Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Liberty
Thank you for inviting Liberty to give oral
evidence to your Committee's timely inquiry into the DNA database
earlier this year. As you know, Liberty has been campaigning on
the issue of DNA retention for many years and we are delighted
that the Home Affairs Committee is now examining the NDNAD.
In the course of my evidence session I was asked
by Tom Brake MP whether we maintain records of the number of innocent
people we have assisted in getting their DNA removed from the
database and the number of cases where we have been successful
in doing so. I have now consulted our litigators and include below
a summary of where things currently stand with our DNA litigation.
This letter is marked confidential as several cases are now live.
Following our intervention in S and Marper
v UK in the European Court of Human Rights Liberty now has
15 active DNA cases. All of these involve individuals arrested
but not charged or convicted for any offence but whose DNA remains
on the NDNAD. The majority of these cases came to us through the
DNA clinic that we ran in conjunction with Diane Abbott MP in
Hackney in August 2009 and which was discussed at some length
during the oral evidence session. I have enclosed with this letter
an (anonymised) selection of these cases as examples of the type
of cases where DNA is still being retained by police indefinitely
and where it would be continue to be held for a minimum of six
years under the Government's current proposals.[82]
In all 15 cases requests for custody records and other information
held have been made. Response times from the police are variable
and we are still awaiting relevant documentation from the police
in nine cases. Formal requests for destruction have been made
in four cases. For one of these cases an initial vaguely worded
refusal to destroy has been received and we have now instituted
the Exceptional Case Procedure (to which I referred in the oral
evidence session). Given the current legislative framework and
ACPO guidance in place we are expecting that our other outstanding
and planned requests will follow the same pattern.
As I hope to have made clear in my oral evidence
to your Committee, a lack of parliamentary guidance on when it
is appropriate to delete the DNA of the innocent combined with
the hugely restrictive ACPO guidance which has filled the void
means that the likelihood of securing DNA deletions is slim indeed.
As well as more robust guidance on the use of chief constables
discretion, Liberty is, of course, also calling for a requirement
to delete the DNA of innocent people in the vast majority of cases.
If I may, there was one other issue raised during
the evidence session on which I would like to provide some further
clarification and that is the role of the DNA retention in the
conviction of Steve Wright—convicted in 2008 for murdering
five women in Ipswich. This horrific case is often cited by the
Government in support of retaining the DNA of innocent people
for a blanket period. In fact, Steve Wright's DNA was on the DNA
database not because he had previously been arrested and not charged
but as a result of a conviction for theft in 2003. He was not
then one of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people whose
DNA continues to be stockpiled on the database. Despite frequently
being cited, this case bears little relevance to the current and
ongoing debate about the retention of innocents' DNA. While Liberty
accepts that the more DNA that is retained the increased chance
there is of additional crime detections we believe that this is
an argument not for blanket retention of innocents' DNA but a
universal DNA database with indefinite retention. We are not aware
that any political party is currently advocating such a policy.
Once again, sincere thanks for the opportunity
to present oral evidence to your Committee on the issue of DNA
retention. I do hope that this letter has provided useful elaboration
and clarification.
February 2010
82 Not printed. Back
| 
