header-logo header-logo

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

Government to retain innocent DNA

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll