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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll