : This is an appeal with permission granted by Sir Stephen Sedley on 8 November 2013 against a decision of the Divisional Court (Moses LJ and Burnett J: [2013] EWHC Admin 2231 ) of 25 July 2013, by which the court dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of the retention by the Metropolitan Police of certain records relating to him.
The essential facts of the case are crisply described by Moses LJ in the Divisional Court as follows:
"1. Nearly nine years ago a woman staying in the same hotel as this claimant alleged that he had sexually assaulted her. He was arrested and his DNA sample and fingerprints were taken from him at Hammersmith police station. He was interviewed twice and denied the allegations. No further action was taken. By the time of the hearing, the Secretary of State for the Home Department was able to confirm that the claimant's biometric data had been destroyed but 40 pages of information in relation to his arrest and the allegation are to be retained in the form of crime reports on the Crime Report Information System, CRIS, and a record shall be retained on the Police National Computer until 2104, when the complaint would be 128 years old.
2. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted in March 2013. When the relevant provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are brought into force it will no longer be lawful to retain the biometric data of those in the position of the claimant, biometric data being deleted as part of a programme of mass destruction of samples."
Now that the claimant's biometric data have been destroyed, this application concerns only the records to which I have referred. The claimant has described the great anxiety and distress the retention of the information has caused him. He has not come to the attention of the police as being suspected or involved in any offence since the allegation was made on 17 October 2004. In 2006 he was told through his MP that the information would be removed. In 2010 when he required an enhanced criminal record certificate the police told him that they did not believe it was necessary to disclose the information and did not do so.
Notwithstanding the insistent protestations of the appellant to the contrary, it is entirely clear that the biometric data have indeed been deleted. So much is plainly confirmed by the processes described at paragraphs 14 and following of the witness statement of Mr Jennings of the Home Of