During the course of the questioning his fingerprints were taken. No charges were made against my son.

Is it possible to delete his fingerprints? He wants to become a primary school teacher and is worried it will jeopardise his career.

A THIS issue raises interesting questions about the conflict between the right to privacy and the government's duty to protect the public.

Currently, the police have the right to retain the fingerprint records indefinitely, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence or, as in this case, if the person was merely questioned as a witness.

While the British courts have said that this is necessary for the prevention of crime, quite recently the European Court said that this was in breach of a person's right to a private life.

As yet there is no privacy law in England and the Government has yet to change the law, although proposals for change have been announced.

Nevertheless, this means that the police are acting lawfully in retaining your son's fingerprints indefinitely.

However, taking into account the absence of your son's involvement in the incident and the triviality of the offence itself, it may be possible to get your son's fingerprints deleted from the National Register.

A vigorous letter to the Chief Constable of the particular force is necessary citing your son's rights to a private life.

I would advise that you contact a specialist lawyer to draft this letter.

Q MY elderly mother died in hospital after being administered a drug that she was allergic to.

I believe the hospital is negligent. The hospital has investigated her death and I recently received a letter from the coroner saying that the inquest should be done in compliance with the Human Rights Act.

I do not understand the significance of this, please would you explain it to me?

A WHEN someone dies in hospital and the cause is unknown, a coroner will often decide to hold an inquest.

The purpose of an inquest is to ascertain who died, when they died, where they died and how they died.

Clearly, the most important question which the coroner seeks to answer is the last one - how the deceased die.

There are different types of inquest. One type of inquest is where the coroner seeks to answer the cause of death in the form of a short answer, and will not attribute any blame on an individual or a hospital.

The verdicts that the coroner may reach are from the following: natural causes, misadventure, unlawful killing or an open verdict.

Secondly, as in your case, an inquest can be conducted which must be "compliant with the Human Rights Act".

In this instance the coroner is obliged to provide a more detailed, narrative verdict.

Instead of merely answering 'how' the deceased died, they must answer the following: By what means and in what broad circumstances did the deceased die?

This enables the coroner to have a wider consideration of the circumstances of the death.

The reason that this type of inquest has been brought in is because, in the past, families have felt let down by the vagueness of these verdicts.

The fact that the coroner has already informed you is positive.

I would advise that you contact a firm which specialises in clinical negligence and will be able to advise you whether or not you can claim damages for the death.

They will also be in a position to give further advice about the inquest, and possibly representation too.