I understand that on 7 April a case was reported: "R v Chief Constable of
South Yorkshire & Secretary of State for the Home Office" where the court
held that the extended retention of DNA and fingerprint evidence was not an
interference in a person's private life.
It appears that even though the police do not know whether a particular DNA
sample will prove to be useful in future, they still have the right to
retain it for an extended period. Its an interesting example of the
application of the 5th Data Protection Principle. So much for a
"case-by-case" basis for determining whether personal data is being
processed for longer than is necessary.
Does anyone have any further information on this note?
Regards to all
Martin Hoskins
Data Protection Manager
One 2 One
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
This email (including attachments) is confidential. If you have received
this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this
email from your system without copying or disseminating it or placing any
reliance upon its contents. We cannot accept liability for any breaches of
confidence arising through use of email. Any opinions expressed in this
email (including attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect our opinions. We will not accept responsibility for any commitments
made by our employees outside the scope of our business. We do not warrant
the accuracy or completeness of such information.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|