Search
document

Document text Analytics

WILLIAMS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 19404/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1342

Document date: July 1, 1992

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

WILLIAMS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 19404/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1342

Document date: July 1, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant