NI man’s privacy rights breached by police retention of DNA: European Court of Human Rights

Judges found that the retention of Fergus Gaughran’s DNA profile, fingerprints and photography by the PSNI “amounted to an interference” with his private life.

A ruling said Mr Gaughran’s data was retained without “reference to the seriousness of his offence” and without evaluating the need to keep it indefinitely.

He had unsuccessfully challenged the PSNI’s continued retention of his data at the High Court in Belfast in 2012, and again in 2015 at the Supreme Court in London.

Mr Gaughran, from Newry, was arrested in October 2008 and taken to a police station, where officers from the PSNI lawfully obtained his fingerprints, a photograph and a DNA sample, from which a DNA profile was taken.

He pleaded guilty to the charge of driving with excess alcohol and was disqualified for a year and handed a £50 fine.

His DNA sample was destroyed in 2015 at his request, but officers continued to retain on an indefinite basis the digital data extracted from his sample, his fingerprints and photograph.

Mr Gaughran unsuccessfully challenged the right of police to retain the information indefinitely at the UK’s highest court in 2015, when justices ruled that the retention policy was “proportionate”.

He lodged an application to the ECHR in October 2015, relying on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private and family life.

In a judgment issued today, seven judges unanimously found that Mr Gaughran’s right to privacy had been violated.

The ruling said: “The court found that the retention of the applicant’s DNA profile, fingerprints and photograph amounted to an interference with his private life which had pursued the legitimate purpose of the detection, and therefore, prevention of crime.”

The Strasbourg-based court said it had examined whether an interference in privacy rights had been justified.

But its ruling said: “However, the applicant’s biometric data and photographs had been retained without reference to the seriousness of his offence and without regard to any continuing need to retain that data indefinitely.”

The court found that the PSNI were only able to delete biometric data in “exceptional circumstances”.