Big Brother Watch

A presumption of future possible guiltyishness

Today the Home Affairs Select Committee heard evidence on the retention of innocent DNA samples from Sir Alec Jeffreys - the man who developed techniques for DNA fingerprinting and DNA profiling which are now used all over the world.

While Big Brother Watch could sadly not be there, the tireless Lobbydog - a prolific blogger of Westminster gossip - has provided a brief transcript of the key exchanges that I felt were worth sharing on our blog.

As reported by Lobbydog:

“If my DNA were to be put on the database I would object profoundly against that,” said Sir Alec Jeffreys at a hearing of the Home Affairs Committee.

“What advantage is it to me, as an entirely blameless citizen? The best outcome is that my DNA would sit there cluttering up a fridge and that my DNA profile would sit there cluttering up the database.

“The worst that could happen is that there is some glitch in the database that made a false match to my DNA profile and that brings me into the frame of a criminal investigation which has very serious repercussions.”

Crucially, Sir Alec finished by saying that if he’d known his DNA analysis would be used by the Government in the way it has, he’d have been “astonished, perplexed and deeply worried”.

“I’ve always understood that one of the great foundations of English law was a presumption of innocence, but obviously now there is a presumption of future possible guiltyishness,” he said.

He makes several other excellent points against why innocent DNA should be removed from the database (including the increased likelihood of false matches between family members – who share similar DNA profiles) - the full report really is a must read.

By Dylan Sharpe

The DNA myth continues

Two points of interest on DNA retention emerged from the House of Commons yesterday. 

The first, alerted to us by the masterful blogger Dizzy, was the answer to the following parliamentary question by John Robertson, Labour MP for Glasgow North West:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many convictions for criminal offences evidence from the National DNA database played a material part in (a) 2005, (b) 2006, (c) 2007, (d) 2008 and (e) 2009.

The response from the Home Office is as follows:

	Total DNA-related detections	Total recorded crime
2005-06	40,309	5,555,172
2006-07	41,148	5,427,558
2007-08	33,034	4,951,173
2008-09	32,209	4,702,468

As Dizzy rightly points out, this means that in the past few years, DNA evidence has played a part in just over half of one percent of crimes solved in the UK. While it would be very difficult to achieve, Big Brother Watch would love to know how many of those half a percent were from the DNA profiles of those never convicted of any crime - it is unlikely to be very many at all.

Which makes the second point of interest all the more relevant. As reported by Public Service, yesterday during evidence given to a committee considering the Crime and Security Bill, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, said that:

"The retention of DNA is of critical value to serious crime investigation.

"From a professional police perspective, just because someone is not convicted of an offence, there are still very good professional reasons for why we need that information when dealing with serious crime."

Sadly, Hugh, the figures just don't stack up. Just like our Home Secretary, he's going to have to do much better if they are to continue ignoring the ruling of the ECHR and retaining the DNA of innocent people. 

By Dylan Sharpe

- - UPDATE - -

A commenter on this post has pointed us to this document from GeneWatch, which is a fantastic summary of the arguments against the retention of innocent DNA.

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 

Return My DNA

The Tories are running a "Return my DNA" campaign.  As we have often argued here and elsewhere, they want the DNA of innocent people off the database.

I used to work for the Tories and some people will say that I'm just shilling for the Party. Oh well. I think that this is of interest to readers of our site and I want to share and endorse it (as I endorsed Diane Abbott when she was acting on the same issue). You can sign up to the petition - without joining the Tory party or anything like that - here.

If they form government after the next election, Big Brother Watch intends to hold them to this commitment and to see the profiles of innocent people start coming off the database very, very quickly - triggered by a statutory instrument, probably, or - if need by - by legislation.

By Alex Deane

"Sheer Practicality" - sheer madness on DNA

The second reading of the Crime and Security Bill got underway on Monday, with Home Secretary Alan Johnson facing contempt from all quarters regarding government plans for the retention of the DNA profiles of innocent people on the national database.

Johnson began by extolling the virtues of the DNA database, claiming that it “has actually been a contributory factor to the astonishing reductions in crime achieved in this country.” The facts, however, provide underwhelming support.

Thankfully, Mr Johnson did address the issue of privacy, stating that “many people find the idea of someone retaining their genetic material disturbing, which is why, this Bill will require all DNA samples - namely, the actual genetic material - to be destroyed after six months. What is retained by the database is the unique 20-digit code that forms the DNA profile.”

Before attending the launch of Big Brother Watch, Conservative MP David Davis was present in the chamber and invoked the example of David Sweeney. In 2004, Mr Sweeney was assaulted by two other men and arrested on a charge of affray, which was then dropped when it became clear that he was not at fault.

Two months ago, however, Mr Sweeney reports that he “dropped a friend off at Manchester Airport and double parked. On returning to my car the police had arrived and given me a ticket. They asked if I was ‘known to the police’ and I said no, having no criminal record. But when they then heard over the radio that I was on the DNA database, they treated me with total contempt—as if I were a serious criminal. ‘You lied to us’, they said. ‘You're on the database. So you’ve obviously done something wrong’”— an interesting assumption— “‘what are you trying to conceal now.’ Sadly, this case is far from unique.

At one point, clearly frustrated by the contempt shown for DNA profiling, Mr Johnson claimed that "after all DNA is a British invention" – granted, we boast an admirable scientific heritage, but our legal system, with those long-forgotten treasures such as Habeas Corpus, is also to be admired.

It was at this point that Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, asked the pertinent question as to why the government are not proposing a compulsory DNA database for the whole nation. To which the Home Secretary, horrifyingly replied “so far as I am aware, only one country is currently looking at that possibility: the United Arab Emirates. For reasons of sheer practicality, no Government of any persuasion in this country would introduce such a scheme.”

So there we have it: "sheer practicality" is all that stands between our current situation and the biometric data of every man, woman and child in Britain catalogued on a government database. Moreover, the 20-digit code is as close an approximation to the ‘actual genetic material’ as is possible. This is poor trickery by the government; the infringements upon our privacy remain in full view.

By Edward Hockings

- - UPDATE - -

There is a full transcript of Chris Grayling's comments to the House available on Conservative Home and is well worth a read.

Meanwhile, from the same debate, David Davies MP (the Tory MP for Monmouth not to be confused with the terrific Davis) caught the eye of Alex Massie at the Spectator. Proving that not all the Tory MPs are singing from the same hymn sheet on civil liberties.

Businessman arrested in £12k police investigation for an email he didn't write

As reported by the Mail on Sunday, a businessman was recently arrested at home in front of his wife and 11 year-old son over an email which the council deemed offensive to gypsies.

The man, who has asked not to be named, had his DNA taken and was fingerprinted in a police investigation estimated to have cost up to £12,000.

The IT company chief was held in a police cell for four hours until it was established he had nothing to do with the email, which had actually been sent by one of his then co-workers, Mr Osmond.

As explained in the Mail,

The email, concerning a planning appeal by a gypsy, included the phrase: "It’s the 'do as you likey' attitude that I am against."

Council staff believed the email was offensive because ‘likey’ rhymes with the derogatory term ‘pikey’.

Sussex Police said they had arrested the businessman over ‘suspicion of committing a racial or religious-aggravated offence’.

Chief Inspector Heather Keating said: ‘Sussex Police have a legal duty to promote community cohesion and tackle unlawful discrimination.

Tellingly, the case was closed last week when Mr Osmond - the original sender - who had been arrested and bailed, was told there would be no further police action.

So, to summarise; a law-abiding citizen who was at home with his family is handcuffed, taken to a police station, had his DNA taken, and is held in a cell for an evening because of an email which a) he didn't send, b) had only a very tenuous implication of racism, and c) was eventually cleared of being racist in the slightest.

Not only that, the only actual offender in this case would appear to be the woman who erected a mobile home in a beauty spot without planning permission, which prompted the council to issue an enforcement notice in the first place. 

This case is an outrageous example of council's going after the easy target for spurious reasons, rather than broaching the real issue which might prove much harder to resolve.

On another note, I must also take issue with the comments of Chief Inspector of Sussex Police: "(we) have a legal duty to promote community cohesion". Wrong. The purpose of the police is to keep law and order.  

There ought to be punishment and investigations launched into how an innocent man was treated so appallingly, but instead it transpires that the police want to hold the businessman's DNA indefinitely. A shocking abuse of power which Big Brother Watch intends to fight from today.

By Dylan Sharpe

Fewer than 1% of crimes solved using DNA database

It has been revealed that just 33,000 of the 4.9 million crimes committed in Britain each year are solved using the DNA database.

Chief Constable Chris Sims of West Midlands, the Association of Chief Police Officers' (Acpo) lead on the issue, cited the figure as he gave evidence to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee today.

As reported by Politics.co.uk, the Home Affairs Committee were listening to the evidence of various innocent people who have had their DNA taken by the police, as well as groups such as Acpo, to evaluate the government policy on DNA rentention.  

As we have written many times before, despite the revised time-scale for removal of 6 years, the policy of holding the DNA of innocent people is a massive infringement on our personal liberty.

These latest figures prove that DNA evidence is not the silver bullet that many police officers, or indeed the Home Secretary, would have us believe.

Perhaps now our right to our own biometric data can be placed before the expediency of the state.

By Dylan Sharpe

DNA database postcode lottery

As reported by the BBC and Times this morning, the Conservatives have revealed the full extent of the "shambles" that is the police approach to removing innocent people from the the DNA database.

According to the reports:

Some police forces refuse to remove any records once a case is closed and the person declared innocent, while others comply with 80 per cent of requests for deletion.

The figures show South Yorkshire Police are most likely to delete DNA, with 83 per cent of requests granted, followed by Cumbria with 78 per cent and Cleveland with 70 per cent.

Other forces including Cambridgeshire, Gloucestershire and Nottinghamshire refused to remove any profiles.

Big Brother Watch opposes the retention of the DNA of innocent people as a matter of principle, but these figures just further shame the government's approach to the DNA database.

By Dylan Sharpe

Out of the DNA database and into the PNC

Public Service has reported on an investigation from The Observer that reveals that any innocent person who is able to get their DNA profile deleted from the national database, will still have their details stored on the Police National Computer (PNC).

According to the report,

Prior to the expansion of the DNA database, details were deleted on acquittal or if charges were dropped after 42 days. But according to the NDNAD's annual report in 2005 it has become necessary "to retain a nominal record of every person arrested for a recordable offence on the Police National Computer". The report said this would help police identify and locate people in their investigations.

This yet another example of the state's ever-present desire to gather as much information on its citizens as possible. Innocent people should not be on any police database, regardless of how useful or expedient having that data might be. Remember - you own your data. Not the state.

In addition, the PNC can be accessed by several thousands of police officers across the UK - with the capability for the data to be accessed by police forces in Europe, America and beyond - which makes it even less secure than the DNA database.

Big Brother Watch is concerned about the degree to which law enforcement is sliding towards guilty until proven innocent; and the repercussions we are witnessing for schemes like CCTV expansion, ID cards and state databases.

By Dylan Sharpe

Ireland debates the creation of a DNA database

The debate over Ireland's proposed creation of a DNA database (plans for which are in advanced stage now) is covered on various news sites, with discussion of the compulsory nature of sample collection.

Given the experience of the database in the UK, containing samples from one in ten of us and with samples from a million innocent people on it, one can only point our Irish friends to the British experience as a strong example that suggests they should pause before committing themselves to this plan further.

By Alex Deane

Celtic coverage

Dylan has already written about the really quite weird "conclusions" of the latest CCTV review in Scotland, during which the establishment rallied round to sing the praises of Scottish surveillance. 

But I thought I'd take the opportunity to highlight the work of CameraWatch, who have challenged that non-conclusion with some good research.

Meanwhile, informed sources speculate that a 78% increase in their Forensic Science budget means that the Irish are finally about to build a DNA database... at the same time that they are debating the merits of their CCTV network.

Small world, isn't it?

By Alex Deane

Does DNA testing affect your employability, or not?

The legality of the drug mephedrone is under review, given that in its chemical composition it is very close indeed to ecstasy.  Putting the rights and wrongs of that to one side, i am most concerned by this just in, over at the Register:

Barnard Castle-based Inspector Kevin Tuck is reported as saying: "In Durham police have taken a stance and anyone found with it will be arrested on suspicion of possession of a banned substance."

He adds: "They will be taken to a police cell, their DNA and fingerprints taken and that arrest, depending upon enquiries, could have serious implications for example on future job applications" (our italics).

We asked Durham police for clarification of what possible serious implications there could be for an individual found in possession of a legal substance who had their fingerprints or DNA taken. It was speculated that perhaps some employers would ask prospective job candidates about details not merely of convictions, but of all contact with police – and therefore having DNA taken could adversely affect job prospects for that reason.

However, we have had no official response to our inquiry and remain as baffled as the Home Office, who are still sticking to their line that DNA testing in and of itself can have no consequence for an individual.

Well, which is right, then..?  Are we seeing a bottom-up change in policy as to the DNA database, or can we expect to see the Durham plod slapped down pronto?

We'll keep you posted on this as it unfolds.

By Alex Deane

Hat-tip: SZ

One in ten people in Hampshire on DNA database

Interesting result from a PQ put down by Romsey MP Sandra Gidley (Lib Dem) - one in ten people in Hampshire are on the DNA database.

As she rightly says:

“These figures are shocking. The government is succeeding in criminalising huge swathes of the population, particularly men.

"The government has little regard for guilt or innocence, nor for personal privacy and liberty.”

By Alex Deane

**UPDATE** 10 December 2009: over at the Southern Daily Echo once again: a pretty weak response from the Minister.

The DNA Database debate

In preparation for tomorrow afternoon's Westminster Hall debate on the DNA database, which Big Brother Watch shall be watching with interest, I recommend Diane Abbott's article over at ePolitix.com - DNA database 'disproportionate and unprincipled'.

She makes a number of good points, and I thought this one particularly striking:

... as the inventor of DNA fingerprinting technology, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys has said, putting hundreds of thousands of random samples on the database would have the same crime-fighting benefits as keeping the DNA of innocent people on the database.

Once proven innocent of the crime you were arrested for you go back to being part of the non-criminal population. It is unfair, disproportionate and unprincipled to have it any other way.

I applaud Diane Abbott for getting the debate to take place and urge you to go read the whole thing.

By Alex Deane

**UPDATE** 11 December 2009 You can watch, listen to or read the debate here

Godspeed, Damien Green

Damien Green MP, who speaks with an authority gained by hard experience on these issues, has a letter in the Times today in response to the appalling authoritarian article about which I've written elsewhere.

For your convenience, I thought I'd reproduce the text of the letter here:

Sir, Sean O’Neill’s article (“Don’t take away the modern copper’s toolkit”, Nov 25), in praise of the surveillance state and in particular the DNA database, which includes the records of nearly a million innocent people, misses one highly important point. To be effective, the police need the co-operation of respectable citizens. The wholesale collection and retention of the DNA of the innocent is quietly causing severe and widespread damage to relations between the police and this respectable majority.

After my own arrest, and the subsequent decision of the Metropolitan Police to declare me (wrongly) an “exceptional case”, I have received many cases of other innocent people who are trying to recover their DNA. They include magistrates, grandmothers, a number of former servicemen and women: precisely those who, like me, are instinctively inclined to help the police. The thread running through their complaints is how alienated they have been from the police by their own experience. We all want an effective police force, and the support of the public is one of the most vital tools for the police. Thoughtful police officers, and their cheerleaders, should reflect on this.

Damian Green, MP
Shadow Immigration Minister
House of Commons

By Alex Deane

Alan Johnson on DNA retention - a quick fisk

The Home Secretary Alan Johnson has today written a short defence of the practice of retaining innocent DNA on the national database for six years. You can read the article in full on the Guardian Comment is Free, but we thought we'd pick out a few choice cuts and show why his reasoning is faulty, unreferenced and internally inconsistent.

"The most recent research supports the case for the retention of DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted. It also shows that, after six years, the probability of re-arrest is no higher than for the rest of the population."

It is a shame that the Home Secretary did not reference this research, because it would have certainly helped his argument. I am left to speculate that the research might be that conducted by the Jill Dando Institute, whose Director came forward last month to admit that the Government has pressured the Institute into a figure and ended up basing their DNA policy on incomplete research. 

This might also explain the inconsistency in his argument; because if the evidence suggests that after six years those people whose DNA is retained on the database are just as likely to commit a crime as those who are not, where are the benefits of retention?

"I reject the claim by the Human Genetics Commission yesterday that large numbers of people are being arrested simply to collect their DNA. There is no substantive evidence to suggest this is so."

Except, as we wrote yesterday, the claim was made by a former senior police officer and there are constant streams of stories peppering the newspapers of people being arrested for spurious crimes and having their DNA taken.

"this accepts that there should be retention where there is no charge, while ignoring the evidence that three (or even five) years is too short a period. The Scottish model is said to be a success, but by whose standards, and by what evidence?"

Yet again we are left wanting the research that shows that 3 or 5 years is too little (more to the point Scotland regularly delete DNA profiles if the subject is completely innocent) but these 'standards' are those of the European Court who, when ruling that the system in England and Wales was "blanket and indiscriminate" and "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society", described the Scottish system as "fair and proportionate".

"It is not a clear-cut choice between liberty and security – between siding with the civil liberties lobby or the forces of law and order. The far less headline-friendly reality is the need to balance all these factors – protecting the public, but in a way that's proportionate to the threat. I believe that the government's proposals do precisely that"

The law and order defence continues to look shaky (as previously reported, between 2004/5 and 2006/7 the number of profiles added doubled while recorded detections fell by 20%). By contrast there are a number of stories of people being discriminated against for having their DNA on the database and several reports from the US highlighting the fallibility of DNA evidence. Then there is the equally concerning rates of data loss and the fears of what happens when the wrong people get their hands on our biometric details.

The Minister quotes several cases in which the DNA evidence was critical in securing convictions, but we all know that the police frequently solve crimes committed by people who have never given a sample. Yet again this is a policy driven by political expediency, research we can't read and the desire to be 'seen to be doing something' with little consideration of the wider consequences.

By Dylan Sharpe

DNA datasets and our worst offenders

To follow on from the blogpost below, over on the Guardian's Data Blog they have pulled off all the information on DNA sample retention from the National Police Improvement Agency.

The figures are broken down by Regional Police forces and crime/DNA retention per 1000 people, which all makes for some very interesting conclusions.

• The Metropolitan Police hold nearly 855,000 DNA profiles, or 17% of all the profiles on the database. However this actually only accounts for 113 profiles per 1000 people, whereas the area experiences 112 crimes per 1000 people. 

• Perhaps more revealing is the fact that West Midlands Police hold nearly 228,000 profiles, or 118 profiles per 1000 people, and Northumbria Police hold 105,000 profiles at a rate of 125 profiles per 1000 people; when they experience just 87 and 75 crimes per 1000 people respectively.

• To put that in context, Northumbria Police might be collecting 50 more DNA profiles per 1000 people than are actually causing crime. Multiply that by their population of 1.4 million, and that means that in 2008/09 Northumbria Police could have collected over 50,000 DNA samples from completely innocent people.

Have a play with the data over at the Guardian blog and tell us what you come with!

By Dylan Sharpe

A new low in the relationship between police and society

The big news of today is that the Government's very own DNA advisory body - the Human Genetics Commission - has said that the police are routinely arresting people simply to record their DNA profiles on the national database.

In a report published today, Jonathan Montgomery, the commission chairman, said that “function creep” over the years had transformed a database of offenders into one of suspects.

He said that there was evidence that people were being arrested to retain their DNA information even though they might not have been arrested in other circumstances.

The report documents a retired senior police officer telling the commission “It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so. It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons...is so that DNA can be obtained.” He also said that the tradition of only arresting someone when dealing with serious offences had collapsed.

Alex Deane, Barrister and Director of Big Brother Watch, has said in response:

If true, this secret policy represents a new low in the relationship between the police and society.

The willingness to arrest people just to get their DNA, coupled with the Government's policy of retaining DNA samples from innocent people, means that a spurious arrest every half-dozen years can keep a completely blameless person on the database for life.

If ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ really applies, why aren't the police and government ministers all on the database?

By Dylan Sharpe

Labourlist blogger advocates swabbing babies and immigrants to build a DNA database holding samples from everyone

Over at Labourlist, a Labour Council candidate named Matthew Zarb-Cousin says

As a member of the Labour Party, I would like to argue why I believe a DNA database, where swabs of DNA are taken at birth - and of people coming into the country - is not only fair but also vital.

And why?  Well, because, he says,

everyone is a potential criminal. 

I suppose that it has at least the virtue of honesty.  The same position is put with a little more subtlety over at the Guardian's CommentIsFree.

Discuss.

By Alex Deane

When databases go bust

Yesterday Alex wrote about T-Mobile and the problem of those handling our personal data and how they might be tempted to use it.

Today we find another story about the dangers inherent in biometric databases - what happens when the companies holding the data go bust?

As The Times reports:

A leading genetics company that has pioneered personal DNA testing in health assessments went bust yesterday, raising privacy concerns about the sensitive data it holds.

DNA profiles belonging to thousands of people who have paid up to £600 for internet genetic tests are to be transferred to a new organisation, after deCODE Genetics filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in a US court.

The company are of course claiming that they do not access the DNA data for anything other than that specified by the original contract with the customer, and therefore people need not be afraid.

But contracts drawn up with a company that goes bust and files for bunkruptcy become very shaky if the data is bought up by a new firm. Similarly, if you hand over your DNA or fingerprints to the state for one reason, you might find the data being used for entirely different purposes.

The reality is that if you are willing to hand over your most personal data to someone else, you can never be sure where it's going to end up.

By Dylan Sharpe  

If Scotland can, why not Scotland Yard?

This morning's news coverage on the DNA database has provoked much annoyance within Big Brother Watch.

As reported by several different newspapers, the latest myth about the database concerns the supposed length of time it takes to destroy an innocent person's DNA sample.

To take an example from today's Evening Standard:

Innocent people who want their DNA profile deleted from the national police database may have to wait up to 10 months, it was revealed today.

This builds on certain unhelpful opinion pieces in recent weeks to begin to create an argument against deleting innocent profiles due to the cost and man-hours involved. 

However, contrast this with the practice of Scotland where, as the BBC has reported:

...DNA samples from people arrested but not convicted of any other offences are routinely destroyed in Scotland, a situation which contrasts with other parts of the UK. 

Three questions emerge:

1. If Scotland can routinely delete DNA without taking the best part of a year, why can't England and Wales? (and population size is no defence when it comes to a computer database)

2. Does this signal a change of approach to convincing the public on DNA - as opposed to the 'it helps in crime detection' defence?

3. With the PM set to announce in the Queen's Speech tomorrow that there will be a £200 charge for having one's DNA sample destroyed, is this not just the latest in a series of deliberate attempts to prevent innocent people from owning their DNA data? 

By Dylan Sharpe 

Paying to prove your innocence

Another day, another shocking story about the retention of the DNA of innocent people.

An article in the Daily Telegraph at the weekend revealed that in next week's Queen's Speech the government will announce it is planning on forcing innocent people to pay £200 to try and get their DNA removed from the national database.

According to the report:

The new power will allow members of the public to challenge a chief constable's refusal to delete their profiles in court - but they will have to pay an application fee to do so.

So now not only are the government in the habit of collecting the DNA of innocent people (and if you don't think there's any reason to be concerned about having your DNA on the national database, read this story) they also want us to pay for the privilege of not having our biometric data stored and tested, even if we have done nothing wrong to begin with. 

To take a different argument; if this is necessary to be part of the 'club' called the European Union, why is this not?

By Dylan Sharpe

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear? Not quite...

Earlier this week, Alan Johnson performed his latest u-turn and announced his intention to retain the DNA of innocent people on the DNA database for six years, on the grounds that doing otherwise might "undermine" crime detection.

Today we find a story that exemplifies why the Home Secretary has got his priorities the wrong way round.

A city lawyer and mother-of-three was fired from her £150,000-a-year job earlier this month after a routine background clearance check revealed her DNA was held on the national database.

The kicker is that the DNA record exists due to a false allegation made against her.

And what's more, that allegation was made because someone suspected her of forging a signature on an application form to a nursery - an offence which certainly didn't warrant the fingerprinting and DNA swabbing she had to consent to. 

So, in the future, if someone should blurt out the truism 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear', remind them of Lorraine Elliott - the high-flying lawyer who now works as a stable hand.

By Dylan Sharpe

Media Coverage - 11th November 2009

Sky News - Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch, interviewed by Martin Stanford

Daily Telegraph - DNA of innocent still to be retained for six years

...Alex Deane, director of Big Brother Watch, added: “If the government thinks that because they are targeting teenagers they can get away with this sort of intrusion, they are wrong..."

Government target teenagers to justify DNA scheme

The Evening Standard has today revealed that Alan Johnson plans to retain the DNA of all adults, including 16 and 17-year-olds, who are arrested for a serious violent or sexual offence for six years - even if they are not convicted.

To put that in context, this means that over 850,000 innocent adults and juveniles whose genetic details are currently on the national database will be treated and tested as suspects each time a DNA sample is picked up at a crime scene. 

The Standard reports:

Mr Johnson, who was understood to be finalising his plans today, is preparing to defy his opponents because of concern that crime detection would be undermined if the DNA records of all innocent people on the database were deleted.

Our Home Secretary is clearly not quite so bothered about our civil liberties being undermined.

In addition to all this, the Home Office recently performed a spectacular u-turn and promised to remove the DNA of innocent people from the database, a tacit admission that it was time to fall into line with the ruling of the European Court. 

Now, in a classic reverse ferret, the government has turned around and said they're committed to keeping innocent DNA on the database once more. If the government thinks that because they are targeting teenagers they can get away with this sort of intrusion, they are wrong.

The DNA database stands as a shining example of the Home Office's Big Brother instincts and we can only hope that the Tories actually deliver on promises to reverse this overbearing and intrusive policy.

By Dylan Sharpe

The retention of DNA from innocent people continues

As I have written previously, in 2008, this country was told that our police forces were wrong to retain the DNA of innocent people as they have been doing.

The Government supposedly had a change of heart last month.  It is understandable, but quite wrong, that this was written up as a "u-turn" (which has led to much false reassurance) since it is in no way a change in our bureacracy's approach; rather, it is a temporary, tactical retreat on pragmatic grounds.

This is proven by the situation in East Anglia, as highlighted over at the Eastern Daily Press yesterday.

The story reveals the fact that

Almost 1,000 innocent people in Norfolk have been added to the database - and only six removed

And that's since the judgment from the European Court.  Quite clearly, this is down to the Home Office:

A spokesman for Norfolk police last night insisted the force would continue to retain profiles of innocent people until told otherwise.

Official guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers endorses the continued retention of the details.

So, come on Alan Johnson - apparently you want to stop the retention of the DNA of innocent people; it's your Department delaying the execution of that policy; do you mean it, or not?

(As a side issue, I've also highlighted the risk of wrongful conviction based on DNA evidence elsewhere.)

By Alex Deane

**UPDATE** It's made clear over at Wales Online that the same thing is happening in Wales.  Of course, this is happening everywhere but it's important and pleasing that people are alive to it.

And The Star tells us that South Yorkshire a further 10,000 people, too.

The worst of all worlds

The government's national DNA database has hit the headlines once again this morning with the news that despite more than a million new profiles being added in the past two years, the number of crimes being solved by DNA has fallen by a fifth.

Between 2004/5 and 2006/7, police forces across the UK recorded 81,457 detections compared with 64,949 over the following two years - a fall of 20%.

And yet, between 2007 and 2009, more than 1 million new profiles were added to the database. The presence of duplications means the total number of people with stored DNA records is likely to be about 5 million.

In addition, the cost of running the database has almost doubled to £4.3 million from £2.1 million in under a year.

This data comes as no surprise: criminals are getting wise to DNA technology – or more accurately, to ways around it. Burglars and thieves go prepared to do their work.

As a result of this, and of this government’s policy of taking and keeping DNA samples from anyone who comes into contact with the state, Britain is getting the worst of all worlds – fewer crimes solved by the database, but more innocent people on it.

We need to see a timetable for the removal of innocent people's DNA from the national database sooner rather than later.

By Dylan Sharpe  

A legacy of big brother intrusion

As I wrote in a blogpost below, British citizens won a major victory yesterday when the Home Office announced that its plan to keep the DNA profiles of those arrested – but never convicted of a crime – for between six and 12 years had been dropped from the policing and crime bill.

This news, which we had all been waiting for since the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2008 against the British government's policy of indefinitely retaining DNA samples taken from individuals that had not been convicted of any offence, was greeted with much relief and satisfaction by civil liberties campaigners such as ourselves.

However as this story from South Tyrone demonstrates, the DNA database has created a legacy which will be difficult to erase quickly.

According to the report, the police in Northern Ireland hold genetic samples belonging to around 400 young people aged 17 and under from the South Tyrone area on their DNA database.

A PSNI spokesman responded to the story saying:

"The DNA database has proven to be a very valuable tool in the fight against crime...PSNI policy is to retain DNA profiles obtained from all persons falling within the terms of the relevant legislation.

"It is important that people understand that it is not a criminal record to which public authorities and others have access and there are considerable safeguards in place to govern how DNA information can be used."

The fact remains that government announcements will often take quite some time to percolate down to individual police forces. Indeed, that it has taken over 12 months since the European Court ruled - with Acpo explicitly telling its officers to ignore the ruling in the interim - shows that we may be waiting a while yet before the DNA of innocents is finally removed from record.

I highlight the story from South Tyrone this morning to again reinforce our opposition to the DNA database. Most if not all of the 400 children on this database will not have committed a crime and their presence on the database means they are tested as criminals before some of them can even walk or talk. 

By Dylan Sharpe 

Home Office u-turn on DNA retention

Regular readers will be aware that ever since this blog started just over a month ago, we have been campaigning against the retention of the DNA of innocent people on the national DNA database.

First we exposed the fact that the timings the Home Office had used for keeping the DNA of those charged, but not convicted of a crime was based on incomplete research.

Then Alex detailed our government's failure to abide by the European Court of Human Rights ruling preventing the retention of innocent people's DNA.  

Well today we can bring you the news that the Home Office has announced that its plan to keep the DNA profiles of those arrested – but never convicted of a crime – for between six and 12 years depending on the seriousness of the offence has been dropped from the policing and crime bill that is going through parliament.

A Home Office spokesman said:

"We have now completed a public consultation on proposals to ensure the right people are on the database as well as considering when people should come off.

"The Government will take the most expedient route to address the issue as soon as possible in order to comply with the European Court's judgment."

This is great news. The Government had been deliberately foot-dragging on this issue because they didn’t want to accept the consequences of having unanimously lost the European case.

The DNA of innocent people shouldn’t be retained on any database. The Court so ruled: the Government has finally been forced accepted it.

What we need to see now is prompt action to remove innocent people already on the database – many of whom have been waiting and campaigning for this news for years.

By Dylan Sharpe

DNA database questions in the House of Lords

An interesting exchange took place yesterday in the House of Lords, when Lord West of Spithead, a Junior Minister in the Home Office and Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, was challenged by Conservative Peer Lord Naseby on the DNA database.

Question asked By Lord Naseby:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many innocent people are on the police national DNA database; and when they will be removed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead):

My Lords, as at 24 April 2009 there were some 4.5 million persons on the national DNA database, of whom some 986,000 had no current conviction or caution record held on the police national computer. This included those convicted but whose police national computer record has been deleted, cases where proceedings are ongoing and those with no convictions.

We are currently considering DNA retention policy in our response to the European Court judgment.

The full transcript can be read here courtesy of Hansard.

Needless to say, the Under-Secretary of State justifies the continued presence of the DNA of nearly one million innocent people on the database, by saying that it both aids in solving crimes and can be used to prove innocence when the wrong person is being accused - failing to note the inherent big brother state implications.

However the real star of the show was the titanic Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, who asked the following question at the end of the exchange:

My Lords, in December the European Court of Human Rights declared that the retention of innocent people’s profiles was illegal. It is outside the law now to do that. Since then 300,000 profiles have been added to the list. How many of those people are innocent and how many of them have been added since July? We are running at a rate of roughly 40,000 a month. Does the Minister not accept that it is now time to change the system and that the time for consultation should come to an end?

To which the Junior Minister hastily replies:

My Lords, the judgment in fact said that it was wrong for us to keep them indefinitely. It did not say that it was wrong to take them. It is an issue of timing and how long these should be held for. I cannot give details of the exact numbers but I shall get back in writing on that. 

An artful dodge if ever there was one...

by Dylan Sharpe 

Fireman successfully campaigns to have DNA taken off database

A firefighter from Worcester has successfully invoked a European Court of Human Rights ruling that prohibits the police from retaining the DNA and fingerprints of people suspected but not convicted of offences, and had his DNA removed from the police database 

Mathew Repton was on duty for Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service last December, when he was called out to a car accident on the M5. In line with the Service’s procedures, Mr Repton parked the fire engine at a 45 degree angle to block the crash site.

Shortly afterwards, a car came down the sliproad and crashed into the back of the fire engine killing one of the occupants. Mr Repton was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving, taken to Redditch police station and placed in a cell. His DNA samples and fingerprints were taken and stored on the national database.

Mr Repton wrote to Paul West, chief constable of West Mercia Constabulary, asking for him to order for the DNA sample to be destroyed, but received the following response:

...Parliament has decided that the intrusion on personal privacy is proportionate to the benefits that are gained and the DNA database is a vital tool in helping us detect more crime...

Angered, Mr Repton brought the Fire Brigades Union onto his cause and was able to publicise his plight in his local paper.

Then yesterday, Mr Repton was told by a colleague at the fire service his case had been deemed “exceptional” and the data would be removed from the database under the terms of the land-mark ECHR ruling.

This is not the first time that Big Brother Watch has had to write about the authorities being either slow or completely ignoring the right of innocent people to not have their DNA retained (we continue to look into Essex Police). While Mr Repton's case is a good victory, the comment from the police above only serves to highlight how Parliament is still happy to overrule the ECHR provision.

By Dylan Sharpe

Criticism of Essex Police continues

Like many people - 850,000 of them, in fact - Mr Paul Morson has had his DNA taken from him and retained by the state, despite the fact that he has committed no crime.

He continues to attempt (thus far, unsuccessfully) to get his DNA off the database.  Of course, it ought to be automatic, particularly given the decision in S & Marper v the UK.  But that's far from the case. 

In fact, as Dylan outlined a little while ago, not only are the profiles of innocent people still not off the database - Essex Police have been refusing to say how many people have asked to have their DNA removed, making it impossible to say how many people their approach is harming.

I've pointed out the faults in the UK's position on DNA before, as well as the (perhaps even more troubling) faults with DNA evidence per se. 

Still - even if they can't acknowledge the issues with their approach, can't Essex Police even bring themselves to admit that people are asking them about it?

By Alex Deane

Essex Police in DNA FOI dodge

A story has just appeared online on the Essex Gazette website, detailing the refusal of Essex Police to answer an eminently reasonable Freedom of Information Request on how many people in Essex have asked to have their DNA removed from the national database.

There are three reasons why I feel it is necessary to blog on this story:

1. Firstly, and possibly most crucially, this FOI request was turned down on account of it being too complex and thus Essex Police took the decision that answering it would take up too much time or cost too much to process.

The trouble is, although the DNA database is vast, it is highly unlikely that the number of people who have requested their DNA be removed is particularly large. It is probably many fewer who have written specifically to the Chief Constable of Essex and a very small number indeed who have actually had their samples removed.

2. In light of this, Essex Police Service's reasons for their refusal become very suspect and even more so when you take into account that the European Court of Human rights has ruled that keeping innocent people's DNA and fingerprints violates Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention (for full details please read this website).

It is at the discretion of Chief Constables, and not that of the Government or of ACPO, over whether they keep DNA on the National Database. Therefore can we reasonably assume the current Chief Constable of Essex, Jim Barker-McCardle, is an advocate of the DNA database and this is why he is ducking the request?

3. Finally, at the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics fringe event, Independent on Sunday columnist John Rentoul, claimed that politics had been disinfected by the Freedom of Information Act, and that there was therefore no further intervention needed. I believe this to be a view shared by many on both sides of the aisle.

However as this story, and other accounts that I have received from my colleagues at the TaxPayers' Alliance have demonstrated, FOI offices and officials are increasingly blocking answering requests; often using time, money and resources as a reason.

It has to be the right of any citizen of this country to know if their DNA is held on a database. It has to be the right of anyone whose DNA is held, and who has not been convicted of a crime, to request that their DNA be removed. The benefits to law enforcement are severely outweighed by the dangers of the information falling into the wrong hands.

And after all, your DNA is among your most personal of identifying characteristics and should not be the property of anyone other than yourself.

By Dylan Sharpe

Home Office fudges DNA database timings

The Home Office believes the DNA profiles of innocent people should be kept for 12 years for those arrested but not convicted of sexual, terrorism-related or serious violent offences, and six years for other crimes.

However it has emerged today that the logic behind these timings was based on incomplete research.

On the Today Programme this morning, Gloria Laycock, Director of the Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science - from whose research the figures were derived, admitted that they were under pressure from the Home Office to produce a result and hence the research was incomplete, saying:

"we did our best to try and produce some in a terribly tiny timeframe, using data we were not given direct access to...We should have just said 'you might as well just stick your finger in the air and think of a number'."

This is a further embarassment to the government after the European Court ruled that it was unlawful to indefinitely retain profiles of innocent people.

Now it appears that the Government are deliberately foot-dragging on this issue because they don’t want to accept the consequences of having lost this case.

The DNA of innocent people shouldn’t be retained on any database. The Court has so ruled. The Government should now accept it.

By Alex Deane