header-logo header-logo

21 January 2010 / Keith Soothill , Brian Francis
Issue: 7401 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

The debate rumbles on

The measurement tail is now wagging the dog, say Keith Soothill & Brian Francis

The debate on the Home Office’s proposals for keeping innocent people on the DNA database has moved forward.

Following the consultation period for the Home Office’s controversial document, Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database: Science and Public Protection, which attracted 503 responses, the Home Office has recently issued a new policy and a major revision of the scientific work which underpins its various new recommendations. A report issued by the Home Office, DNA Retention Policy: Re-Arrest Hazard Rate Analysis(www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-dna-database/wms-dna-fingerprints-20092835.pdf) provides a daunting title, but the work merits careful appraisal.

It attempts to address some significant criticisms levelled at the consultation paper. As reported in a previous New Law Journal article, we had concerns which “focused more specifically on the scientific claims supposedly underpinning the proposals”, so it is perhaps appropriate that we respond (159 NLJ 7378, p 1021). However, it perhaps needs to be said from the outset that, even with the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll