AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 19404/92
by Roy WILLIAMS
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:
MM. F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 6 January 1992 by
Roy WILLIAMS against the United Kingdom and registered on
21 January 1992 under file No. 19404/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1963 and resident in
London. He is represented before the Commission by John Wadham, a
solicitor working for Liberty. The facts, as submitted by the applicant
and as may be deduced from the additional information supplied by the
parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1982, the applicant was convicted of burglary and wounding.
In 1988, in the course of investigating a murder, the police compared
blood found at the scene of the crime with a blood sample obtained from
the applicant in 1982. The applicant had no knowledge of having given
a blood sample at that time. The police considered there was sufficient
similarity in the blood samples to request the applicant to provide a
new sample. The applicant was in fact arrested on suspicion of murder
and taken to the police station where he consented to giving a new
sample of blood on 27 June 1988. As a result, the applicant was
eliminated from the investigation.
On 10 June 1989, the police destroyed the 1988 blood sample as
required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The applicant
subsequently discovered that the results of the DNA analysis of the
sample were kept on computerised record by the Metropolitan Police.
Following correspondence with the applicant's legal representative, the
police agreed to delete the data from the applicant's blood samples
recorded on their computer, which was done on 29 July 1991. The
applicant was left with the impression that paper records relating to
the 1982 and 1988 samples remained in existence.
The applicant introduced an application before the Commission on
6 January 1992. It was registered on 21 January 1992.
On 6 March 1992, the Rapporteur requested information from the
Government concerning the existence of a record of the applicant's DNA
details.
By letter dated 21 April 1992, the Government replied that there
had never been any computer or paper record held by the police of the
DNA analysis of the applicant. The data erased from the police computer
had not contained DNA details, only the applicant's blood grouping. The
Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory only retains a file
record containing the applicant's blood grouping results and the
mention that the DNA is "different to scene blood".
By letter dated 8 May 1992, the applicant commented on the
information provided by the Government (see below).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that records had been kept of the DNA
analysis of his blood samples and that this disclosed a violation of
Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. While he now accepts that his DNA
data is not included on a database, he submits that the policy of the
authorities was such that there was a real risk that this could happen.
He also complains of the length of time taken to destroy the blood
sample.
THE LAW
The applicant has complained that details of his DNA were held
on a police database in violation of Articles 8 and 13 (Art. 8, 13) of
the Convention.
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with
the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with
the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security, public safety or the economic well-being
of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others."
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides :
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a
national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
The Commision recalls however that the Government have stated,
and the applicant accepts, that records of his DNA measurements did not
exist. The applicant has submitted that nonetheless the policy of the
authorities was such that a real risk existed that this could happen.
He also complains of the length of time it took for the police to
destroy the 1988 blood sample.
In respect of the latter complaint the Commission notes that the
sample was taken on 27 July 1988 and destroyed on 10 June 1989. The
Commission finds no indication that this period of eleven months was
unreasonable in the context of a murder investigation or that the
sample was used during that period for other purposes. As regards the
applicant's general complaint that a risk existed that a DNA database
could have been compiled, the Commission considers that the applicant
has not established that he himself suffered any prejudice. The
Commission therefore finds that in this respect that he cannot be said
to be a victim of any violation of any rights guaranteed under the
Convention.
The Commission concludes that the applicant's complaints fail to
disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. His
application must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber
(M. de SALVIA) (F. ERMACORA)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy