DNA database safeguards needed

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Government advisers on DNA retention have said police should not take the DNA sample off everyone they arrest.

The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) instead wants the police issued with new guidance to regulate when it is appropriate to record a DNA sample.

In a report discussing the DNA database, the commission revealed that it had evidence police had made arrests just to get people on the database. According to the commission, a retired superintendent had said it had become the "norm" to arrest suspects simply to obtain their DNA. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) denied the claim, saying it was "plainly wrong".

The report also called on the government to set out in law what DNA profiles can be used for.

In addition, all police officers should be expected to contribute their own DNA to the database as a condition of employment, the report added.

The issue of certain groups of society being over-represented was also addressed. The HGC said young black men were "very highly over-represented" and said there are real concerns about the potential for discrimination.

HGC chairman, Professor Jonathan Montgomery, said that whilst DNA plays a "significant role" in securing convictions, it is not clear how far holding DNA improves police investigations.

"We have to strike a proper balance between identifying offenders and protecting privacy, including that of innocent people. We should not compromise that privacy without good reason," he said.

Montgomery also complained that parliament has never formally debated the establishment of the database and safeguards around it. He said it had been developed purely through amendments to law and in the meantime there had been a "steady function creep".

"There needs to be a regular review of the positive value we get from the database [and] its 'forensic utility'."

Former ACPO president Chris Fox said he had "never believed that innocent people should be recorded unnecessarily". "However, police have always kept data about innocent people. It's the first chain of the intelligence route where you gather information about people who are doing odd things, and eventually something comes out which suggests it is not information, it is intelligence," he said. But Fox said the difference was that intelligence is "weeded and thrown away when it's no good", whereas DNA details are not.

He said he could see the temptation to arrest people in order to store their DNA details but did not think that had ever happened while he was the head of ACPO.

Shadow home office minister James Brokenshire, said: "For too long the government has had a policy of growing the DNA database for the sake of it regardless of guilt or innocence.

"Under Labour's surveillance state everyone is treated as a potential suspect."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne criticised the government's "cavalier attitude towards DNA retention".

"Ministers make no distinction between innocence and guilt and as a result everyone is treated like a suspect," he said.

"Innocent people should be removed from the database and there should be a frank discussion about its effectiveness."

A Home Office spokesman said the DNA database was a "vital crime-fighting tool" and that DNA samples are only taken on arrest for recordable offences carrying a prison sentence.