The call from Lord Justice Sedley for the whole population of the UK – and even foreign tourists on weekend breaks – to have their DNA stored on the national DNA database is a chilling proposal.
His Lordship makes the logical argument that the database we have at the moment – which includes samples from people who have come into contact with the police, but not from those who haven’t – is less useful and defensible than a comprehensive one. But his conclusion – that ‘everybody, guilty or innocent’ should have their DNA stored on it – is heading in the wrong direction. If anything, we should be worrying about the stealth and speed with which the database has grown since its inception.
- In 1995, when it was introduced, only the DNA of convicted criminals could be kept on the database.
- In 2001, Labour changed the law so that the DNA of people who had been acquitted of certain offences could still be kept.
- In 2004, they changed the law again so that anyone arrested and detained at a police station – whether or not they were even charged with a criminal offence – could have a DNA sample taken.
We have arrived at a situation where people detained for even minor offences, like political protests or speeding, have their DNA kept indefinitely. The UK now holds DNA profiles of a higher proportion of its population – 5.2 per cent – than any other country in the world. That’s over four million people. In the USA, the comparable figure is just 0.5 per cent.
When we already have the most draconian laws in the world, and given this Government’s lamentable record on big IT projects (remember the NHS national computer? Or the Passport Service? Or the Child Support Agency? Or the Rural Payments Agency…?), we should take a very deep pause for breath, rather than extend the scheme as dramatically as Lord Justice Sedley proposes.
Thankfully, the Home Office has reacted coolly to today’s suggestion. But Tony McNulty’s comment that ‘no-one ever says never’ is rather ominous. And forgive me if I don’t trust this Government to stand up for civil liberties.
No related posts.
Stand up for civil liberties? You must be joking! What I really object to is Broon being described as having a ” strong moral compass” The last lot of people I know of who had this were the Nazis & Stalin, preceded by the Inquisition
I think claiming that we have the most draconian laws is the world is a tad excessive but i agree that people should be questionning the suggestion of a comprehensive database of DNA. For those convinced that the world is a more dangerous place now than ever before then I can see why it is appealing but realistically it seems like another database of personal information that is open to abuse and corruption. A DNA database will not necessarily make us all safer anyway. Fear of prison or capital punishment does not prevent crime.
DNA evidence is not as watertight as some people suppose. We only have to look back to the trial of the Birmingham six to see that DNA can be misused in prosecutions. If the police had access to everyones DNA it could well lead to mistaken convictions.
The Telegraph leader today:
“Tony McNulty, a Home Office minister, struck an ambivalent note, saying he was “broadly sympathetic” to the idea but thought that it “probably” underestimated “the practicalities, logistics and huge civil liberties and ethics issue around that”.
“Such a casual batting away of difficulties is typical of a government notoriously unconcerned about notions of liberty. And in Mr McNulty it has a minister who famously told the BBC that members of the public, rather than intervening directly, should “jump up and down” to draw attention to a crime being committed before their eyes.
“…Extending it beyond those convicted of crimes is, first and foremost, a breach of individual liberty. Given Whitehall’s record on managing large-scale computerised schemes, it also has an alarming potential for error.
“Sir Stephen’s proposal is morally flawed and impractical. But it has the merit of alerting us to the Government’s dangerous flirtation with a further retreat from the presumption of innocence.”
Just what we said…