Mugshots have to be destroyed

Thames Valley Police will have to destroy the mugshots of innocent people after a landmark court case ruled that keeping them was a breach of human rights.

The High Court ruled last week that police forces should no longer retain pictures of suspects who were never charged.

The decision came after a 15-year-old boy from Peckham, South London, brought the case to court.

He was arrested on suspicion of rape but no charges were brought.

Related links

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:25pm Tue 26 Jun 12

xjohnx says...

Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people
(as per the above stories)?

No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.
Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people (as per the above stories)? No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre. xjohnx

4:44pm Tue 26 Jun 12

Phian says...

Such shame that the justification claimed by the Police was not reported.
Such shame that the justification claimed by the Police was not reported. Phian

7:36pm Tue 26 Jun 12

xjohnx says...

Phian wrote:
Such shame that the justification claimed by the Police was not reported.
With guilt not established the suggestion of 'secret knowledge' is to close to 'secret policing'.

We don't do that!!!!!

That happens in Syria, Rhodesia, etc.
[quote][p][bold]Phian[/bold] wrote: Such shame that the justification claimed by the Police was not reported.[/p][/quote]With guilt not established the suggestion of 'secret knowledge' is to close to 'secret policing'. We don't do that!!!!! That happens in Syria, Rhodesia, etc. xjohnx

7:28am Wed 27 Jun 12

Englishman says...

What's wrong with them keeping photo's? One day it may help to catch a criminal or or terrorist or clear an innocent person. If you have nothing to fear where is the problem? After all most people seem hell bent on telling the world all about themselves and pasting their faces all over social network sites anyway.
What's wrong with them keeping photo's? One day it may help to catch a criminal or or terrorist or clear an innocent person. If you have nothing to fear where is the problem? After all most people seem hell bent on telling the world all about themselves and pasting their faces all over social network sites anyway. Englishman

12:21pm Wed 27 Jun 12

King Joke says...

Englishman wrote:
What's wrong with them keeping photo's? One day it may help to catch a criminal or or terrorist or clear an innocent person. If you have nothing to fear where is the problem? After all most people seem hell bent on telling the world all about themselves and pasting their faces all over social network sites anyway.
It makes it much easier to fit someone up if you've already got them on file. How will it help clear an innocent person? If you're innocent you're innocent and shouldn't be on file down the nick.
[quote][p][bold]Englishman[/bold] wrote: What's wrong with them keeping photo's? One day it may help to catch a criminal or or terrorist or clear an innocent person. If you have nothing to fear where is the problem? After all most people seem hell bent on telling the world all about themselves and pasting their faces all over social network sites anyway.[/p][/quote]It makes it much easier to fit someone up if you've already got them on file. How will it help clear an innocent person? If you're innocent you're innocent and shouldn't be on file down the nick. King Joke

3:04pm Wed 27 Jun 12

JanetJ says...

xjohnx wrote:
Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people
(as per the above stories)?

No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.
Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people (as per the above stories)? No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.[/p][/quote]Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty? JanetJ

3:15pm Wed 27 Jun 12

xjohnx says...

JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people
(as per the above stories)?

No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.
Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?
Since when has speculation or unprovable theory been grounds (in this country) for keeping secret files on people.

Should we publish that photo of you and James in the woods that evening when you were both 13?

Or am I making that up to prove a point?
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people (as per the above stories)? No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.[/p][/quote]Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?[/p][/quote]Since when has speculation or unprovable theory been grounds (in this country) for keeping secret files on people. Should we publish that photo of you and James in the woods that evening when you were both 13? Or am I making that up to prove a point? xjohnx

6:35pm Wed 27 Jun 12

O.C.C. Worker The Marsh says...

JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people
(as per the above stories)?

No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.
Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?
I like your way of thinking Ms Janet. Have you thought of applying for a job with the Shin Bet, guilty before charged eh!
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people (as per the above stories)? No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.[/p][/quote]Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?[/p][/quote]I like your way of thinking Ms Janet. Have you thought of applying for a job with the Shin Bet, guilty before charged eh! O.C.C. Worker The Marsh

9:12pm Wed 27 Jun 12

JanetJ says...

xjohnx wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people
(as per the above stories)?

No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.
Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?
Since when has speculation or unprovable theory been grounds (in this country) for keeping secret files on people.

Should we publish that photo of you and James in the woods that evening when you were both 13?

Or am I making that up to prove a point?
I don't think it said anywhere that the Police were going to public the pics did it? they are just keeping pics of arrested people on file in case they are involved with something similar again I imagine. I was never arrested in the woods as far as I can recall with James or anyone else so your second comment is somewhat irrelevant.
Am I being naive to think you don't get arrested for something you had absolutely no involvement with? I have no knowledge of the case but I imagine the victim didn't feel able to go to Court.
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people (as per the above stories)? No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.[/p][/quote]Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?[/p][/quote]Since when has speculation or unprovable theory been grounds (in this country) for keeping secret files on people. Should we publish that photo of you and James in the woods that evening when you were both 13? Or am I making that up to prove a point?[/p][/quote]I don't think it said anywhere that the Police were going to public the pics did it? they are just keeping pics of arrested people on file in case they are involved with something similar again I imagine. I was never arrested in the woods as far as I can recall with James or anyone else so your second comment is somewhat irrelevant. Am I being naive to think you don't get arrested for something you had absolutely no involvement with? I have no knowledge of the case but I imagine the victim didn't feel able to go to Court. JanetJ

8:55am Thu 28 Jun 12

xjohnx says...

Oh! they must be guilty, a copper arrested them. Pull the other one.

Especialy nowdays, we trust the police to be honest all the time do we? One bent cop chasing an arrest target can place you on the secret files for life, but that never happens in real life does it?

What planet please?

I think your way of thinking is from the 16th century.
Oh! they must be guilty, a copper arrested them. Pull the other one. Especialy nowdays, we trust the police to be honest all the time do we? One bent cop chasing an arrest target can place you on the secret files for life, but that never happens in real life does it? What planet please? I think your way of thinking is from the 16th century. xjohnx

8:48pm Thu 28 Jun 12

Severian says...

JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
JanetJ wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people
(as per the above stories)?

No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.
Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?
Since when has speculation or unprovable theory been grounds (in this country) for keeping secret files on people.

Should we publish that photo of you and James in the woods that evening when you were both 13?

Or am I making that up to prove a point?
I don't think it said anywhere that the Police were going to public the pics did it? they are just keeping pics of arrested people on file in case they are involved with something similar again I imagine. I was never arrested in the woods as far as I can recall with James or anyone else so your second comment is somewhat irrelevant.
Am I being naive to think you don't get arrested for something you had absolutely no involvement with? I have no knowledge of the case but I imagine the victim didn't feel able to go to Court.
You certainly ARE being naive. The Police arrest lots of people for lots of reason, yet never go on to charge them.

Sometimes when the police are doing a trawl for information they will formally arrest people so that they then have the right to legal representation. Then they let them go afterwards once their innocence is established.

In your world though that person should then be a suspect for the rest of their lives.
[quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JanetJ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Why were the police using our money for court cases to hang on to photographs of innocent people (as per the above stories)? No surprise that the police are losing public support left right and centre.[/p][/quote]Innocent or just not enough evidence to prove he was guilty?[/p][/quote]Since when has speculation or unprovable theory been grounds (in this country) for keeping secret files on people. Should we publish that photo of you and James in the woods that evening when you were both 13? Or am I making that up to prove a point?[/p][/quote]I don't think it said anywhere that the Police were going to public the pics did it? they are just keeping pics of arrested people on file in case they are involved with something similar again I imagine. I was never arrested in the woods as far as I can recall with James or anyone else so your second comment is somewhat irrelevant. Am I being naive to think you don't get arrested for something you had absolutely no involvement with? I have no knowledge of the case but I imagine the victim didn't feel able to go to Court.[/p][/quote]You certainly ARE being naive. The Police arrest lots of people for lots of reason, yet never go on to charge them. Sometimes when the police are doing a trawl for information they will formally arrest people so that they then have the right to legal representation. Then they let them go afterwards once their innocence is established. In your world though that person should then be a suspect for the rest of their lives. Severian

12:08am Fri 29 Jun 12

OZZY123 says...

it is strange a criminal still has rights....
it is strange a criminal still has rights.... OZZY123

1:05pm Sat 30 Jun 12

Alfie Nokes says...

OZZY123 wrote:
it is strange a criminal still has rights....
we all have the right not to be subjected to cruel and unjust punishments, criminal or not, or so our constitution says, not that those making up, enacting or enforcing legislation take much notice of 'that old thing' any more...
[quote][p][bold]OZZY123[/bold] wrote: it is strange a criminal still has rights....[/p][/quote]we all have the right not to be subjected to cruel and unjust punishments, criminal or not, or so our constitution says, not that those making up, enacting or enforcing legislation take much notice of 'that old thing' any more... Alfie Nokes

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree