From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
|
==Provisions== |
==Provisions== |
||
|
===Domestic violence=== |
===Domestic violence=== |
||
|
In England and Wales, the |
In England and Wales, the introduces Domestic Violence Protection Notices,<ref>{{Cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2010 |chapter=17 |act=Crime and Security Act 2010 |section=24 |accessdate=24 October 2024 }}</ref> which may be issued by a police officer of at least the rank of Superintendent where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has used or threatened violence against a family member and the issuance of a DVPN is necessary to protect that person by requiring the perpetrator to, where applicable, vacate the premises of and not to contact the victim,<ref name=lords/> and Domestic Violence Protection Orders,<ref>{{Cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2010 |chapter=17 |act=Crime and Security Act 2010 |section=27 |accessdate=24 October 2024 }}</ref> made by a [[magistrates’ court (England and Wales)|magistrates’ court]] following issuance of a DVPN. |
||
|
===Forensic samples=== |
===Forensic samples=== |
||
|
|
the ruling in ”[[S and Marper v United Kingdom]]”<ref>”S and Marper v United Kingdom” [2008] ECHR 1581</ref> by the [[European Court of Human Rights]] that holding the DNA samples of those who have been arrested for an offence but later acquitted or not charged is a violation of their [[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 8]] right to privacy creates a statutory framework for the retention and destruction of biometric data records created during the investigation of offences, as well as expanding the powers of police to take fingerprint and DNA samples.<ref name=commons/> |
||
|
The act allows for the police to take samples from individuals previously convicted of serious crimes.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Sandford |first=Daniel |date=2010-04-28 |title=Do CCTV and the DNA database make us safer? |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8649321.stm |access-date=2026-02-04 |work=BBC News}}</ref> |
|||
|
===Prisons=== |
===Prisons=== |
||
|
The |
The updates the [[Prison Act 1952]] by criminalising the possession of unathorised mobile phones and other telecommunication devices within prisons.<ref name=lords/><ref>{{Cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2010 |chapter=17 |act=Crime and Security Act 2010 |section=45 |accessdate=24 October 2024 }}</ref> |
||
|
===Stop and search=== |
===Stop and search=== |
||
|
Section 1<ref>{{Cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2010 |chapter=17 |act=Crime and Security Act 2010 |section=1 |accessdate=24 October 2024 }}</ref> reduced the details that police were required to record and report on following [[Powers of the police in England and Wales#Search without arrest|stopping and searching]] a suspect in England and Wales.<ref name=lords/> |
Section 1<ref>{{Cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2010 |chapter=17 |act=Crime and Security Act 2010 |section=1 |accessdate=24 October 2024 }}</ref> reduced the details that police were required to record and report on following [[Powers of the police in England and Wales#Search without arrest|stopping and searching]] a suspect in England and Wales.<ref name=lords/> |
||
|
The act allows police services to only require their officers to record “stop and account” encounters if there is a full search.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hill |first=Dave |date=2011-09-23 |title=Met police will retain recording of “stop and account” street encounters |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/davehillblog/2011/sep/23/met-police-retain-stop-and-account-recording |access-date=2026-02-04 |work=The Guardian}}</ref> |
|||
|
== Reception == |
|||
|
The National DNA Database Ethics Group called for greater transparency in how the national DNA database was administered than had been committed to in August 2010.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2010-08-06 |title=DNA database quango calls for greater transparency |url=https://www.theguardian.com/government-computing-network/2010/aug/06/dna-database-transparency-report-05aug10 |work=The Guardian |department=Government Computing}}</ref> |
|||
|
==References== |
==References== |
||
Latest revision as of 14:17, 4 February 2026
Public General Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom
The Crime and Security Act 2010 (c. 17) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that introduced various measures relating to policing, crime and security; primarily regarding domestic violence, gang violence, anti-social behaviour, and requirements relating to the collection of forensic evidence from and the stop and search of individuals.[1][2]
In England and Wales, the act introduces Domestic Violence Protection Notices,[3] which may be issued by a police officer of at least the rank of Superintendent where they have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual has used or threatened violence against a family member and the issuance of a DVPN is necessary to protect that person by requiring the perpetrator to, where applicable, vacate the premises of and not to contact the victim,[2] and Domestic Violence Protection Orders,[4] made by a magistrates’ court following issuance of a DVPN.
The act followed the ruling in S and Marper v United Kingdom[5] by the European Court of Human Rights which stated that holding the DNA samples of those who have been arrested for an offence but later acquitted or not charged is a violation of their Article 8 right to privacy.[6] The act creates a statutory framework for the retention and destruction of biometric data records created during the investigation of offences, as well as expanding the powers of police to take fingerprint and DNA samples.[1]
The act allows for the police to take samples from individuals previously convicted of serious crimes.[7]
The act updates the Prison Act 1952 by criminalising the possession of unathorised mobile phones and other telecommunication devices within prisons.[2][8]
Section 1[9] reduced the details that police were required to record and report on following stopping and searching a suspect in England and Wales.[2]
The act allows police services to only require their officers to record “stop and account” encounters if there is a full search.[10]
The National DNA Database Ethics Group called for greater transparency in how the national DNA database was administered than had been committed to in August 2010.[11]
- ^ a b “House of Commons – Explanatory Note”. Parliament of the United Kingdom. 20 November 2009. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
- ^ a b c d “House of Lords – Explanatory Note”. Parliament of the United Kingdom. 10 March 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
- ^ “Crime and Security Act 2010: Section 24”, legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2010 c. 17 (s. 24), retrieved 24 October 2024
- ^ “Crime and Security Act 2010: Section 27”, legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2010 c. 17 (s. 27), retrieved 24 October 2024
- ^ S and Marper v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581
- ^ “DNA database: proven guilty”. The Guardian. 16 April 2009. Retrieved 4 February 2026.
- ^ Sandford, Daniel (28 April 2010). “Do CCTV and the DNA database make us safer?”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 February 2026.
- ^ “Crime and Security Act 2010: Section 45”, legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2010 c. 17 (s. 45), retrieved 24 October 2024
- ^ “Crime and Security Act 2010: Section 1”, legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives, 2010 c. 17 (s. 1), retrieved 24 October 2024
- ^ Hill, Dave (23 September 2011). “Met police will retain recording of “stop and account” street encounters”. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 February 2026.
- ^ “DNA database quango calls for greater transparency”. Government Computing. The Guardian. 6 August 2010.
