Introduction

The case of Public Prosecution Service v. McKee ([2013] UKSC 32) addresses a pivotal issue concerning the statutory regulation of electronic fingerprinting devices used by police forces in Northern Ireland. This case scrutinizes the validity and admissibility of fingerprints obtained using a device, Livescan, not approved under the specific legislative requirements at the time of evidence collection. The appellants, charged with theft, challenged the admissibility of their fingerprints based on the non-approval of the Livescan device, thereby questioning the foundational procedures employed during their arrest and subsequent prosecution.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court examined whether fingerprints obtained using an unapproved Livescan device were admissible in court under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. The Court held that the absence of explicit statutory provisions mandating the inadmissibility of such evidence meant that the fingerprints should remain admissible. The judgment underscored that the statutory language did not inherently invalidate evidence but rather emphasized the procedural safeguards available to suspects, such as the right to refuse fingerprinting when devices were unapproved. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts that allowed the fingerprints to be used as valid evidence against the appellants.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents to elucidate the court's reasoning:

• Kuruma v The Queen [1955] AC 197 – Established that unlawfully obtained evidence does not automatically render it inadmissible if it is relevant.
• R v Sang [1980] AC 402 – Affirmed that the relevance of evidence dictates its admissibility, irrespective of how it was procured, unless exclusion would render the trial unfair.
• R v Khan [1997] AC 558 – Reinforced that evidence obtained through unauthorized means remains admissible as long as it is relevant.
• R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49 – Addressed statutory interpretation, emphasizing the importance of understanding parliamentary intent regarding the consequences of non-compliance with statutory provisions.
• Scott v Baker [1969] 1 QB 659 – Illustrated the necessity of device approval for the admissibility of evidence derived from breath tests.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's analysis hinged on statutory interpretation principles and the intent behind legislative provisions. The key points in the Court’s legal reasoning include:

• Statutory Context: Article 61(8B) of the Northern Ireland Order 1989 required approval for electronic fingerprinting devices, but lacked explicit provisions regarding the consequences of using unapproved devices.
• Common Law Principles: Based on precedents like Kuruma and Sang, the Court recognized that unlawfully obtained evidence remains admissible if relevant, unless exclusion is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
• Legislative Intention: The Court applied the flexible approach from R v Soneji, focusing on whether Parliament intended to render evidence inadmissible due to lack of device approval. It concluded that such an intention was not evident.
• Functional Differences: The Court distinguished fingerprint evidence from other biometric evidence like breath tests, which measure non-reproducible data, thereby not necessitating strict approval for inferences about their admissibility.
• Practical Implications: The ability to independently verify fingerprint accuracy negated the necessity for statutory mandates on device approval affecting admissibility.

Impact

The decision in Public Prosecution Service v. McKee has substantial implications for the use of electronic fingerprinting devices:

• Evidence Admissibility: Reaffirms that relevant evidence remains admissible unless explicitly stated otherwise in statutory provisions.
• Legislative Clarity: Highlights the necessity for clear statutory directives when intending to regulate the admissibility of specific types of evidence.
• Procedural Safeguards: Emphasizes the importance of procedural rights, such as the ability to refuse fingerprinting on legal grounds, reinforcing individual protections against overreach.
• Technological Regulation: Guides the future regulation of biometric and electronic devices in law enforcement, ensuring that technological advancements are balanced with legal safeguards without impeding the justice process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Admissibility of Evidence

Admissibility refers to whether evidence can be legally presented in court. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and obtained through lawful means. However, the courts also consider fairness, ensuring that unlawfully obtained evidence does not compromise the trial's integrity.

Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation involves understanding and applying legislation. Courts consider the literal wording, legislative intent, and broader legal principles to interpret statutes accurately, especially when the language is ambiguous or incomplete.

Device Approval

Device Approval pertains to the legal authorization required for specific tools or technologies used in official capacities, such as fingerprinting. Approved devices meet set standards ensuring reliability and consistency in their results.

Parliamentary Intent

Parliamentary Intent refers to the purpose and objectives Parliament aimed to achieve when enacting a particular law. Understanding this intent is crucial for interpreting ambiguous legislative provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Public Prosecution Service v. McKee underscores the critical balance between legislative directives and common law principles in determining evidence admissibility. By affirming that the lack of explicit statutory consequences does not inherently render evidence inadmissible, the Court upheld the relevancy and reliability of fingerprint evidence obtained through electronic devices like Livescan, even when procedural oversights occurred. This judgment not only reinforces the continuing relevance of established legal principles but also guides future legislative and judicial approaches to the regulation and use of technological advancements in law enforcement. Ultimately, the case highlights the necessity for clear legislative language when intending to restrict or conditionally admit evidence, ensuring that legal processes remain fair, transparent, and just.