Criminal expert calls for review of DNA data

Leeds University's Dr Carole McCartney, an expert in criminal law and forensics, is critical of the way the six million name database has been managed and of the continued storage of the DNA of arrested but unconvicted people.

But she is calling on the new Government to think carefully before reforming the DNA database – which the Tories and Lib Dems have promised – and says it is important that not all 'innocent' people are automatically removed.

Dr McCartney is also calling for an independent body to oversee the controversial database – taking control from police chief constables – as a way of increasing public trust in the crime-fighting tool.

In a report, The Future of Forensic Bioinformation, she and her co-authors argue politicians and police have so far failed to provide the arguments and the evidence to justify the need for such a massive DNA record.

"We need evidence that it is effective and is being used effectively.

"The DNA database is costing us millions, so there has to be some evidence that it works. The evidence doesn't really stack up and is misleading.

"There is no concrete evidence. We need some proper research."

The European Court of Human Rights has already decreed that keeping non-criminals on the database is a breach of their human rights.

Around one million people on the DNA database fall roughly into the "innocent" category, but of these some are awaiting trial and others may be strong suspects in criminal cases.

Dr McCartney does not advocate removing all one million names and DNA samples, but instead suggests each case is looked at on its own merits, with professional input from police officers familiar with each case.

Police officers should have to justify their decision to keep a person's DNA and fingerprints, with the public given the right of appeal at an independent tribunal.

"The thing that concerns us is the fact that they haven't really thought through a lot of these issues.

"There is ongoing concern that this is police data which is overseen by police. Other areas of self-regulation have been shown to be seriously flawed."

Dr McCartney says that she is not opposed to a DNA database, as it is a useful tool for police but she says exaggerated claims abouts its effectiveness need to be challenged.

"There has to be a change in the mindset that bigger is better. The European Court of Human Rights has already said no, we can't go round willy nilly putting everybody on the DNA database."

She counters the common argument that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" with the civil liberties line that the State must justify the taking and storing DNA from unconvicted citizens.

"If the State wants information about us, DNA etc, it needs to be justified. In this instance it has gone too far.

"Anybody who is arrested goes on it, there is no justification for that.

"The Government had a chance to justify it at the Human Rights court and they failed."

Dr McCartney, a senior lecturer in law, says some of her students ask her "what's your big problem with it (the DNA database)."

Her reply is: "It's not for me to justify why I should not be on it, it's for them to justify why I should be."

The report concludes that England and Wales is now at a crossroads, with the new Government about to reform the DNA database.

"New legislation, if developed with integrity and open-mindedness could achieve a greater degree of public confidence."

The first task would be for an independent body to decide when DNA samples can be taken and when they can be destroyed.

It adds: "The new arrangements should provide the discretion necessary for investigators to retain and share forensic bioinformation and police information when there is a professional need, and that the exercise of such discretion will be subject....to regular and effective professional review and audit..."