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

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
back-to-top-scroll