Scots' DNA model lesser of two evils

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

A senior member of Liberty has admitted she prefers the Scottish DNA retention policy, but still believes it has flaws.

Giving evidence to a committee considering the Crime and Security Bill, Liberty policy director Isabella Sankey said the six-year retention of innocents' DNA was "unlawful" and "unprincipled".

Sankey, alongside Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch, questioned the validity of research that said it was wise to retain innocents' DNA for up to six years. Sankey complained to the committee that the government had constantly promoted this research, but she said she was still unable to access the research herself.

She told the committee that without valid research it was "imperative" samples were destroyed immediately.

Asked why it was any different to having biometric data on a passport, Sankey said the national DNA database is taking away choice from the civilian.

"It's all context specific. With the passport, you choose to use that passport to leave the country. That's something you choose to do by consent and you use the passport to enable you to do so. In my view, this is completely different to the state telling you that they are going to retain your DNA, against your consent, for a six year period automatically because you have been arrested for a suspected offence but nothing further has happened to you," she said.

"I think you have to look at how sensitive the piece of personal data in question is. A DNA sample is probably more sensitive than any other personal information you have. A sample can tell you about your familial background, your life expectancy, the chance of disease in later life – it's the most intimate, sensitive piece of information that you have. That's why it is absolutely imperative that information is destroyed as soon as possible."

Although she supported the Scottish system more, Sankey added that it is not a perfect system as they can appeal to retain DNA samples indefinitely.

President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, welcomed the rule changes, telling the committee that ACPO was "very keen" to see regulations that offer absolute clarity.

But defending the retention of innocents' DNA, he said: "The retention of DNA is of critical value to serious crime investigation.

"From a professional police perspective, just because someone is not convicted of an offence, there are still very good professional reasons for why we need that information when dealing with serious crime."