Samples Intimate and Non-intimate 1

2

3

4 Intimate samples can only be taken where there is written consent. Do you agree to us taking a sample?

5 Taking of an intimate sample is only lawful if authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector, who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the detainee is involved with a recordable offence, and for believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove such involvement.

6

7 The authorisation for the taking of the sample must be in writing, and the detainee must be informed of the authorisation and the grounds for it. If the detainee consents, the sample may then be taken.

8 I can only take urine! All other samples must be taken by a doctor, or dentist

9

10 If the detainee refuses consent, we cannot override it and use force to take a sample, nor is refusal an offence.

11 No! Your refusal means that the court will be able to draw ‘such inferences from your refusal as appear proper’.

12 “You do not have to provide this sample/allow this swab or impression to be taken, but I must warn you that if you refuse without good cause, your refusal may harm your case if it comes to trial”. (Code D).

13

14

15 We normally seek consent to take a non-intimate sample. According to s. 63 PACE, this should be in writing.

16 Where there is no consent, an officer of at least the rank of inspector may authorise the taking of the sample, using reasonable force if necessary.

17 I can authorise taking of a non- intimate sample where the detainee is suspected of involvement in a recordable offence. (Recording and notification procedures are the same as for intimate samples).

18 If the detainee is held in relation to a non-recordable offence, we can apply no sanction for their refusal to provide a non-intimate sample.

19 I have no power to draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s refusal to provide a non-intimate sample.

20 Will my prints or sample be destroyed if I am not charged or if I am acquitted by the court?

21 as long as…

22

23 On 4 December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights held in S and Marper v UK (2008) that the retention of DNA profiles, cellular samples and fingerprints of the applicants, (one of whom had been acquitted and the second not prosecuted), was disproportionate and therefore unjustified under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

24 At the time of creation of this show, the government was talking about allowing retention of samples and prints for 12 years.