Searching:
  • Acts
  • SIs
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Bills before Parliament
Searching:
  • Official Journal C
  • OJC Documents (in CELEX)
  • EU Cases
  • EU Legislation
  • EU Treaties
  • EU Proposals
  • EU Nat. Implementation
  • EU Parl. Questions
  • EFTA Documents
  • EU External Agreements
  • OJ Daily
  • Human Rights Conventions
Searching:
  • HERMES
  • Times
  • EU News and Commentaries
  • CUP Journals
  • Bills before Parliament
  • Other Articles
  • PLC
  • OUP Journals
  • Blackwell Journals
  • RMIT Journals
  • Court Forms
close
Gaughran v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
To see all the information available for this document you will need to Sign In.

1 User Commentary

Melanie Davidson (In-house lawyer) 28 September 2015

Case Digest: Gaughran v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland [2015] UKSC 29

0 reviews Your rating:

Whether a police force could retain personal information and data after a suspect’s arrest

The Supreme Court handed down judgment on 13th May in the appeal of Gaughran v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland [2015] UKSC 29. The appellant had been arrested and convicted of driving with excess alcohol. Following his arrest, personal data and information were taken from the appellant by the respondent police force. He claimed the retention of his data was unlawful in the light of the ECHR decision in S & Marper v UK [2008] 1 Pol LR 403 (“Marper”).

The High Court of Northern Ireland had held that the retention of the data was prima facie in breach of his art 8 Convention rights, but that the breach in pursuance of a legitimate aim. He now appealed on the point of whether the retention was proportionate.

Lord Clarke gave the leading judgment, from which Lord Kerr only dissented. Lord Clarke stated that whilst the Marper cases concerned suspects, the current case was in relation to the retention of data from convicted individuals. Nonetheless, the criticisms in Marper of the then policy on retention of data were not automatically irrelevant. In the instant case, having considered the factors and the margin of appreciation according to states, the Court was satisfied that the interference with the appellant’s art 8 right was proportionate.

Lord Kerr would have allowed the appeal, and suggested a much more nuanced and balanced policy was possible. This would have been less intrusive.

The appeal would therefore be dismissed. 

cache/2017-10-19T20:51:01.2256776Z/10790740

Getting the most out of


JustCite is a one-of-its-kind legal research tool that shows you how materials cite and relate to each other. It has an enormous index of information about legal documents and where to find them, but does not contain the documents themselves.

Justis is our full-text online legal library, with an ever-growing range of primary and specialist law reports, judgments and legislation from the UK, Ireland, EU, Australia and Canada.

Register for a Free Trial
Get started with Justis and JustCite now