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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll