UK: The policy of indefinite retention of DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of a person convicted of a recordable offence is compatible with the right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights

The Supreme Court has ruled that the indefinite retention of the DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of a person convicted of a recordable offence is compatible with Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Fergus Gaughran was arrested on the morning of October 14th, 2008, for driving with excess alcohol. Mr. Gaughran later pleaded guilty to the offence at Newry Magistrates Court. He was fined and disqualified from driving for twelve months.

On the day of the arrest, the police took Mr Gaughran's fingerprints, photographs and "non-intimate" DNA sample with his full consent.

In January 2009, Mr. Gaughran's solicitor wrote to the Police Service claiming that the retention of the DNA profile, fingerprints and photograph is unlawful. The Police Service replied in February, 2009, stating that the consequences of S and Marper -v- United Kingdom judgment was a matter for the government of the United Kingdom. However following the devolution of policing in 2010, the DNA retention policy became an issue for the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice.

Mr. Gaughran was granted leave to apply for judicial review in April 2009. The case was heard by Lord Justice Girvan in the High Court, which held that the infringement of Article 8 by the Police Service was justified.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the policy of the Police Service to retain indefinitely the DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of a person convicted of a recordable offence is a breach of the right to respect for private life.

The lack of reference to the DNA sample in the question is because legislation is due to come into force in Northern Ireland that means DNA samples must be destroyed within six months of being taken.

The onus in this case was on the Police Service to satisfy the Court that its policy is consistent with the law, justifiable, and satisfies the principle of proportionality.

Lord Clarke agreed with Lord Justice Girvan that S and Marper only considered the position of those suspected of a crime:

There is no indication that the Strasbourg court was considering the position of those who had been convicted at all. I agree with [Lord Justice] Girvan's conclusion at para 42 that Strasbourg was not saying that a blanket policy of retaining the data of convicted persons would be unlawful.

On the policy of the Police Service indefinitely retaining biometric data, Lord Clarke found that there was no jurisprudence to support that it was not justified.

Lord Clarke concluded that the balance struck between the competing public and private interests by authorities in Northern Ireland, and England and Wales, is proportionate and justified:

Taking account of all relevant factors I would hold that the balance struck by the Northern Irish authorities, and indeed in England and Wales, is proportionate and justified.

Moreover, Lord Clarke concluded that the benefits of retaining DNA profiles of a person who are convicted outweighs the right to respect for private life under Article 8.

Lord Kerr, however, in his dissenting opinion, concluded that the indefinite retention of DNA profiles, fingerprints and photographs of a person convicted of recordable offences in Northern Ireland is incompatible with the right to respect for private life.

NI: Facebook liable for privacy breach for failing to disable access to content

The High Court in Northern Ireland has awarded £20,000 in damages to a convicted sex offender for the misuse of private information.

Facebook Ireland Limited hosted a page operated by Joseph McCloskey entitled, 'Keeping our Kids Safe from Predators 2". The social media giant also hosted a page by RS, the father of one of CG's victims.

CG brought the case seeking damages and an injunction on the basis that Facebook and Mr. McCloskey misused private information, breaching Article 2, Article 3 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and are guilty of actionable negligence.

The case relates to a series of postings on Facebook. The first series of posting was on the profile page of Mr. McCloskey in April 2013, attracting more than 180 comments, all hostile to CG. The contents were removed by early June. The second series of postings was on the profile page of RS, appearing in November 2013 and removed in early December. The second series of postings included a photograph of CG, shared more than 1,600 times and the name of the area CG was thought to reside in. The third series of postings also appeared on the profile page of RS in late December 2013, removed in January 2014.

The High Court heard the system operated by Facebook to remove content requires the complainant to provide the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for each posting which a complaint is made about. Mr. Justice Stephens observed that this requires the complainant to accurately record the URL for each posting, and requires the reasons to be provided as to why each posting should be removed. Mr. Justice Stephens described this system as "laborious":

The question also arises as to whether the requirement to have the URLs of each comment about which complaint is being made merely creates the potential for entering into endless and in some circumstances fruitless correspondence because with each new posting there is a new URL so there is endless potential to identify each URL given the speed with which comments can be added.

In evidence, CG explained that he was extremely concerned by the postings on Facebook, living in fear because he anticipated violence. This affected his relationship with his disabled child, who was concerned about being seen in the company of CG.

Mr. Justice Stephens held that CG had an expectation of privacy concerning his criminal convictions, the sentencing, and his personal information or information about his family. However, the expectation of privacy had to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression for Facebook and Mr. McCloskey.

In concluding, Mr. Justice Stephens held that the actions of Mr. McCloskey:

[...] incited violence and hatred. It was indiscriminate and led to the potential for public order situations to develop. It was an attempt to hunt a sex offender, to drive him from his home and to expose him to vilification. All of the content of the profile/page [...] in relation to CG was oppressive and unreasonable and there was a course of conduct over a period of time which amounted to harassment of CG and which both [Facebook] and [Mr. McCloskey] knew or ought to have known amounted to harassment of him.

Mr. Justice Stephens found Mr. McCloskey liable for the misuse of private information and for harassment. However, no finding were made in respect of any breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 because no case was pleaded. However, Mr. Justice Stephens found that the failure of Facebook to delete the postings amounted to misuse of private information.

Mr. Justice Stephens granted CG the injunction preventing Mr. McCloskey from harassing him by any means. While Facebook was ordered to remove the "Keeping our Kids Safe From Predators 2" page. Finally, Mr. Justice Stephens awarded £15,000 in damages against Facebook and Mr. McCloskey for the postings by Mr. McCloskey, and £5,000 against Facebook for the postings by RS. 

NI: Irish asylum standard not compliant with EU requirements

On Wednesday, a non-Arab Darfuri journalist who fled Sudan with her three children amid concerns the family would be killed due to her views on race and politics, won a High Court challenge from being returned to the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Justice Stephens quashed a decision by the UK Border Agency to send ALJ and her three children A,B and C, back to the Republic of Ireland on the basis that it was in the best interests of the family to remain in Northern Ireland. .

ALJ gave evidence of a being a political journalist and writer who suffered a series of arrests, assaults and a miscarriage.

In April 2010, ALJ and her three children left Sudan with the help of traffickers, Mr. Justice Stephens heard. Her husband had to remain in Sudan, and ALJ is unaware if he is still alive. ALJ and her three children disembarked in Dublin three weeks later.

ALJ was informed that her entitlement to remain in the Republic of Ireland had expired when her bid for refugee status was refused. In July 2011, ALJ and the children travelled to Northern Ireland and applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. When authorities in the Republic of Ireland accepted a request to take ALJ and the three children back to conclude the asylum proceedings in the Republic, a challenge in the Northern Ireland High Court was launched.

The argument that during the asylum of process in Ireland, which can take up to five years, the family would be subject to standards that do not comply with the minimum required set out by the European Union.The current asylum process in the Republic means the applicants would not be able to work. The children at the age of 16 are not entitled to an education, and the family would have to live in hostel accommodation.

For the sake of the children, Mr. Justice Stephens held that the family should remain in Northern Ireland. Mr. Justice Stephens quashed the removal decision. The decision not to assure responsibility for determining the asylum application in the United Kingdom  on the basis of a failure to consider the need to safeguard the welfare of children was also quashed by Mr. Justice Stephens.