Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-185)
MR GREG
HANDS MP AND
MR JONATHAN
LEIGHTON
19 JANUARY 2010
Q160 Chairman: The second evidence session
today deals with the Committee's inquiry into the DNA database.
The Committee is inquiring into whether or not the allegation
that there is excessive use of the database is correct and why
the police retain the DNA of people not charged with any offences.
I welcome our two witnesses: Mr Hands, a Member of Parliament,
and Mr Jonathan Leighton. Mr Hands, to can you tell the Committee
briefly the circumstances in which the police took your DNA?
Mr Hands: It followed
the murder of my uncle Leslie Ince in Walsall on or about 21 February
2007. He was still alive when found and died about two months
later. A 14-inch barbeque skewer had been put through him. I was
questioned by the police who came here in May or June, or possibly
late April, of 2007. After an admittedly courteous and professional
visit, but quite a short one in terms of trying to find out any
of the circumstances surrounding the death and whether or not
I might have been involved, they took a DNA sample and all 10
fingerprints. That put me on the DNA database and it was enormously
difficult to try to come off it. To this day I still do not know
whether or not I have been properly deleted from it.
Q161 Chairman: You were not at the
scene of the crime?
Mr Hands: I was nowhere near the
scene of the crime; I was here on or about the time in question
on 21 February. At no point was there any indication of suspicion
or cause to believe I had anything to do with the crime. I had
never been to my uncle's house and I do not believe that the police
even had a DNA sample from the scene of the crime.
Q162 Chairman: Mr Leighton, could
you tell the Committee briefly how the police came to take your
DNA?
Mr Leighton: A few years ago in
Oxford there was a protest involving a council development in
the centre of town which would have meant cutting down some trees.
A man climbed up one of the trees and made a sit-in tree protest.
I disagreed quite strongly with how the council chose to deal
with it because it involved erecting a solid metal fence around
the tree he was in, putting in 24-hour security and basically
trying to stop anyone who sympathised with him from giving him
any food or water. He was in the tree for about two weeks. I decided
that I wanted to try to help him by throwing him some water and
I did so. I called up to the tree and tried to throw a bottle
of water to him. Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment or whatever
it was not a very good throw and fell to the ground. No sooner
had I done it than a police officer came running over to me and
told me I was under arrest. When I asked why he said it was for
littering. I found myself in a police cell for a few hours. I
had my DNA, fingerprints and photograph taken—the works—and
sat in a cell for three hours. Then I was told that I was to be
released without charge.
Q163 Chairman: Mr Hands, have you
attempted to get your DNA off the database? What process did you
use?
Mr Hands: I have undertaken quite
an extensive and unusual process, starting with letters to the
chief constable of West Midlands Police on at least two occasions.
Q164 Chairman: What was the timeframe?
Mr Hands: The police came to see
me on 25 April 2007. At the meeting I asked them to return my
sample on the assumption that I would be eliminated from the inquiry.
Because they did not have a DNA sample from the scene of the crime
I do not believe they were able to eliminate me from the inquiry
but, to be fair, they wrote to me the day after the meeting saying
they would return the sample. I wrote to them on 20 June 2008,
14 months later, asking for my sample to be returned. On 24 June
2008 they said my sample would be returned and my DNA sample would
be removed from the DNA database in due course and that the murder
investigation was ongoing. I wrote again on 28 December 2008 to
remind them of their commitment to return the sample and/or remove
me from the database. It took them two months to reply to that
letter. They replied on 18 February 2009. They then decided that
they would not remove my sample from the database until the murder
had been solved. At the inquest in the spring of 2009 the police
maintained that my uncle had not been murdered after all and had
died in a freak accident; in other words, in their opinion a crime
had not been committed at all. I still could not get my DNA sample
back. Chairman, I think you raised it directly with the Home Secretary
on the floor of the House of Commons in the early months of 2009
She said she knew nothing about the case. Finally, in an answer
to a Written Parliamentary Question on 3 June 2009 I was told
that I was not on the DNA database, but at no point have they
said when, whether or how I have been removed. Since that answer
I have not heard any more from West Midlands Police about how
I came off, whether I was actually removed, whether my sample
had been sent somewhere et cetera.
Q165 Chairman: Mr Leighton, you are
not a Member of Parliament and so you cannot table a Written Parliamentary
Question about your case. What process did you adopt to get your
DNA off the database? Can you give actual or approximate dates?
Mr Leighton: After my release
from the police station I took a week or so to evaluate what had
happened. I thought there was some value in speaking to a solicitor
about my arrest because I did feel it was unlawful. The solicitor
to whom I spoke agreed to take on my case and started by writing
to the chief constable of Thames Valley Police with my account
of what had happened. They said they would investigate the incident
and it took about three months for them to respond. They responded
by offering me an out-of-court settlement for my unlawful arrest
which I accepted. Subsequent to that my solicitor asked them to
delete my DNA and photographs.
Q166 Chairman: How long was that
process?
Mr Leighton: I was arrested in
early January 2008 and it was in about November 2008 that my DNA
was deleted.
Q167 Tom Brake: Mr Hands, do you
believe the police were justified in taking DNA from you at all
given you were clearly able to demonstrate that on the day this
was alleged to have happened you were here and not there? In your
view would they have been justified if there was no DNA sample
at the scene? Why would they seek to obtain DNA from you or anyone
else for that matter?
Mr Hands: It was probably justified
on the basis that as far as I understand it 80% or so of murders
are committed by family members or close friends. They did not
have a DNA sample. In the event that, say, I had died before they
found a DNA sample at the scene, which is improbable but just
about possible, then perhaps it could have been said that the
police had not eliminated Leslie Ince's nephew. I did not necessarily
have a problem about the police taking the sample; my problem
was that there was no attempt to try to decide whether I had anything
to do with the crime. The more obvious questions, for example
what was I doing on 21 February or whether I had ever been to
see my uncle or had ever been in his home, were not asked and
the less obvious thing, namely the taking of my DNA sample and
fingerprints, was done. They also did the same for most of my
other relatives, including aunts of mine who are in their eighties.
The West Midlands Police went round the country to places like
Bedford, Dartmouth, various parts of the West Midlands and Amersham
in Buckinghamshire to collect DNA samples, including a sample
from my mother who is into her late seventies and quite badly
arthritic. The idea that she would be able to wield a 14-inch
barbeque skewer through her brother-in-law was, frankly, absurd.
Nevertheless, they went round to take a sample. There must have
been considerable expense involved in attempting to collect the
samples.
Q168 Tom Brake: Did you or any of
your relatives ever get an explanation as to why the police thought
it was necessary to take a DNA sample from a 70 year-old woman
or man?
Mr Hands: I do not recall them
explaining it, although frankly I did not necessarily have a problem
with that aspect of the taking of DNA samples. I do not believe
they told me when they came here that they did not have a sample
from the scene of the crime. If they had told me that I might
have asked a few more questions.
Q169 Tom Brake: Mr Leighton, what
is your position in relation to the DNA sample taken from you?
Is it that they should not have taken it from you in the first
place or that once they had decided not to press any charges at
that point they should have deleted it?
Mr Leighton: Let me try to explain
how it felt to be in that situation. I had never been arrested
before and did not know anything about the process. It was the
first time I realised that the police take DNA when somebody is
arrested. When I was in the police station and they were taking
it they said I had no choice and they would do it by force if
I did not let them do it. I did not have any information about
what they would do with it, how long and where they would store
it or how they would make sure it was not leaked like all the
things that have been left on trains. That situation is quite
surprising. After I was released from the police station my sense
was that the whole thing should not have happened at all; I should
not have been arrested and it was unlawful and so my DNA should
not have been taken, but I was very pleased when through my solicitor
I was able to get my DNA deleted. However, it was slightly sad
that I had to go to all that trouble to make a proper legal claim
against the police. As I understand it, had I not followed the
whole process I would have had no chance of getting my DNA deleted.
Q170 Mr Clappison: You said the arrest
for littering was unlawful. Was it unlawful because littering
is not an arrestable offence? Is that what you were told?
Mr Leighton: I do not know specifically
whether or not it is a criminal offence.
Q171 Mr Clappison: I would be surprised
if it was an arrestable offence, so it sounds as if the whole
thing was unlawful from the beginning.
Mr Leighton: I agree. Even if
it was an arrestable offence frankly I was not littering; I was
trying to throw somebody a bottle.
Chairman: Presumably, he did not catch
it!
Q172 Bob Russell: As I understand
the evidence given so far, is it right that both of you have had
your DNA records removed?
Mr Hands: Not necessarily. I have
been told by the government that I am not on the database. The
West Midlands Police have not told me anything. The implication
of the answer to the Written Parliamentary Question is that I
have been removed because I have always been told that I have
been put on it by West Midlands Police. I do not think I can say
definitely that I have been removed because I cannot say with
100% conviction that the government believe I have ever been on
it.
Q173 Bob Russell: Mr Leighton, your
DNA has been removed, and, Mr Hands, you could be in a state of
limbo in the sense of not knowing. Our inquiry is on behalf of
the many thousands of people who have never been charged—no
two situations are identical—and whose approaches to chief
constables have not been successful. I put my next question to
Mr Hands who is a Member of Parliament. Is there not a case for
everyone's DNA being on the database?
Mr Hands: I think that is a reasonable
case to make. I do not agree with it, but I believe there is a
case for a compulsory national DNA database which has on it only
those who have been convicted of a crime. The worst case is what
appears to be the situation at the moment. My connection with
crime in general and this event in particular is incredibly tangential.
In terms of how often I saw my uncle I am a fairly distant relative
of a victim of crime. I have never been arrested for this crime;
I have never even been suspected of having committed it. You could
hardly get somebody further away from the crime than I am, yet
it has taken me considerable effort using means that are not available
to most citizens of this country to try to get straight answers
as to why I am on the database and to get off it.
Q174 Bob Russell: Mr Leighton, would
it be okay with you if we were all on the DNA database?
Mr Leighton: Personally, I find
that suggestion quite scary. When everybody in the UK is part
of a massive database which the police can use to keep tabs on
us that is a scary prospect. I understand the rationale behind
that question which is an interesting one. The most interesting
thing about the whole DNA issue is that it has never been properly
debated and it is a matter that is developing without any clear
policy about why or how it is growing.
Q175 Gwyn Prosser: Mr Hands, we have
heard from Mr Leighton that during his police interview he was
told it was a legal requirement to give a sample of DNA. When
you were interviewed by the police did they tell you it was a
legal requirement or did you volunteer?
Mr Hands: I cannot remember, but
the advice I was given by a parliamentary colleague from the shadow
home affairs team beforehand was that it would be most unwise
for me to refuse to give a sample. My mother refused to give a
sample and she was not threatened with anything afterwards and
obviously was not taken to court. I thought on balance that it
would be better for me to give a sample. I did not necessarily
have a problem about giving a sample. My problem is that I was
on the database for a considerable time afterwards despite the
fact that quite provably I had nothing to do with the crime.
Q176 Gwyn Prosser: I ask the question
because last May the government proposed that innocent bystanders
at the scene of a crime who voluntarily gave their DNA would have
those samples removed from the database. You have paid a lot of
attention to this matter. To your knowledge has any progress been
made along those lines?
Mr Hands: I am afraid not. There
was an inquest in the spring of 2009 which returned an open verdict.
The police maintained at the inquest that it could well have been
an accident and the coroner returned an open verdict. If anybody
has information about the murder of my uncle—the West Midlands
Police have otherwise conducted an exemplary inquiry into the
matter and our complaint is not there—please give it to
them.
Q177 Gwyn Prosser: I was talking
in more general terms. For instance, was there anything in the
bill debated yesterday which would give you any comfort and allow
for the automatic removal of DNA from the database in your circumstances?
Mr Hands: I shadow Treasury which
is a busy portfolio and I have not had an opportunity to look
at what is in the bill. I know that Second Reading took place
yesterday, but I cannot answer your question.
Q178 Gwyn Prosser: Do you make any
differentiation between the police holding your profile and holding
the actual DNA sample itself? Are they equally damaging as far
as you are concerned?
Mr Hands: As far as I am concerned
they equate to the same thing. You will know the technical details
of how the sample then creates a profile. If one wants to be off
the database one probably must have both the sample and profile
removed, but that is outside my technical area of competence.
Q179 Gwyn Prosser: You have had an
answer to the Parliamentary Written Question which says that you
are no longer on the database. Have you followed it up with a
letter to the chief constable asking for confirmation?
Mr Hands: I have not and I should
have done. That has been due to a shortage of time. Two weeks
ago the chief constable of West Midlands Police came here to give
evidence a transcript of which the Chairman has kindly sent me.
In answer to Q91 the chief constable said he would be writing
to me. He has not written to me yet to explain what has happened
even though the Chairman asked him in a series of fairly robust
questions to get an answer to the case.
Q180 David Davies: Mr Leighton, you
said you were very worried about being on the database, but if
you have a credit card, driving licence, bank account or passport
you are already on a database. Why does this database make you
so much more worried?
Mr Leighton: I cannot choose whether
or not to be on the DNA database and that is significant from
the perspective of freedom.
Q181 David Davies: Not really. It
will be very difficult for you to go through life without a passport,
bank account or credit card.
Mr Leighton: My credit card is
not going to convict me. That sounds wrong; I am not trying to
get away with any crime. My credit card will not be used to try
to link me to things or investigate me.
Q182 David Davies: It could be. You
have put your finger on it: you are not going to commit crimes.
I would not think for one minute that you would become a career
criminal, so why are you so concerned about it?
Mr Leighton: I am concerned about
it because it is a matter of liberty and in a free society I do
not think everybody's DNA should be kept compulsorily on a database.
Q183 Chairman: Mr Hands, there are
inconsistencies between the way in which the West Midlands Police
dealt with your case and the way the Thames Valley Police dealt
with Mr Leighton's case. Do you think there is an argument for
having an independent central organisation to deal with the issue
of removal of samples from the database? Is it really the way
the police have handled it, the process, rather than necessarily
the principle that concerns you? In other words, Mr Leighton,
if you had received a speedy reply and the police had removed
it fairly quickly would you have been satisfied that the process
was working? Does the same go for you, Mr Hands? You have been
trying to do this for three years and have not had a definitive
reply. If there was a central organisation to deal with it, not
individual chief constables, would that provide a better system
to manage these issues?
Mr Leighton: One matter to which
I alluded earlier was that it would be very helpful if there was
a much clearer process about what happens. When you are arrested
you are informed of your right to a solicitor; you have a right
to remain silent at interview et cetera. I do not understand why
no information is provided about why the sample is being taken
and what you can do to get it removed if you are not to be charged.
A central organisation with some clear codes of practice about
how to deal with specific cases would be helpful.
Q184 Chairman: Mr Hands?
Mr Hands: You are asking me to
make a policy judgment which I am slightly reluctant to do.
Q185 Chairman: I would like your
opinion.
Mr Hands: My opinion is that the
way the system works at the moment is wrong. My response relates
to the answer I gave to Bob Russell earlier about the way the
database has been built up randomly, rather stealthily in the
case of my relatives and also quite expensively. To send a police
team around the UK to collect samples from my aunt in Bedford
who is about 82 years of age and then next day to go to Dartmouth
in Devon seems to be a very expensive way to build up the database.
It is the inconsistency in how it is collected more than necessarily
who is in charge of it that concerns me.
Chairman: Mr Hands and Mr Leighton, you
have been extremely helpful to the Committee in its inquiry. Thank
you very much for giving evidence this morning.
| 
