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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll