'In the public interest' to keep 'discrimatory' DNA
01 August 2002
In September the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier divisional court ruling that the retention of body samples is "necessary in a democratic society", (see Statewatch vol 12 no 2). The Appeal court judges rejected, by two to one, a claim that keeping the DNA samples and fingerprints of suspects subsequently cleared of any charges, breached their human rights. Richard Gordon QC, who was representing an unnamed youth and a man, Michael Marples, who had all charges against them dropped, said South Yorkshire police operated a blanket policy of retaining all DNA samples and fingerprints unlawfully. Lord Woolf and Lord Justice Walker (with Lord Justice Sedley dissenting) ruled that the practice of keeping genetic data from innocent people adhered to the European Convention on Human Rights, while Walker claimed that it was in the public interest for the police to have as large a databank as possible.
Currently 1.5 million DNA profiles are held on the national database, which is run by the Forensic Science Service, mainly from convicted criminals, but also from ongoing casework and unconvicted suspects. However, at the beginning of September the director of the Police Standards Unit, Kevin Bond, called for all forces to use the database more extensively. He complained about the "poor use" of the database, pointing out that in certain forces the technology was not understood.
The government is also proposing to allow police forces access to a "back door" national fingerprint database, through the introduction of an identity card. The identity card, which the government calls an "entitlement card" despite the fact that it will deprive those who refuse to carry it of access to services that they are entitled to, is expected to carry detailed fingerprint data. Roger Bingham, of Liberty, said: "We are talking about a national fingerprint or biometric database by the back door."
The retention of DNA from cleared suspects was criticised by the man who discovered genetic fingerprinting, Sir Alec Jeffries, who argued that it was "discriminatory". He believes that the database should cover the entire population. Jeffries, addressing the British Association festival of science, claimed that there were three options for retention:
i. The database could contain the DNA of convicted criminals. This would reduce its effectiveness and deny the police a lot of potential for fighting crime;
ii. The database could contain the DNA of convicted criminals and cleared suspects, as approved by the Appeal Court. This was "discriminatory" and almost certainly over-represented black people in London and Asians in the Midlands as they were likely to be questioned more often by police, Jeffries said;
iii. The database could include everybody. This was Jeffries preferred option, "with appropriate safeguards". These include maintaining three separate databases controlled by a separate agency. One would hold profiles, another would hold names and addresses and a third would contain data that would connect the DNA to the names and addresses.
The Appeal Court has refused permission to appeal their decision or take the cases to the House of Lords. But, Peter Malby, the solicitor who brought the cases, told the Times that he would appeal to the law lords. He argued that: "It is clear.. that the judges recognised the deep unease that innocent people feel about this practice of retaining samples, and the fact that one of the senior judges today disagreed with their colleagues makes it clear that there is still every reason to continue." The dissenting Appeal Court judge, Lord Justice Sedley, argued that each case should be considered on its merits.
Guardian 13.9.02; Police Review 13.9.02; Times 13.9.02
NETHERLANDS
"Experimental" pepper spray used as weapon
The introduction of new police equipment in Holland is done in a typical "Poldermodel" way. "Consensus" lies at the heart of this model, in which experiments, research and debate are prolonged unti