"the article still meant that a requirement by a policeman of a suspect in custody that he provide his fingerprints on an unapproved device would be one which the suspect was entitled to refuse" .
However, Hughes went on to say that "It is necessary to examine the question what Parliament must have intended to be the consequence of non-approval of Livescan", referencing the now less relevant mandatory and directory distinction and the contemporary focus on the intended consequence of non-compliance.