A NORTH-EAST teacher has won his legal battle for the destruction of a DNA sample taken by police who unlawfully arrested him over a pupil’s false assault allegation.

Matthew Wren, 37, of Chester-le-Street, County Durham, who has now quit teaching and is an accommodation officer for Durham Student Union, said he feared Britain was becoming a police state.

He said: “Where will it all end. Will we all be tagged and observed 24/7?”

He sought a judicial review against Northumbria Police but a few days before the case was due to be heard in the High Court, the force agreed to a consent order that declared the arrest unlawful.

Mr Wren’s photographic, fingerprint and DNA samples will be removed from police records and his entry on the Police National Computer will be changed.

It is thought that his victory could pave the way for similar applications by other people whose samples are retained even though they were never convicted of an offence.

The Government has just announced plans to hold the DNA of innocent people for only 12 years after the European Court of Human Rights condemned the permanent retention of samples, saying it violated the right to privacy.

Mr Wren, who used to teach history, said he was assaulted by a pupil but had the same allegation levelled against him.

He voluntarily went to a police station with his solicitor and was arrested and detained, despite his solicitor claiming that arrest was unnecessary.

After interview he was released without charge but the fact he was arrested gave the police the opportunity to take his samples.

Mr Wren, who took the action with the backing of his union, the NASUWT, was awarded damages, thought to be about £1,000, and costs.

He said the whole episode had been traumatic and nearly cost him his marriage.

“I am very bitter against the police and the school, which suspended me for nothing and cast me adrift.”

He said the retention of samples from innocent people raised serious issues.

A police spokesman said: “Northumbria Police agreed prior to the hearing that the arrest had been unlawful and agreed the deletion of the photographic, fingerprint and DNA records and the amendment of the police national computer.”