CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 juillet 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 19404/92                       by Roy WILLIAMS                       against the United Kingdom           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER              Mr.    M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 6 January 1992 by Roy WILLIAMS against the United Kingdom and registered on 21 January 1992 under file No. 19404/92;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:         THE FACTS         The applicant is a British citizen born in 1963 and resident in London. He is represented before the Commission by John Wadham, a solicitor working for Liberty. The facts, as submitted by the applicant and as may be deduced from the additional information supplied by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         In 1982, the applicant was convicted of burglary and wounding. In 1988, in the course of investigating a murder, the police compared blood found at the scene of the crime with a blood sample obtained from the applicant in 1982. The applicant had no knowledge of having given a blood sample at that time. The police considered there was sufficient similarity in the blood samples to request the applicant to provide a new sample. The applicant was in fact arrested on suspicion of murder and taken to the police station where he consented to giving a new sample of blood on 27 June 1988. As a result, the applicant was eliminated from the investigation.         On 10 June 1989, the police destroyed the 1988 blood sample as required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The applicant subsequently discovered that the results of the DNA analysis of the sample were kept on computerised record by the Metropolitan Police. Following correspondence with the applicant's legal representative, the police agreed to delete the data from the applicant's blood samples recorded on their computer, which was done on 29 July 1991. The applicant was left with the impression that paper records relating to the 1982 and 1988 samples remained in existence.         The applicant introduced an application before the Commission on 6 January 1992. It was registered on 21 January 1992.         On 6 March 1992, the Rapporteur requested information from the Government concerning the existence of a record of the applicant's DNA details.         By letter dated 21 April 1992, the Government replied that there had never been any computer or paper record held by the police of the DNA analysis of the applicant. The data erased from the police computer had not contained DNA details, only the applicant's blood grouping. The Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory only retains a file record containing the applicant's blood grouping results and the mention that the DNA is "different to scene blood".         By letter dated 8 May 1992, the applicant commented on the information provided by the Government (see below).     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complained that records had been kept of the DNA analysis of his blood samples and that this disclosed a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. While he now accepts that   his DNA data is not included on a database, he submits that the policy of the authorities was such that there was a real risk that this could happen. He also complains of the length of time taken to destroy the blood sample.     THE LAW         The applicant has complained that details of his DNA were held on a police database in violation of Articles 8 and 13 (Art. 8, 13) of the Convention.         Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and       family life, his home and his correspondence.         2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority with       the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with       the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests       of national security, public safety or the economic well-being       of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the       protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the       rights and freedoms of others."         Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides :         "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this       Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a       national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been       committed by persons acting in an official capacity."         The Commision recalls however that the Government have stated, and the applicant accepts, that records of his DNA measurements did not exist. The applicant has submitted that nonetheless the policy of the authorities was such that a real risk existed that this could happen. He also complains of the length of time it took for the police to destroy the 1988 blood sample.         In respect of the latter complaint the Commission notes that the sample was taken on 27 July 1988 and destroyed on 10 June 1989. The Commission finds no indication that this period of eleven months was unreasonable in the context of a murder investigation or that the sample was used during that period for other purposes. As regards the applicant's general complaint that a risk existed that a DNA database could have been compiled, the Commission considers that the applicant has not established that he himself suffered any prejudice. The Commission therefore finds that in this respect that he cannot be said to be a victim of any violation of any rights guaranteed under the Convention.         The Commission concludes that the applicant's complaints fail to disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. His application must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the First Chamber    Acting President of the First Chamber            (M. de SALVIA)                        (F. ERMACORA)