header-logo header-logo

Government to retain innocent DNA

15 May 2009
Issue: 7369 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Lawyers hopeful government will be forced to change proposals after consultation

DNA profiles of innocent people could be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in S and Marper v UK that the blanket retention of suspects’ data is unlawful.

A Home Office consultation last week, Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database, proposes:

retaining the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted of minor offences, for six years;

removing the profiles of children when they reach 18 only if they have been arrested for only one minor offence;

retaining indefinitely all DNA profiles and fingerprints of those convicted of an imprisonable offence; and

retaining for 12 years the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted of serious sexual and violent offences.

Genetic DNA samples held by the police would be destroyed once they had been converted into a DNA profile.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled last year that retention of DNA samples and profiles of people who had been charged but not convicted was a breach of their Art 8 right to a private life, in Marper.

Peter Mahy, partner at Howells, who represented Michael Marper and a juvenile known as S in the landmark case, says: “We fought a long hard legal battle on this issue for over seven years, which resulted in the spectacular 17-0 victory in the European Court of Human Rights.

“Unfortunately the government is still not proposing to destroy DNA profiles of innocent people when they have been cleared of any crime, but instead keep them for up to 12 years. Hopefully the government will change its proposals after the public consultation.

“Innocent people should be treated as if they are innocent not as suspects.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, says: “This well-spun proposal proves that the home secretary has yet to learn about the presumption of innocence and value of personal privacy in Britain. With regret we shall be forced to see her in court once more.”

Issue: 7369 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Public , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll