229.Subsection (1) allows the police to retake fingerprints where an individual has been convicted of a recordable offence when the initial set of prints they took were incomplete or of poor quality or there were errors in the data capture process. This will also apply to cautions for recordable offences and warnings or reprimands for recordable offences under section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
230.Subsection (2) allows officers of the rank of inspector or above to authorise the compulsory taking of fingerprints.
231.Subsection (3) allows the police to retake fingerprints where an individual has been charged with a recordable offence, when the initial set of prints they took were incomplete or of poor quality or there were errors in the data capture process.
232.Subsections (4) and (5) allow for the compulsory fingerprinting of a person who has been arrested, fingerprinted and bailed to reappear at a police station or a court, if at the time of answering bail there is dispute over the identity of the individual.
233.Subsection (6) allows for compulsory fingerprinting of those cautioned for recordable offences or warned or reprimanded for recordable offences under section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This will enable the details of these offences which are held in national police records to be supported by fingerprints.
234.Subsection (7) provides that where fingerprints are taken electronically, the device used must have type approval from the Secretary of State. This is to ensure that the device will produce images of the appropriate quality and integrity to be used for evidential purposes.
235.Subsection (8) extends the definition of fingerprints to include records of fingers, palms and other parts of the hand where there are characteristic skin patterns and makes it clear that a fingerprint does not have to be produced as a print but may be recorded by other means.
236.Subsection (9) repeals Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948. This was used to give proof of previous convictions but has largely fallen into disuse because it could only be used to prove identity if the individual concerned had received a custodial sentence and was fingerprinted during their term of imprisonment.