header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 April 2008 / Sarah Hemingway , Azeem Suterwalla
Issue: 7316 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Criminal , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

DNA Discrimination

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Should the government have the right to retain the DNA of all those arrested? asks Azeem Suterwalla and Sarah Hemingway

When Steve Wright, the Ipswich murderer, was convicted in February as a result of a DNA match, calls went out for a universal DNA database. The theory is that if we are all on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) then crime detection rates will be dramatically enhanced. Of course, the practical difficulties of getting everyone’s DNA on one database, including all visitors to the country, are immense. There are also pressing issues of privacy. Although there are no plans to create a universal database, the UK already has a database five times larger than any other national database and retains the DNA of more people for longer.

 

INVALUABLE TOOL

DNA is an invaluable investigative tool but where should the line be drawn? What is a proportionate measure to ensure that the database is effective for the purpose of tackling crime without encroaching upon our fundamental right to privacy

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
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 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
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
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
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’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
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’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll