Admissibility of Fingerprints Taken on an Unauthorised Device

DOI10.1350/jcla.2013.77.5.863
Published date01 October 2013
Date01 October 2013
Subject MatterSupreme Court
Standing Document..Contents .. Page1
Supreme Court
Admissibility of Fingerprints Taken on an Unauthorised
Device
Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland v Elliott [2013] UKSC 32
Keywords
Fingerprints; Livescan device; Improperly obtained evidence;
Admissibility
On 6 October 2007, the defendants E and M were arrested on suspicion
of theft of building materials which had been removed from the owner’s
yard and left near the perimeter fence, apparently ready for collection.
The defendants were discovered in a van parked nearby, but claimed to
be there innocently and denied having been near the building materials.
At the police station both defendants had their fingerprints taken by a
Livescan fingerprinting device and a fingerprint matching E’s left thumb
was subsequently found on the packaging of the stolen materials. At the
trial of both defendants in the magistrates’ court the fingerprint was
admitted in evidence and the defendants were convicted.
At the time that the defendants’ fingerprints were taken, art. 61(8B)
of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (as
inserted by art. 30 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment)
(Northern Ireland) Order 2007) provided:
Where a person's fingerprints are taken electronically, they must be taken
only in such manner, and using such devices, as the Secretary of State has
approved for the purposes of electronic fingerprinting.
The requirement for statutory approval of fingerprint devices was re-
pealed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 12 January 2010
by s. 112 of and Sched. 8 to the Policing and Crime Act 2009. Never-
theless it was a requirement at the time that the defendants’ fingerprints
were taken in the present case, that the Livescan device required ap-
proval from the Secretary of State.
Following their convictions the defendants became aware that the
Livescan device used to take their fingerprints had not, as the result of an
oversight, received the required approval. The defendants appealed to
the county...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT