biology

R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis

R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis is a biology topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis rather than just read about it. In short: R (on the application of GC) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence.

Key takeaways

R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis belongs to biology; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

R (on the application of GC) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence. In the case, a majority of the Supreme Court, including the Court's President Lord Phillips and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge reversed an earlier ruling of the High Court of Justice and found that the police force's policy of retaining DNA evidence in the absence of 'exceptional circumstances' was unlawful and a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court declined to offer any specific relief however, recognising that the policy is expected to be subject to legislative scrutiny as Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011.

Facts The case concerned the applications of two individuals (who were granted anonymity) who had been suspected of criminal offences and subsequently been cleared. Both individuals had applied to the police force requesting the destruction of DNA and other biometric data which the police force had retained, the police refused both requests citing an ACPO guideline which permitted the destruction of biometric data only in 'exceptional circumstances'. Both individuals made an application to the High Court asking for judicial review of the police's decision. As the court was bound by a House of Lords precedent - R(S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39 - they refused the application, but gave permission for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court.

Judgment In the Supreme Court, arguments were heard from the parties to the case and from intervening parties including Liberty, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Home Department on hearings on 31 January and 1 February 2011. The court returned judgments on 18 May 2011. Whilst the court was unanimous in overturning the decision in R(S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and affirming the European Court of Human Rights' finding from S and Marper v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 50 that the police's blanket policy of retaining biometric data from persons who had either been acquitted of an offence, or against whom charges had been dropped was de facto incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, members of the court differed on their reasoning. The majority, led by Lord Dyson felt that the APCO guideline which the police had relied on and which substantially restricted the discretion of police chiefs to destroy retained evidence was not compatible with Article 8. The majority read s64 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) in conjunction with provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and determined that the APCO guideline was not compatible with the primary legislation and thus unlawful. They therefore allowed the appeal, although they did not pass any order requiring the destruction of any data as it was acknowledged that the legislature is expected to pass an Act in the near future which will limit the police's ability to retain biometric data. The minority, consisting of Lord Brown and Lord Rodger would have dismissed the appeals. Whilst they agreed in principle that the police policy was not compatible with article 8, they argued that the s64 PACE was itself not compatible with the convention, and that the police had 'no choice' but to retain the relevant data. As the judiciary of England and Wales has no power to review primary legislation such as this Act, they would have issued a declaration of incompatibility with regard to the provisions.

References

External links Official text of the judgment (UKSC website) Archived 8 April 2014 at the Wayback Machine

Illustrations

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In biology, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis

In research: R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis appears in biology research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 2011 in United Kingdom case law, History of the Metropolitan Police, Population genetics in the United Kingdom, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis in simple terms?

Why does R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis matter?

Because it connects several biology ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis.