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 presentation of a scientifically plausible case, the debate is not

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll