S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom | 2008

DNA records of innocent people destroyed after privacy complaint

Of particular concern in the present context is the risk of stigmatisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who have not been convicted of any offence and are entitled to the presumption of innocence, are treated in the same way as convicted persons.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 4^th December 2008

Background

In 2001, two people from Sheffield – known as S. and Michael Marper – had DNA samples taken by the police after being arrested.

Criminal charges were dropped in both cases, but under British law at the time the police were allowed to keep the DNA samples on record forever. S. and Michael Marper brought a case to the Strasbourg court, arguing that the law breached their right to privacy.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The Strasbourg court ruled that the blanket and indefinite retention of DNA profiles by the authorities - in cases where a defendant was acquitted or discharged - was a disproportionate interference with their private life. This violated the applicants’ basic rights.

Follow-up

The Protection of Freedoms Act was introduced in 2012 in England and Wales. This established that DNA profiles of innocent people can only be kept in certain circumstances and for limited time. This approach is based on the separate system in Scotland, which was praised by the European court. The Council of Europe continues to monitor this issue, as changes are yet to be introduced in Northern Ireland.

The DNA samples of S. and Michael Marper were destroyed.

Additional information

Grand Chamber judgment and press release of the European Court of Human Rights
Status Update from the Department for the Execution of Judgments

Themes:

Related examples

Justice for businessman subjected to a police raid just because of someone else’s traffic violation

Jürgen Buck ran a small business in a town near Frankfurt. One afternoon police suddenly raided his house and office. Jürgen alleged that suspicions were raised locally that he was involved in crime, leading to a loss of business. Yet the raid had merely been an unnecessary step in proceedings against Jürgen’s son for speeding. The European court ruled that the raid had been disproportionate.

Themes: Right to privacy

Germany

Excessive police operation against journalists leads to reforms to protect media sources

Four Belgian journalists were targeted by the police in a huge search and seizure operation aimed at identifying the source of leaked government information. The European court ruled that the operation had been unjustified and disproportionate. The case influenced new legislation to improve protections for journalists and their sources.

Themes: Right to privacy Freedom of speech

Belgium

Secret filming of a child in a bathroom and the reform of privacy laws

Eliza Söderman was 14 when she found out that her stepfather had hidden a secret camera to record her undressing. The police got involved, but the stepfather was cleared of any crime because his actions had not been illegal under Swedish law. The Strasbourg court found that this violated Ms Söderman’s right to privacy. The case highlighted the need for legal reforms.