The High Court has refused an application to quash a District Court order allowing forensic samples to be retained for a further 28 days while the Director of Public Prosecutions considered a prosecution file.
The applicant sought judicial review of an order made on 14 March 2006 under section 4(5) of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990. He also sought an order requiring the DPP to destroy the samples. The case concerned whether the District Judge had a proper basis to find “good reason” for extending their retention.
The samples had been taken after the applicant’s arrest in July 2005 in connection with an aggravated burglary. He was released without charge. A forensic report was completed in January 2006. The judgment records that the report matched the applicant’s DNA to blood found at the burglary scene; that was evidence described in the proceedings, not a finding about guilt.
At the March hearing, the superintendent told the District Judge that the prosecution file had been sent to the DPP on 7 March and directions were awaited. The superintendent requested a two-month extension. The judge granted 28 days. The applicant argued that the forensic testing was complete and that waiting for directions, without an explanation for the delay, was not “good reason” under the Act. He also alleged that his solicitor had been prevented from pursuing cross-examination about what he had been told during detention. The respondents disputed that the hearing was unfair and said admissibility could be addressed at trial.
The High Court held that “good reason” gives a District Judge a wide discretion, but not an absolute one. The judge must assess the reason independently and act judicially. The court rejected the argument that retention could be justified only while testing remained outstanding: the Act’s purpose also includes preserving potentially relevant evidence for a future trial, including evidence that might assist the defence.
In this case, the file had been with the DPP for seven days. The High Court considered that a reasonable opportunity to review it was sufficient reason for the extension; no specific evidence explaining why directions had not yet issued was required. It also found that limiting the extension to 28 days, rather than the two months requested, showed the District Judge had applied his mind to the application. The court rejected the fair-procedures complaint.
The High Court refused all relief sought. It did not decide whether the forensic evidence would be admissible at trial, saying that issue could be raised before the trial judge.