Wrongful arrest prompts change of policy on DNA

The Hull Daily Mail have a fascinating story this morning about the case of a 15 year-old who has prompted a change in policy by his local police force after he was arrested, spent a night in a cell, and had his DNA taken, before being released without charge.

As the report explains:

In what is believed to be an unprecedented move locally, officers have agreed to destroy a sample of DNA taken from 15-year-old Joshua Stevens after his arrest.

An apology (from Humberside Police's Assistant Chief Constable Alan Lever) was read out in a statement issued to a full meeting of Hull City Council, where councillors were due to debate a motion criticising the police over the incident.

Joshua was arrested at his family home in Kyffen Avenue, east Hull, in connection with an alleged attack on a 14-year-old girl and held in a cell overnight before being released without charge.

His parents, who were in Lancashire at the time about to go on holiday from Manchester Airport, subsequently claimed a senior officer investigating their complaint admitted the force had "messed up".

The entire episode does, of course, require further examination and we are pleased to see that Humberside Police have launched an investigation - as well as making such a public apology. But the question for us is: why has this particular case prompted Humberside Police to change their policy on DNA deletion?

When the Conservatives released data over Christmas on how UK police forces responded to requests for innocent DNA to be taken off their databases, in Humberside the figures showed that none of the six requests had been complied with. Although this was a small number comparatively, it is clear that it is something Humberside Police weren't keen to do. So what changed?

Is it the boy's age? Or the possible public outcry over the case? Either way, it goes to show that the police are in a mess on the policy of retaining innocent DNA. The circumstances simply don't matter - if someone is innocent, they should not have their biometric data catalogued.

By Dylan Sharpe 

Comments

[J]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8354740.stm
Second one down David Sweeney

[TheBigYin]

Is it not ironic that politicians, and it filters down to the police, make laws to safeguard the children from smokers, drinkers, parents, teachers, child care workers or anyone that works with the under sixteens but bend over backwards to put their DNA on a brittle database?

I applaud Humberside's handling of this and I do hope other police bodies take a more pragmatic view rather than adhering to dogma.

[Sandy]

Did Joshua Stevens have a Social worker with him ?this article does not say. I would imagine the parents were none to pleased and maybe said they would take the matter further. I think the Police will use what ever means they can to collect all DNA innocent or not. They want information. This time it seems they backed down.

[Gareth]

"But the question for us is: why has this particular case prompted Humberside Police to change their policy on DNA deletion?"

A further question: Have Humberside Police destroyed the DNA sample but kept the DNA profile? The reporting of this case appears to conflate the two.