Parliament responds to court rulings
- Reasoning
- The law was changed after the ruling.
- Evidence
- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 followed.
- How it supports the argument
- It limited retention of innocent people's DNA.
ApprovedConcludedCourt case
Title
S and Marper v UK (2008): DNA retention
Date
4 December 2008
Relevant topic(s)
Democracy and participationRights
What happened?
Police in England and Wales could keep the DNA samples of people who were arrested but never convicted, indefinitely. Two men from Sheffield whose charges were dropped challenged the policy.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that this 'blanket and indefinite retention' breached the right to private life, and the law was changed in 2012.
- S and Michael Marper, from Sheffield, had DNA samples taken after arrests in 2001; criminal charges were dropped in both cases.
- On 4 December 2008 the Court found that the 'blanket and indefinite retention of DNA profiles' of people acquitted or discharged was a disproportionate interference with private life.
- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 limited keeping the DNA profiles of innocent people to certain circumstances and time periods, based on Scotland's system.
Why is it politically significant?
The case shows the Convention changing UK law: Parliament responded to a Strasbourg ruling by passing new legislation to protect privacy.
How to use
Which arguments does it support?
Which counterarguments exist?
Limits of the evidence
Change took years
The law was changed four years after the ruling.
Concepts and connections
Concepts it illustrates
Related examples
Sources and verification
Event4 December 2008
Added to bank11 November 2026
Last checked11 November 2026
Next check due11 May 2027
- 1Opened
About this example
Is it still current?
Concluded
The development has ended or been reversed, but remains useful evidence.
Why it is in the bank
A clear example of Parliament changing the law after a rights ruling.
- ✓Relevance to the specification
- ✓Strength and reliability of the evidence
- ✓Importance to a wider political debate
- ✓Usefulness in evaluative essays
- ✓Connections to other topics
- ✓Sufficiently current
- ✓Adds something new to the bank
Editorial status
Approved
Signed off for students.
Origin: AI draft (Claude) · Reviewer: Editor
Every fact on this page has been checked against original sources.