Thousands of DNA samples from innocent people are currently retained

The men’s information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offense. The judgment could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK’s national database. The judges said keeping the information “could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was “disappointed” by the European Court of Human Rights’ decision. The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgment by 17 senior judges from across Europe.

Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recorded offense in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.

Discriminatory

The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.

Both men were awarded £36,400 (42,000 Euros) in costs, less the money already paid in legal aid. The court found that the police’s actions were in violation of Article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life – of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also said it was “struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales”.

The judges ruled the retention of the men’s DNA “failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests,” and that the UK government “had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard”. The court also ruled “the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”.

‘Privacy protection’

The home secretary said: “DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month. “The government mounted a robust defense before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice. “The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgment.”

Solicitor Peter Mahy, who represented the men, said that the decision will have far-reaching implications. “It will be very interesting to see how the UK government respond. “The government should now start destroying the DNA records of those people who are currently on the DNA database and who are innocent of any crime.”

Human rights group Liberty said it welcomed the court’s decision. Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “This is one of the most strongly worded judgements that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights. “That court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver.”

‘Invasion of privacy’

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID group, which campaigns against identity cards, said: “‘This is a victory for liberty and privacy. “Though these judgments are always complicated and slow in coming, it is a vindication of what privacy campaigners have said all along. “The principle that we need to follow is simple – when charges are dropped suspect samples are destroyed. No charge, no DNA.”

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports on the ethical questions raised by recent advances in biological and medical research. Its director, Hugh Whittall, said: “We agree wholeheartedly with this ruling. The DNA of innocent people should not be kept by police. “People feel it is an invasion of their privacy, and there is no evidence that removing from the DNA database people who have not been charged or convicted will lead to serious crimes going undetected.
“The government now has an obligation to bring its own policies into line.”

Rights breach claim

One of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001. He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped. He had no previous convictions. The other man – a teenager identified as “S” – was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but later acquitted.

In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody. The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.

They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life. The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offenses, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.

Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offenses.

The Home Office has already set up a “contingency planning group” to look into the potential implications arising from a ruling in favor of the men.

Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says.

The case was brought by a Swiss bank after “several hundred” documents were posted about its offshore activities.

Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed.

However, the main site was taken off line after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site’s domain name, should remove all traces of wikileaks from its servers.

The court also ordered that Dynadot should “prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.”

Other orders included that the domain name be locked “to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar” to prevent changes being made to the site.

Wikileaks claimed that the order was “unconstitutional” and said that the site had been “forcibly censored”.

Web names

The case was brought by lawyers working for the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. It concerned several documents posted on the site which allegedly reveal that the bank was involved with money laundering and tax evasion.

The documents were allegedly posted by Rudolf Elmer, former vice president of the bank’s Cayman Island’s operation.

A spokesperson for Julius Baer said he could not comment on the case because of “pending legal proceedings”.

The BBC understands that Julius Baer asked for the documents to be removed because they could have an impact on a separate legal case ongoing in Switzerland.

The court hearing took place last week and Dynadot blocked access from Friday evening.

Wikileaks says it was not represented at the hearing because it was “given only hours notice” via e-mail.

A document signed by Judge Jeffery White, who presided over the case, ordered Dynadot to follow six court orders.

As well as removing all records of the site form its servers, the hosting and domain name firm was ordered to produce “all prior or previous administrative and account records and data for the wikileaks.org domain name and account”.

The order also demanded that details of the site’s registrant, contacts, payment records and “IP addresses and associated data used by any person…who accessed the account for the domain name” to be handed over.

Wikileaks allows users to post documents anonymously.

Information bank

The site was founded in 2006 by dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and technologists from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.

It so far claims to have published more than 1.2 million documents.

It provoked controversy when it first appeared on the net with many commentators questioning the motives of the people behind the site.

It recently made available a confidential briefing document relating to the collapse of the UK’s Northern Rock bank.

Lawyers working on behalf of the bank attempted to have the documents removed from the site. They can still be accessed.

Dynadot was contacted for this article but have so far not responded to requests for comment.