FINGER-PRINTING OF SUSPECTED YOUNG PERSONS (Hansard, 9 June 1969)

§ Mrs. Knight
I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 11, line 12, at end insert— (5) Where the finger or palm-prints of a young person have been taken by a constable, then the finger-prints or palm-prints and all copies and records of them shall be destroyed not more than ten years from the date of the taking of such prints if since such date the person to whom they relate has not been convicted of any further offence; and the provisions of this section shall be in addition to those of any other enactment under which finger-prints or palm-prints shall be destroyed. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and I are rather concerned about this matter. While it is not nearly of such importance as that on which we had our last debate a few moments ago, it is nevertheless 1113 a matter of some importance and some principle. My hon. Friend and I are concerned that finger prints and palm prints taken by a police constable from a young person will henceforward remain on record.
I do not like to think that young people who have been involved in some brush with the law will for ever have their finger prints on record. After all, they may not have done anything very bad. They may merely have committed some youthful misdemeanour for which in days gone by the "bobby" on the beat would have given them a brisk box on the ears and that would have been the end of that. In fact, it is debatable that a box on the ears was not probably more effective in putting an end to trouble than some of the measures which we are discussing now. Nevertheless, a mere youthful misdemeanour could easily result in the finger prints and palm prints being taken.
Even if, on the other hand, it was not a misdemeanour but something quite bad, I would have thought that after a certain period of time and after whatever crime had been committed had been paid for—even if by only seeing the children officer or the probation officer regularly—there would be a strong case for those fingerprints to be removed from the record. Some people who have their finger prints taken—and this would include young persons—are completely innocent of any crime.
A month or so ago I had the misfortune to have my house burgled. Two young persons entered it. I am bound to say that I am not gravely concerned whether they were under 17 or not. The fact is that they broke into my house and ransacked it and left a considerable number of finger prints behind them. In the course of justice I had to go to the local police station and have my own finger prints taken; no doubt they are enshrined in the archives in Scotland Yard and, for all I know, they may be there for evermore.
I have no objection to my finger prints being on record. But one of the rules of debate is that one should not argue from the general to the particular, and in this case I find myself unable to argue from the particular to the general. In other words, I find it quite impossible to say that just because I have no objection to my finger prints being on record 1114 nobody else ought to have any possible objection. I have an objection to law-abiding people having to have their finger prints on record for evermore. There is something Third Reichish about it.
Some people may say, as an hon. Friend of mine said to me this evening, that if a person is innocent there is no reason why he should mind his prints being on record at Scotland Yard. It that is the case, why should we stop merely at finger prints of people who have been engaged in some crime or misdemeanour or who inadvertently happened to be at the place of some trouble and who have had their finger prints taken in order to separate them from the finger prints of whoever committed the crime? Either everyone should have his finger prints taken or only the finger prints of enemies or potential enemies of society and those who have not discharged their debt to society should be on record. If we say that finger prints should be on record, why not have photographs taken and listed in the archives?
If a large number of finger prints are kept permanently on record that occasions much difficulty. When I had the experience I have told the House about, I asked the local police inspector whether I would soon know if my finger prints coincided with any on record at Scotland Yard. He replied that I could not expect to have an answer quickly because so many finger prints were on record at Scotland Yard. He replied that I could not expect to have an answer quickly because so many finger prints were on record at the Yard that it would take two or three months to make sure that none coincided with those found in my house. Far too many people think that one slips a photograph into a kind of computer and the answer comes out in five minutes. It may not be generally recognised that to have a large number of finger prints taken does not make things easier, but more difficult.
If one commits a motoring offence of the kind for which one's licence is endorsed, the endorsement is finally wiped out when the licence is cleared. The same should take place with finger prints. I draw attention to the words of the Amendment, they shall be destroyed not more than ten years from the date of the taking of such prints if since such date the person to whom they 1115 relate has not been convicted of any further offence. It is not suggested that they should be taken off the record while society might think that there is any further danger from that person, but that after 10 years they should be removed from the record.
Some people would consider that one was perennially punished for having been involved in a crime if the finger prints remained on the record. Logically, or illogically, they think it a punishment to have their finger prints on record at Scotland Yard. This is a principle that the Amendment seeks to probe and to alter. The slate and the record should be cleared after 10 years if the person has committed no further crime and there is no reason why the record should remain.

§ Sir E. Errington
I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). The whole question of finger prints is of some difficulty, particularly when dealing with young persons. So far as one knows there is not the element of deceit which might distinguish older persons in regard to their identity. There is probably more ability to identify a young person than an older person. In those circumstances we want to be very careful about how long and in what way the finger prints should be taken. In some cases finger printing may even be a worse thing for the rehabilitation—if that be the right word—of young people, because there is sometimes a feeling that they are big boys having had their finger prints taken.
As a magistrate, I feel very strongly that in considering the record of an adult coming before me I would not consider convictions dating back more than 10 years. It would be a retrograde step to try to label a young person by retaining his finger prints for a prolonged period. I shall not pontificate on whether or not it is necessary to have the finger printing procedure for young persons. But if it is necessary there is an unanswerable case for not retaining the finger prints for the rest of their lives. There should be a period—and perhaps five years is better—after which a clean sheet is started. I hope that the Government will agree, and that this or a similar Amendment can be made.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
Under the present law, when a person aged not less than 14 is charged or summoned for an offence punishable in an adult with imprisonment the police may apply to a court for an order to take his fingerprints and palm prints. If he is not convicted the prints must be destroyed, and where the prints have been obtained by consent they are, as a result of administrative procedures, destroyed in similar circumstances.
So far as is possible, the Clause is intended to preserve the existing practice. The Amendment would introduce an entirely new principle, that even if a young person has been found guilty his finger prints or palm prints should nevertheless be destroyed if thereafter he remains free from convictions for 10 years.
I well appreciate the reason underlying the Amendment—a feeling that a stigma attaches to the existence in police records of a person's finger prints. This view was expressed in Committee, although not strongly supported. I then undertook to consider the matter, and I have done so. I appreciate that it will not satisfy those who hold this view to be assured that police records are confidential and not disclosed to other persons, or that the records are required not only to establish positive identification but also to eliminate persons possibly involved in a matter, which could protect some individuals from what they would regard as harassment by the police.
It is, however, generally accepted that finger prints are of considerable importance in police work. Finger prints and palm prints will be obtained under this Clause for a variety of reasons. They could be obtained as a preliminary to a decision by the police whether to use informal methods of dealing with the offender, but it is possible that they will be obtained in the early stages of an extremely serious case where there would certainly be a prosecution.
A whole spectrum of cases may, therefore, be involved, ranging from the least to the most serious offences. In my submission, it would be inimical to the interests of the public that, irrespective of the nature of the offence, finger prints and palm prints should automatically be 1117 destroyed in the circumstances envisaged after the lapse of 10 years. For example, it is wrong that the police should be deprived of this aid to detection when the individual concerned, although between the ages of 14 and 17, has been guilty of grave offences involving felonies, major larcenies or sexual offences, for example.
Further, it is not sufficient to argue that retention is unnecessary if the individual concerned has not committed another offence during the span of 10 years. This may be so, but it may be that the individual has as a result of conviction spent a good part of this period in some form of detention and has been compelled to be of good behaviour during the period. It may be that for a period of 10 years he has taken to wearing gloves. Although this would not normally be so, it would be difficult to defend a situation in which in the event of a second offence the police were unable, in spite of the existence of finger prints or palm prints at the scene of the crime, to connect them with a grave offence.
I would not go so far as to say—I have considered the matter—that there is no merit whatever in the case put forward by the hon. Members, but I am sure they will agree with me that it is necessary to balance that case against the very considerable help which finger prints and palm prints can give to the police. They are kept confidentially they are not disclosed to employers or anybody else. No man has anything to fear on account of his finger prints being kept by the police save, and only, in the event of his committing a further offence. In the circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.