This week’s blog post concerns a strange and concerning circumstance: a person arrested purely so that her DNA could be ‘harvested’ for the Police biometrics database – after she had previously provided a DNA sample, but the sample had subsequently ‘failed’ the Police lab test.
In August 2022, my client Alice was arrested by Nottinghamshire Police on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. She was taken to a Police Station.
This was the first and only time Alice had had any dealings with the Police, let alone been arrested and she was naturally very embarrassed and distressed.
During her time in Custody, Alice was obliged to provide her fingerprints and a DNA sample, which is a routine process governed by Section 63 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and with which Alice fully co- operated.
Thereafter, Alice was released from custody and tried to put this unpleasant experience behind her. In May 2023, Alice moved house, and as many of us do, set up a postal re-direct from her old address with Royal Mail.
Then, one evening in mid- August 2023, over a year after Alice’s initial arrest, two Police Officers turned up unannounced at Alice’s home and, to her absolute shock, arrested her. The Officers were vague as to the reason for arrest other than it related to the DNA sample which my client had provided in August 2022.
Alice was devastated; she was led outside of her home and ushered into a marked Police car in view of her neighbours – an extremely shameful ‘no smoke without fire’ experience. She was transported back to the Police Station where she had been dealt with the previous year.
According to the Custody Record, Alice had been arrested for alleged failure “to comply with request of a Police Officer or other authorised persons for fingerprints/photographs/both”.
The circumstances of arrest were described as “DP [Detained Person] circulated to obtain DNA”. And the arrest necessity reason was stated to be: “Prevent the disappearance of the person”.
A little while later, it was further recorded that “Detention is authorised for the purpose of S37(3) PACE – secure/preserve evidence; S63A PACE re-sampling”.
Alice was incarcerated in a holding cell and then later obliged to (again) give her fingerprints and DNA sample and to be photographed. Only then was she released and allowed to return home, understandably traumatised by an event which I consider was nothing less than the trampling of her liberty and individuality under the boot-heel of Police biometric bureaucracy.
Several days later, Alice received a letter from Nottinghamshire Police dated the day before her arrest, sent to her previous address and which had been redirected. The letter stated as follows:
“I am contacting you in regard to an incident that you were involved in whereby you were involved in an RTC and subsequently were found to be over the prescribed limit for alcohol.
During your time in custody, you would have had your DNA taken which is standard procedure for any person who is arrested and taken to custody.
This DNA has failed, therefore you are required to attend your nearest Nottinghamshire Police Custody Suite.
This requirement for DNA forms part of PACE which is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and falls under Code G.
I must remind you that due to this DNA requirement I have circulated you on the Police National Computer, therefore it is recommended that you attend Mansfield Custody Suite as soon as possible, where your DNA will be re taken and this matter will be closed”.
This was the first and only time that Alice had received any correspondence suggesting that the sample taken in August 2022 had “failed”. It later transpired that the reason for this failure was not a scientific fluke or computer glitch, but good old fashioned Police incompetence – they had failed to seal the bag containing the sample properly.
In response, Alice wrote to request clarification as regards the circumstances of her arrest. She received a reply from Nottinghamshire Police’s Professional Standards Department, which suggested that a letter advising of the failure of the DNA sample had first been sent to her in June 2023 – but she had not received that letter, and nor was there any explanation at all as to why it had taken over 10 months for the letter to be sent, after the initial sample was taken. The Police also admitted that they were unable to produce that alleged June letter as “no copy was saved.”
It was also asserted that the Officer who wrote the letter which Alice did receive in August 2023 had at the same time circulated an arrest request for Alice, without giving her a chance to respond “he didn’t expect officers to act on the circulation for arrest as quick as they did…”
In a later account, Nottinghamshire Police also sought to defend their officer’s decision to arrest Alice at her home by seeking to argue that although Alice asserted that she had not received the June 2023 letter – “as she could not confirm whether this was the case…the arrest was necessary to prevent [Alice’s] disappearance.” How on Earth, one may ask, is one supposed to ‘confirm’ the non- receipt of a letter? (A letter, lest we not forget, which the Police apparently had no copy of either).
The Keystone Cops, it seems, are still alive and well, even in this age of DNA databases and word processing…
Had Alice actually received the Police letter before her arrest, she would of course have attended a local Police Station on a voluntary basis to provide a further sample. Yet further, even on the night itself there was no need to arrest Alice – although she was shocked and confused, she would have accompanied the Officers to the Police Station on a voluntarily basis – arrest was simply not required.
Sadly,
- the Officer who circulated the arrest request,
- the pair of Officers who attended Alice’s home and arrested her, and
- the Custody Sergeant who approved her detention,
were all guilty of block-headed, insensitive and ‘robotic’ Policing – apparently acting not for the ‘Greater good’ but for the ‘Data good.’
It was clear to me, when I reviewed Alice’s case that there was absolutely no necessity to arrest her in August 2023 – no reasonable basis for presuming that she would not voluntarily co- operate – and that therefore her arrest was unlawful as being in violation of Section 24 and Code G of PACE (the Necessity test).
I am pleased to confirm that in response to my detailed arguments and presentation of her claim, Nottinghamshire Police admitted that they unlawfully arrested Alice and have recently agreed to pay her significant compensation, plus her legal costs.
The original offence for which Alice was arrested was a relatively low-level one, and why the Police deemed it necessary to ensure that they had Alice’s DNA on their database is beyond me; the building up of a library of the most intimate building blocks of our bodies should not become a goal in itself for our Police Forces – especially not at the cost of a person’s liberty in such outrageous circumstances as these.
As ever, sometimes the most important thing you can do with power, is not use it.
My client’s name has been changed.
How you can help me
I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post a comment.