The Guardian has the story:
The European court of human rights in Strasbourg said that keeping innocent people’s DNA records on a criminal register breached article eight of the Human Rights Convention, covering the right to respect for private and family life.
Keeping DNA material from those who were “entitled to the presumption of innocence” as they had never been convicted of an offence carried “the risk of stigmatisation”, the ruling said.
Attacking the “blanket and indiscriminate nature” of the power to retain data, the judges said protections offered by article eight “would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests”.
This is the outcome of the long-running joint legal challenge by two British men who were charged with separate crimes and subsequently cleared. Both were seeking the removal of their DNA data from the South Yorkshire police’s database, and appealed to the European Court of Human Rights after the House of Lords ruled that keeping the information did not constitute a breach of human rights.
Apparently ministers will now “consider” the judgement before changing our laws, but this could (should) mean that police forces across the UK have to wipe all records of innocent people’s DNA from among the 4.5 million records they hold.
Like, I’m sure, many liberals of big and small L, I rejoice freely in our ghastly and terrifying Home Secretary’s “disappointment”:
“DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month, and I am disappointed by the European court of human rights’ decision,” she said.
“The government mounted a robust defence before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice.”
No, I’m not sure what the finger-printing references are about either, since the legal position on fingerprinting is unaffected. Maybe she needs to include finger-printing in order to produce the impressive-sounding stat of 3,500 matches per month, as it seems prima facie rather unlikely that much of this number consists of DNA matches. Can anyone point us to the figures?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1530
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
David Allen
Simon McGrath
Peter Davies
Rob Heale
Kira Collins
9 Comments
It’s possible that under our policy S (who was acquitted of Robbery would have had his DNA retained.
According to an email from Nick’s office our policy is:
“DNA samples would be kept for a short period of time (in Scotland three years) for those who go to court, but are not found guilty, for the most serious offences (ie rape, murder [Robbery wasn’t mentioned but is usually classed as a serious offence and carries a possible life sentence]).
2007-08 figures for DNA suggest it’s more like 1500/month, or 2750/month if you include related offences (the home office counts this as a DNA match, even if it’s through admission by the offender. This is from recent answers in Hansard, e.g. to Jenny Willott last week. So I’d guess the 3500/month claim either includes fingerprints or is from more recent, unpublished data.
Those stats are only for cases where there was a DNA match – not how important it is to solving the case. For example a DNA match is of very limited relevance to solving a rape case where intercourse is admitted
This worries me.
The basic assumption that the police and the forces of law and order are on the side of the ‘good guys’ leave them wide open to abuse and manipulation by those proponents of political agendas who reside at the Home Office (step forward Jacqui Smith; turn to your right; you have been identified).
One step forward, about 25 steps back. Today’s Independent reports the following:
The Big Brother state – by stealth
Thousands of unaccountable civil servants given access to our most intimate personal information – By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Personal information detailing intimate aspects of the lives of every British citizen is to be handed over to government agencies under sweeping new powers. The measure, which will give ministers the right to allow all public bodies to exchange sensitive data with each other, is expected to be rushed through Parliament in a Bill to be published tomorrow.
The new legislation would deny MPs a full vote on such data-sharing. Instead, ministers could authorise the swapping of information between councils, the police, NHS trusts, the Inland Revenue, education authorities, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the Department for Work and Pensions and other ministries.
So, do you fancy your local council having access to your tax, medical and benefit records and your list of speeding fines? Especially if you happen to be contemplating, for example, fighting a local government election?
Full story here.
Most serial killers and serial rapists (the offenders a universal DNA database is intended to catch) have existing criminal records, so should be on the database under the current rules.
Consider the following scenario. My neighbour doesn’t like me. So he strangles a young woman he meets in the street and leaves next to her body a milk bottle has has taken from my dustbin. With a universal DNA database, I am arrested and charged, and I have no defence; there is 100% certainty of my guilt. Without a universal DNA database, the Police never come knocking on my door.
“With a universal DNA database, I am arrested and charged, and I have no defence; there is 100% certainty of my guilt.”
With your legal knowlege you should know this is rubbish. DNA almost never proves guilt 100%.
Firstly it is organic material and degrades so getting a 100% match is pretty unlikely
Secondly even in the case you set out above, placing your DNA at the scene would only ever establish your presence at the scene or contact with the victim. It doesn’t prove that you strangled her.
And finally if your charged with murder that (like most offences where DNA has an use) requires a mental element which DNA has no probative value. In the 1980s I remember someone claiming a DNA database would make rape a thing of the past, now it’s of limited value as in many cases that fact of intercourse isn’t in dispute.
Re the your closing question:
All the statistics from Scotland, where they do routinely erase DNA records of the innocent, give an insight! By repeating meaningless statistics from APCO, like 200,000 DNA samples leading to 14,000 matches to crime scenes, the Guardian and other newspapers only serve the Home Office propaganda machine. Which journalist actually will rebut those figures by asking to how many court convictions were obtained by the police using DNA samples held in contravention of the December 4th ECJ ruling? You will find the answer much nearer to a humbling 187 extra convictions! My estimate base on research by Genewatch.
More on IdentitySpace ( just Google it)
Hywel Morgan wrote:
“With your legal knowlege you should know this is rubbish. DNA almost never proves guilt 100%.”
Try tellimg that the Laurence Boyce.