header-logo header-logo

27 June 2012
Issue: 7520 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Police must destroy photos

Photos of people without criminal records must be disposed of

The police cannot keep photographs of people without criminal records or who are not found guilty, the High Court held last week.

Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Kenneth Parker held that it was an unjustifiable breach of a person’s right to a private life to do otherwise, in R (on the application of RMC & FJ) v Commissioner for Police for the Metropolis & Ors [2012] EWHC 1681 (Admin). They dismissed the Metropolitan Police’s argument that keeping photographs of those not convicted was necessary for preventing crime and disorder, and ordered it to revise its guidelines within months.

This may mean the police will need to destroy photographs taken of anyone who has not committed a crime.

RMC was a middle-aged woman of good character who was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a community police officer who stopped her riding her bicycle on a footway. No prosecution was brought.

FJ was arrested at the age of 12 on suspicion of raping his second cousin. Following enquiries, no further action was taken.

Both claimants argued that, once the decision was taken not to proceed, the retention of their photographs was a breach of their Art 8 rights. 

The courts have previously ruled that the police cannot retain DNA or fingerprint data indiscriminately or indefinitely.

John Wadham, general counsel at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, says: “Without the protection of our human right to a private life, the police would be able to hold onto your DNA, fingerprints, and photographs even if you’d done nothing wrong.”

Issue: 7520 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll