DNA

I have changed the facts here to disguise the ongoing story. An expensive car was stolen. It was found by the police. An officer swabbed the gear shift. The swab was sent to the ESR. Two dna profiles were obtained from the sample. Both profiles were run through the crime dna database. One of the profiles matched a profile stored in the database. The ESR gave  a report to the police confirming this. The police charged the person with the matching profile with stealing the car. The person pleaded not guilty. The police now needed an evidentiary sample from the accused and applied to the court for a dna compulsion order which if granted would compel the accused to provide a saliva sample. This could be done by force if required. A substantial invasion of bodily integrity, dignity and privacy. To be continued. The police filed their application. It referred in the affidavit filed by a detective inspector in support to a swab from a glove found at the scene. There was no glove at the scene. The swab was from the gearshift. The application to compel a dna sample from the accused was refused. For completeness had the application been granted a dna profile would have been extractedaa from the sample and compared to the profile extracted from the scen̈e swab. The police then filed a second application. This application correctly referred to the swab taken from the gearshift. The ESR report referred to a match between  the profile from the scene swab and the accused's dna profile in the database. However the profile in the database had been obtained from the accused because he was suspected of an offence. Ultimately he was not charged with that offence so the profile should have been destroyed. It was not and consequently his privacy was breached, he was unlawfully arrested detained and charged.