Why not put Home Secretary Charles Clarke's DNA on the National DNA Database ?
Home Office Minister Andy Burnham has made a Written Ministerial Statement on the National DNA Database
Unconvincingly, he claims that
"Inclusion on the NDNAD does not signify a criminal record and there is no personal cost or material disadvantage to the individual simply by being on it"
If Home Secretary Charles Clarke, or the other Home Office Ministers like Andy Burnhan are so sure that this is the case, then why not lead by example, and voluntarily place their own human tissue samples and "DNA fingerprints" on this NDNAD, to be retained forever, and potentially re-analysed and data shared, without their consent, in the future ?
Why not do the same to all of the NuLabour politicians as well, considering how dangerous these people are to our security and liberty ?
What is a "criminal record" , for practical purposes these days ? If you have any entry on the Police National Computer (PNC), the Police Local Cross-Check, (PLX), or the Information Management, Prioritisation, Analysis, Co-ordination and Tasking (IMPACT) systems for "soft intelligence" being slowly brought in by after the Bichard Inquiry, then you have, in effect got a "police record", which, in practice, is going to be virtually indistinguishable from a "criminal record"m especially when the details are passed on to other systems such as Criminal Records Bureau checks or to foreign governments for "terrorism suspect lists".
These latter systems will usually not be privy to the details of why you are "known to the police" computer systems, e.g. a voluntary DNA sample, and innocent people will be put under suspicion as a result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Andy Burnham): I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses recently issued guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to Chief Officers on the consideration of applications for the removal, in exceptional circumstances only, of DNA and fingerprints from the respective databases. There has been considerable recent interest in the policy and operation of the National DNA Database (NDNAD), particularly in relation to juveniles and those arrested but subsequently not proceeded against. This statement and accompanying guidance is intended to inform that debate.
No sign, as yet, of this ACPO guidance on the www.acpo.police.uk website,
Does any reader have a copy they could point us to ?
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, as amended, the police may take without consent a non-intimate DNA sample and fingerprints from all persons arrested for, informed they will be reported for, or charged with a Recordable offence and detained in a police station.
There are many offences which are "recordable" on the Police National Computer, and which could therefore trigger DNA sampling, and it is impossible for the layman to struggle through the various National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulatio Statutory Instruments which keep modifying this list, which does not appear to be centrally available online. You can get an idea of the complexity from this Parliamentary Answer:
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made to the list of recordable offences since 1997. [177466]
Ms Blears [holding answer 9 June 2004]: All offences under provisions which carry the possibility of a custodial sentence are recordable, plus 52 other, non-imprisonable, offences specified in the Schedule to the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, as amended by the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Regulations made prior to 1997 had listed five non-imprisonable offences as recordable
section 1, Street Offences Act 1959 (offence of loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution);
section 43, Telecommunications Act 1984 (offence of improper use of public telecommunications system);
section 29, Road Traffic Act 1972 (penalisation of tampering with vehicles);
section 1, Malicious Communications Act 1988 (offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety); and
section 139(1), Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offence of having article with blade or point in public place).
The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 added a further 42 offences to the list. The 2000 Regulations added a further 5 offences, and at the same time consolidated the provisions, including the list. Most recently, the 2003 Amendment Regulations added offences of taxi touting, begging and persistent begging to the list, and made some tidying-up amendments including removing from the list three offences which are now imprisonable and therefore no longer needed to be specified in the list as recordable.
10 Jun 2004 : Column 529W"
Since May 2001, the police have been able to retain the DNA samples and fingerprints taken from persons who have not been convicted of such an offence. That change in legislation was itself challenged by judicial review and in July 2004 a judicial committee of the House of Lords found that the retention of DNA samples and fingerprints in these circumstances was proportionate and justified. The police may also take 16 Feb 2006 : Column 118WS and retain DNA and fingerprints from persons convicted of a Recordable offence. The amendment to PACE to allow the police to take and retain DNA and fingerprints from arrested persons is contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which was considered carefully by Parliament.Since the amendment to PACE in 2001, about 200,000 DNA samples have been retained that would previously have had to be destroyed and of these, over 8,000 have been matched with crime scene stains involving nearly 14,000 offences, including murder, rape and other sexual offences. Early research has also shown that sampling persons who have been arrested but not proceeded against has yielded a "match" with a crime scene stain in over 3,000 offences, again including murder, manslaughter and rape. These links may never have been made had the police not been given their current powers to take and retain DNA. In relation to the 24,168 under-18s who have been arrested but not charged, which include 23 arrests for murder and 288 for rape, 541 have been matched to crime scenes profiles for unsolved crimes.
I wish to draw Members' attention to two important points in relation to juveniles under 10. First, there are no under-10s on the NDNAD where the sample has been taken without the consent of a parent or legal guardian, and in fact there are no powers to do so without such consent. Secondly, it is possible for anyone to apply to their Chief Constable to have their or their child's DNA or fingerprints removed from the databases and the ACPO guidance sets out the process for doing that.
Tony Lake, Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police Force and Chairman of the National DNA Database Strategy Board has emphasised the value of DNA evidence and the importance of the database to the criminal justice service.
New Governance arrangements for the NDNAD were introduced in December 2005 following the transformation of the Forensic Science Service to a Government owned Company. A new Delivery Unit, which will initially be part of the Home Office, is responsible for the standard setting and oversight of the NDNAD, ensuring quality and integrity of the service. It will be overseen by the National DNA Database Strategic Board, a tripartite Board composed of representatives from the Home Office, ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities. Representation at meetings of the Board by the Human Genetics Commission is being increased from one to two persons in order to strengthen lay representation and the Government are additionally looking to establish a dedicated ethics group to provide independent oversight of Board decision making.
How much extra bureaucracy and red-tape does these new Quangos amount to ?
How much money will they cost ?
Where exactly does the general public, as opposed to NuLabour political appointees, get a look in to these alleged oversight arrangements ?
Inclusion on the NDNAD does not signify a criminal record and there is no personal cost or material disadvantage to the individual simply by being on it.
If Home Secretary Charles Clarke, or the other Home Office Ministers like Andy Burnhan are so sure that this is the case, then why not lead by example, and voluntarily place their own human tissue samples and "DNA fingerprints" on this NDNAD, to be retained forever, and potentially re-analysed and data shared, without their consent, in the future ?
Given this, and the clear evidence showing the substantial public benefit in relation to the detection of serious crime, it is the judgment of the Government that the existing policy is justified. However, we accept the need for on-going accountability to the public and the NDNAD Annual Report, which publishes details of its activities and will be laid before Parliament, is an 16 Feb 2006 : Column 119WS important part of the aim to increase transparency and maintain and improve public confidence in the oversight, management and operations of the NDNAD.
Comments
"...there is no personal cost or material disadvantage to the individual simply by being on it [NDNAD]".
Yes, there bloody well is! We shed DNA like there was no tomorrow, everywhere we go we leave a trail of the stuff. So if we happen to have been at a location that later becomes a crime scene our DNA could be recovered. If we're not on the database - end of story. If we are, then we're immediately a suspect and might have to prove our innocence. This (unwritten) policy of having everyone on the NDNAD will eventually lead to miscarriages of justice. If it has not already done so.
Posted by: A Tench | February 17, 2006 5:19 PM
I think they should volunteer their families' DNA too.
Posted by: bishop hill | February 17, 2006 6:13 PM
He should definitely be on it - then when the whole sorry mess collapses in a heap of ineptitude and rampant overspend they'll need to look no further than record #1 for the culprit.
Posted by: Swamptrash | February 17, 2006 7:25 PM
@ bishop hill - the creepy thing is that you do not need to have everyone on the National DNA Database for everyone to become a suspect.
There have already been criminals who have been caught because a family member, is already identifiable via the NDNAD, and the DNA sample at the crime scene shows a partial martch (you share more your DNA with your brother or sister, than from either from either parent)
This sort of putting the whole family, clan, tribe or racial group "under suspicion" is illegal in other countries, but not here in the UK.
Posted by: wtwu | February 17, 2006 10:22 PM
With regards the recent 'voluntary' DNA test in Croydon
Det Ch Insp Stuart Cundy, who is leading the murder investigation,
said the DNA profiles would not be put onto the national database and would
only be used to eliminate men from the inquiry.
"It is an entirely voluntary process. None of those DNA samples or fingerprints
will be used to check out other unsolved crimes"
However, what you aren't warned, is once they have taken your figerprints, DNA,
photgraph and personal details. The consent form they spring on you
asks these details also be permanently put on a national database and for the use
of solving other crimes. It goes further stating once this
has been signed it can NEVER be revoked.
I went along to help catch a murderer, and ended up signing my rights away.
by default if I didn't sign it, it would look suspicious
It's small wonder only 711 of the 4,000 mailshot males turned up, it's duplicity
like this shows the police can't be trusted, and a cynical ploy leveraging off the
murder of an innocent young girl.
Posted by: Anon | March 16, 2006 7:15 PM
@ Anon - it is probably a standard "consent" form. The legislation does say, inceredibly, that once you have signed and given your consent, you cannnot revoke it later.
Retention and recording of DNA smaples and of fingerprints is at the discretion of the relevant Chief Constable.
Why were they taking fingerprints as well ? Do they have fingerprint evidence of the suspect to match against ?
If not, then that was sneaky and wrong, and technically, would not be covered by Det Ch Insp Stuart Cundy promise which only seemed to refer to DNA retention.
Posted by: wtwu | March 16, 2006 7:32 PM
Why were they taking fingerprints as well? Because its PROCEDURE! You know, that wonderful excuse the police trot out to justify a whole manner of things: That ten year old boy who accidentally broke someone's car aerial with his football and was then charged with criminal damage. Why did you fingerprint and DNA test him (i.e abuse him), was the question asked by the local newspaper. Answer from the police; nothing to worry about, it's just procedure. The bloody gits!
Remember that the police have an insatiable appetite for information about everyone and everything. Why not exploit the opportunity of "voluntary" DNA testing to collect other information as well. Why a photo? Why personal information - other than name and address? They just can't help it. It's an affliction. There's probably a medical term for it.
PS: Permanent ANPR cameras just been erected on the A19 in N.Yorks. Here's the police bullshit (as reported locally) from almost a year ago that predicted their arrival.
http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/2005/3/2/228491.html
Off topic I know, but interesting.
Posted by: A Tench | March 17, 2006 6:26 PM