Judicial System - S and Marper V UK

By Alexandra White-Meek

Picture Credit: UK Human Rights Blog

Both Mr S. and Mr Marper were arrested in 2001 for separate charges, and DNA was taken as a form of evidence. However, later that year the charges for the two cases were acquitted. As a result, both of the accused requested that the DNA evidence that police held against them to be destroyed, however the police refused, therefore they applied for a judicial review, in which they hoped the outcome would be that police could no longer keep DNA evidence. However, this case was soon dismissed by the House of Lords, and therefore they took the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

            The court found this to be a violation of Article 8 under the European Convention of Human Rights, and consequently the evidence was destroyed. Following the judicial review, the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) agreed with the UK government that by keeping DNA evidence, it can be used legitimately in order to help the prevention of crime. However, the ECHR did stress that the retention of DNA evidence goes against Article 8, paragraph 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and therefore was not justifiable.

The decision of the ECtHR says that those aquitted of a crime should not have their DNA evidence stored.

            This case is important for politics students to know because it demonstrates the amount of influence the European Union has within the United Kingdom, and could also be said to indicate why the current coalition government want to distance the country from them, as it is able to overrule the government’s decision on issues regarding Human Rights.