A FORMER suspect in a sex case has launched a legal battle to ensure Lancashire Constabulary and other authorities destroy both his DNA profile and police ‘mugshot’.

London-born Michael Gare-Simmons was brought in for questioning in May 2011 on an allegation of sexually assaulting an adult man, the European Court of Justice has been told.

MORE TOP STORIES:

But after a DNA sample and other ‘biometric information’ including fingerprints were taken, and his photograph taken for police files, he was later released without charge and is now understood to live in Gerona, Spain.

Just months after his arrest and exoneration, Mr Gare-Simmons wrote to the constabulary, requesting that his information be deleted from their records, the court heard.

In a letter of reply, police are said to have confirmed that this would be done in ‘the coming months’, and advised that while a national review was ongoing regarding policy over photos, these should be destroyed around the same time.

This should have happened by September 2013.

An application was lodged with the European Court in October 2012, under human rights legislation, which led to the disclosure in November 2013 , by the Association of Chief Police Officers, that his fingerprints remained on file.

And it was established that while the actual sample had been deleted, his DNA ‘profile’, a series of identifying numbers linked to the information remained on record, and his photo was still on file.

Later the constabulary confirmed that the ‘biometric data’ had been erased but no indication was given over the fate of the photos.

Mr Gare-Simmons has complained under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention regarding the retention of his personal details, including DNA, finger, thumb and palm prints and photograph on the Police National Computer.

Before a fresh hearing is listed at the Strasbourg court, lawyers representing Mr Gare-Simmons and the UK government have been asked to clarify legal questions regarding the current legal position on retaining custody photographs, for individuals not charged with alleged offences, and whether any continued retention of the images would constitute a human rights breach.