DNA database 'will span most of the UK population'

Post Reply New Topic

DNA database 'will span most of the UK population'
Even human rights appeal case will not lessen its reach
By OUT-LAW.COM
Published Wednesday 11th April 2007 13:55 GMT


The Government's DNA retention policy combined with increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques means that eventually most citizens in the UK will be linked to data stored on the police's DNA database, according to a privacy law expert.

The outcome of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that challenges the UK's DNA retention policy will not limit the ultimate reach of the DNA database, only the speed of its compilation, says Dr Chris Pounder of Pinsent Masons.

Under last year's Police and Justice Act, the police are allowed to retain DNA data on those arrested even if those arrested are not convicted of or even charged with any crime. Data derived from these samples are then added to the National DNA Database.

Michael Marper's case before the ECHR could change this law. Marper was accused of harassment by his partner. He was arrested and DNA samples were taken. The charges were dropped when he reconciled with his partner, but police refused to destroy his DNA samples and related data.

Marper exhausted his appeals through the English courts and then complained to the ECHR that the retention of his DNA is a breach of his rights to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights. Earlier this year the ECHR decided that there was enough of importance in the case that it will hear it.

"The court finds that serious questions of fact and law arise, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits," said the ECHR in January. "The application cannot be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of the convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established."

The ECHR has previously ruled in favour of the police's right to retain DNA, but that case involved a man who had been convicted of a crime. A Dutch bank robber, Mr Van der Velden, argued that police had failed to respect his private life by storing his DNA profile. The ECHR said that this interference with his privacy was proportionate.

The Marper case tests the legality of storing the DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime. But its outcome is largely redundant because of the emergence of statistical techniques which match DNA on the database to relatives, according to Dr Pounder, a privacy law specialist at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM. These techniques use the genetic fact that an individual's DNA sample is related to the DNA of close family members.

"A national DNA database of the future is likely to span 80 per cent to 100 per cent of the population. The only question is when this will occur," said Pounder.

Home Office statistics state that 33 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women under the age of 35 have a criminal record not related to motoring offences. However, DNA data of those convicted of a crime are never deleted, even when the individual who has provided the sample has died.

"This means that the maximum DNA database coverage of the UK population would inevitably reach 20-25 per cent if current criminal trends remain constant," said Pounder. "Hence the value to the police of statistical methods which aim to identify suspects whose DNA details are not on the database from those whose details are stored on the database."

Pounder anticipates that statistical techniques will develop and become more sophisticated. "In future, a DNA profile of someone arrested could be statistically linked to more and more relatives like parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins, many of whom will not have been arrested," he said.

"In that way, the DNA database, even though it contains data relating to criminals, will span most of the UK population," Pounder said. "If you are ever related to someone with a criminal record, your DNA will have the potential to be linked to that individual's police records."

Copyright © 2007, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

This government, the people that run it and their authoritarian nonsense need to be shown the door.

Retaining the info of relatives of a criminal is a dubious practice. However, I see nothing wrong with retaining DNA info of people above a certain offence severity...

In my brother's case, he was with a group. One of the people in that group attacked a man. When he was attacked, my brother wasn't anywhere near the scene but he was with them earlier on. Yet they arrested him and took his DNA which will be kept indefinitely (i.e. forever). There are thousands of cases like this.

Hiya David! How's the lizard men these days?

We don't need to be calling anybody David Icke's around here that's just low!! The fact is are goverment is extremely evil. The only way to become president is to be a member of skull & bones AKA the order of death and other santic groups you guy's should look things up instead of calling people names and don't lookup site's like David Icke He's insane! www.prisonplanet.com www.infowars.com/ www.jackblood.com www.freedomtofascism.com

thats terrible. the devil must be comming soon i guess

btw hope i didnt come across too harsh there - i think most of us who listen to Icke probably started off (at least on a concious level) simply for entertainment value, myself included.

I think that's a bit extreme. I would like to see Blair, his crew and the civil servants all sent to The Hague though. When that day comes sales of beer will go through the roof.

I'd sooner vote for Tony Blair than John Howard. Tony Blair, I reckon, was scared of Dubya, but Howard sucked up Dubya's arse...

If you remember rightly though Blair was right up Clinton's arse. It seems to be in any PM's job title to pretend to be best friends with the immediate dominant superpower.