Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: email@example.com Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Ian Orlebar firstname.lastname@example.org
FOI Ref: CR20432
15 November 2011
Dear Mr Orlebar
Thank you for your e-mail of 25 October 2011, in which you ask:
1. Please advise what Home Office advice has been given to chief
officers of police to implement immediately changes in their
procedures with regard to the harvesting of DNA samples and
other SPD from innocent persons (those not charged with any
offence) to make such procedures compliant with UKSC judgment
21 of 18th May 2011, which clarifies the law stare decisis to
confirm to ECHR, pending any potential change in legislation.
2. If no advice has been given, please advise the reason for not
advising chief officers of police to comply with the law, and to
desist and refrain from harvesting the DNA and other SPD of
persons not charged with any offence.
3. As UKSC 21 clearly points up the unlawful nature of advice to
chief officers of police as given to them by their private limited
company messrs ACPO Ltd, what action is in contemplation to
proscribe this iniquitous ultra vires cabal of public servants?
Your first query has been handled as a request for information under the
Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000. We do not, however, consider that
you second or third queries fall within the definition of a FoI request under the
Act and we have, therefore, handled them as regular correspondence. An
answer to your second and third queries is provided at the end of this letter.
In answer to your first query, the Government has not issued any guidance to
chief officers of police in the light of the Supreme Court Judgement, R (on the
application of GC & C) v The Commissioner of the Metropolis
21, to which you refer.
I hope this information meets your requirements. I would like to assure you we
have provided you with all relevant information the Home Office holds.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent
internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint
within two months to the address below, quoting reference CR20432
. If you
ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are
dissatisfied with the response.
Information Access Team
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information
request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you
with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you
would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as
established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
To answer you second query, the reason that no such guidance has been
issued is that, whilst the Supreme Court found the current retention regime to
be unlawful, it nevertheless declined to offer a specific remedy, holding (at
paragraph 47) that: “The legislature must be allowed a reasonable time in which to produce a
lawful solution to a difficult problem”.
On 11 February 2011 (i.e. the week after the Supreme Court hearing), the
Government introduced to Parliament the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which
sets out, in Chapter 1 of Part 1, proposals to adopt the protections of the
Scottish model for DNA retention, to restrict the scope of the National DNA
Database (NDNAD) and to give added protection to innocent people whose
DNA has been retained. Clause 24 of the Bill relates to the functions of the
NDNAD Strategy Board, one of which will be to issue guidance on the
destruction of DNA profiles which chief officers of police will be required to
However, until the Bill receives Royal Assent, and this clause has been
brought into force, chief officers of police will continue to consider the removal
of DNA, fingerprints and PNC records on a case by case basis under the
Exceptional Case Procedure. The Exceptional Case Procedure is set out
under Annex 2 of Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police
as published by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The Supreme Court recognised that, given that it is presently legislating in
relation to these issues, Parliament is – at the moment – the appropriate body
to make curative amendments to the current regime, rather than the police
In answer to your third query, the Home Secretary and Policing and Criminal
Justice Minister have consulted on Peter Neyroud's Review of Police
Leadership and Training which sets out a vision of a professional body for
policing and the Home Secretary is considering her response. Ministers are
looking to establish a new professional body for policing which has
responsibility for standard-setting for entry and promotion in the police
service, and for specialist police disciplines, and leadership. It will also
provide and commission training. The Professional Body would need to be in
place by the end of 2012 at the latest.
Neyroud said that ACPO should be the "head and heart” of the professional
body. Ministers thought that was too elitist. They want this body to represent
the whole of the police workforce, from the copper on the beat, through to the
call centre operator answering 999 or 101 calls. Ministers want to get an early
understanding of how such a body would relate to a 'Chiefs' Council' and are
keen to reduce the proliferation of bodies in the national policing landscape.
Ministers plan to update Parliament as soon as they have taken final