since writing to you, the other three lads have been told they…

I am afraid I cant follow your shorthand. I think I know what you are saying.

You do not say what has happened to your son.

Are you asking about DNA, fingerprints, mugshots etc. of the other boys?

Prisoner Photographs can be kept irrespective of the outcome of the case if the person has previous convictions. (Paragraph 4.4, Section D, PACE Codes of Practice. This can be found at the following link: http://www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-codes.html).

Warnings, Cautions and Reprimands count as "convictions" providing they are for a Recordable offence.

If the prisoner has no previous convictions then the photograph will be destroyed.

In respect of DNA, Fingerprints and samples, the police can now take and retain these samples on arrest irrespective of the outcome of the case as empowered by the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, even if the decision was to caution at the outset. A copy of this Act can be viewed at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030044.htm

Previously, the Criminal Justice and Police Act (CJPA) 2001 (Section 82) amended Section 64 of PACE by removing the obligation on the Police to destroy fingerprints and samples when the individual is cleared of the offence for which they were taken, or a decision is made not to prosecute .A copy of this Act can be viewed at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010016.htm

The CJPA 2003 is also retrospective for those fingerprints and samples undergoing process at the time the Act became law.

In effect the CJPA removed the Police responsibility under PACE to destroy "DNA, Fingerprints and other samples" taken in respect of charge, warning, caution or reprimand for a recordable offence.

The CJA 2003 extends the powers of the CJPA 2001 to allow DNA and fingerprints to be taken from a person on arrest for a recordable offence. This is conditional on the person not having had a sample of the same type, and from the same part of the top body, taken already in the course of the investigation unless that sample proved insufficient for the analysis.

In respect of Human Rights challenges a recent judgement in the case of Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Ex Parte 'S' CO/4148/200"1 and "Marper CO/5058/2001 by Mr. Justice Leveson and Lord Justice Rose (Hearing Royal Courts of Justice - High Court 14th March 2002) ruled that the retention and use of fingerprints and samples, pursuant to PACE and CJPA legislation, is not a breach of the Claimant's Human Rights. It was further held that the Chief Constable's policy regarding the retention of fingerprints and samples did not amount to an unlawful fetter of his discretion. This decision was recently upheld in the House of Lords after an appeal over the original judgement.

If this helps, please ACCEPT. I am happy to answer further.

I can only advise you based on the facts you present

If you give me good feedback, this helps put me up the ratings. Thank you.

Good luck.

Regards

JL