The peer who introduced the amendment expressed "deep worry"
that Government guidelines tell police officers that their first
act should be to refuse outright any request for deletion, and only
to look into the matter "if the applicant persists".
Police can gather fingerprint and DNA samples from people
detained on suspicion of committing one of a large number of
offences. Samples can be taken without the person's consent.
Police are allowed to keep the samples on the database, even if
the person is found innocent or if no case against them is ever
pursued. The result is that the DNA database for England and Wales
has samples from 6% of the population on it, the biggest proportion
of any country.
The Conservative Party's home affairs spokeswoman in the House
of Lords, Baroness Hanham, proposed an amendment to the
Counter-Terrorism Bill which would force the Government to outline
to people how they can have their samples removed from the
database.
"This amendment would require the Secretary of State to draft
and lay before Parliament regulations governing the procedures by
which people can discover what information is held about them and
under what circumstances a request can be made by them to have
samples taken during an investigation by the police destroyed,"
said Baroness Hanham in the House of Lords on Tuesday.
She said that people were not being given sufficient rights or
information about samples. "There is no transparency in the current
situation and the dice are severely loaded against innocent people
being able to ensure that their most personal details are not kept
indefinitely following their exclusion, either by a court or
following a decision that there is no reason for them to be
involved further in any inquiry."
The House of Lords Security Minister Lord West said that
guidelines were available, but Baroness Hanham said that no member
of the public could be expected to find them, that the guidelines
were directed at police, and that they instructed police to refuse
all requests for sample deletion without explanation.
"[The guidelines] certainly did not pop up in a sample search of
the internet; rather, they appeared on the website of the
Association of Chief Police Officers and are, apparently, only for
the guidance of the police. Members of the public would find it
extraordinarily hard to make any headway through this maze," she
said. "The guidelines are deeply worrying and make clear just how
high a barrier the Government have imposed on DNA and fingerprint
information ever being destroyed. The initial response to a request
for destruction is an automatic refusal."
The Government established the Ethics Committee of the National
DNA Database to look into ethical issues in relation to the
database. It reported earlier this year, and said that innocent
people's DNA samples should be deleted at the end of an
investigation.
"For those members of the public who are believed to be innocent
at the time of sampling and voluntarily donate their DNA to help
the police with their enquiries, the presumption should shift to an
expectation that these samples will be used only for the case under
investigation, that the profile will not be loaded onto the
[National DNA Database], and that the samples and all data derived
from them will be destroyed when the case has ended," said one of
its recommendations.
Another Government-established panel, a citizens' inquiry run by
the Human Genetics Commission, said earlier this year that it, too,
believed that the DNA data of the innocent should be deleted from
the database.
Lord West said that he believed the current situation was
acceptable, but that he would try to make the guidelines for police
more accessible.
"I firmly believe that national guidance of the type prescribed
in the amendment is unnecessary; indeed, it would be extra
bureaucracy. Information on how to obtain details of what
information the police hold on an individual and the ACPO
guidelines on the retention, use and destruction of fingerprints
and samples are already publicly available," he said.
"However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady
Hanham, that this is somewhat convoluted. When I looked for myself,
I saw that it was not as straightforward as it perhaps should be. I
very much recognise the importance of clarity for the public on
these matters and so I will ask my officials to work with the
relevant bodies to ensure that the guidance is much more easily
accessible."
The amendment was made at the final reading stage of the
Counter-Terrorism Bill. It will now be bounced between the Commons
and the Lords in the 'ping pong' stage, and made law by royal
assent once agreement has been reached between the two houses.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is expected to rule
this year on a case which will test the right of the Government to
hold on to innocent people's samples.
Michael Marper has never been charged with a crime and objects
to the retention of a DNA sample on the database. He lost a case at
the House of Lords but has appealed to the ECHR, arguing that the
retention breaches his human rights as protected by the Human
Rights Act.
The House of Lords said in 2004 that the Act's privacy
provisions did not apply to the retention of his DNA.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
