Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
R (Bridges) v CCSWP and SSHD
public interest in harnessing new technologies to aid the detection and
prevention of crime, on the other.
5.
These competing objectives are readily apparent from the leading cases. Lord
Steyn’s introductory observations in his speech in R(S) v Chief Constable of
the South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196, which concerned DNA,
emphasised the public benefits in law enforcement agencies using new
technology at [1]- [2]:
“1. It is of paramount importance that the law enforcement
agencies should take full advantage of the available techniques of
modern technology and forensic science. Such real evidence has
the inestimable value of cogency and objectivity. It is in large
measure not affected by the subjective defects of other testimony.
It enables the guilty to be detected and the innocent to be rapidly
eliminated from inquiries. Thus, in the 1990s closed circuit
television (CCTV) became a crime prevention strategy
extensively adopted in British cities and towns. The images
recorded facilitate the detection of crime and prosecution of
offenders. Making due allowance for the possibility of threats to
civil liberties, this phenomenon has had beneficial effects.
2.
The use of fingerprint evidence in this country dates from as
long ago as 1902. In due course other advances of forensic
science followed. But the dramatic breakthrough was the use of
DNA techniques since the 1980s. The benefits to the criminal
justice system are enormous. For example, recent Home Office
statistics show that while the annual detection rate of domestic
burglary is only 14%, when DNA is successfully recovered from
a crime scene this rises to 48%. It is, of course, true that such
evidence is capable of being misused and that courts must be ever
watchful to eliminate risks of human error creeping in. But as a
matter of policy it is a high priority that police forces should
expand the use of such evidence where possible and practicable.”
6.
The counterpoint is readily apparent from Lord Reed’s observations in R(T) v
Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2015] AC 49 at [88]:
“The United Kingdom has never had a secret police or internal
intelligence agency comparable to those that have existed in some
other European countries, the East German Stasi being a wellknown example. There has however been growing concern in
recent times about surveillance and the collection and use of
personal data by the state. … But such concern on this side of the
Channel might be said to have arisen later, and to be less acutely
felt, than in many other European countries, where for reasons of
history there has been a more vigilant attitude towards state
surveillance. That concern and vigilance are reflected in the
jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in relation
to the collection, storage and use by the state of personal data.