Memorandum submitted by Nuffield Council
on Bioethics
I am pleased to enclose a copy of the Nuffield
Council on Bioethics report on The forensic use of bioinformation:
ethical issues (2007),1 which you may find useful for your
inquiry on the National DNA Database. The report was quoted substantially
by the European Court of Human Rights in the S & Marper judgment.
Some of the key recommendations are highlighted below.
RETENTION OF
DNA PROFILES
The report states that "there is, at present,
a lack of convincing evidence that retention of profiles of those
not charged with or convicted of an offence has had a significant
impact on detection rates and hence it is difficult to argue that
such retention can be justified. Accordingly we recommend that
independent research should be commissioned by the Home Office
to assess the impact of retention. In the light of the findings
of that research, an informed judgment could then be made".
(paragraph 4.53)
We note that the Home Office has recently published
evidence to support its proposal—which is to be included
in the Crime and Security Bill—to retain the DNA of all
arrested but unconvicted people for six years.2 Given the potential
human rights implications of retaining the DNA of unconvicted
people, we would like to emphasise the importance of this evidence
being carefully and independently examined. We would urge the
Committee to recommend that this takes place as a matter of urgency.
OTHER ISSUES
In July 2009, the Council responded to the Home
Office consultation "Keeping the right people on the DNA
Database". Some of its comments are relevant to your inquiry.
The Council welcomed some of the Government's
proposals, such as the pledge to destroy all DNA samples. It had
concerns about a number of the proposals and set out recommendations
drawing on the Council's 2007 report. These included:
— There should be a statutory basis for
the regulation of all aspects of the forensic use of DNA, with
specific powers of oversight delegated to an appropriate independent
body or official (paragraph 7.55).
— There should be a far greater commitment
to openness and transparency and a greater availability of documents
to public scrutiny (paragraph 7.57).
— An independent body, along the lines
of an administrative tribunal, should oversee requests from individuals
to have their profiles removed from bioinformation databases (paragraph
7.37).
A copy of the Council's full response to the
Home Office is enclosed.
We would also like to bring to your attention
the Council's observation that the distinction between recordable
and non-recordable offences is to some extent arbitrary (eg failing
to give advance notice of a procession is recordable, but obstruction
of the highway is not). As the status of the offence for which
a person is arrested affects whether a DNA sample can be taken,
we recommend that the list of recordable offences should be rationalised
so as to exclude all minor, non-imprisonable offences (paragraph
4.17).
REFERENCES1 Nuffield
Council on Bioethics (2007) The forensic use of bioinformation:
ethical issues. Available at: www.nuffieldbioethics.org/forensic
2 Home Office (2009) DNA retention policy: Re-arrest
hazard rate analysis. Available at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-dna-database/
January 2010
| 
