Article I. UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 222

Section 1.01 House of COMMONS

Section 1.02 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Section 1.03 TAKEN BEFORE

Section 1.04 HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Section 1.05

Section 1.06

Section 1.07 THE NATIONAL DNA DATABASE

Section 1.08

Section 1.09

Section 1.10 Tuesday 19 January 2010

Section 1.11 MR GREG HANDS MP and MR JONATHAN LEIGHTON

Evidence heard in Public Questions 160 - 185

Section 1.12

Section 1.13

(a) USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
5.	Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, 45 Great Peter Street, London, SW1P 3LT Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Home Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 19 January 2010

Members present

Keith Vaz, in the Chair

Tom Brake

Mr James Clappison

David T C Davies

Patrick Mercer

Gwyn Prosser

Bob Russell

Martin Salter

Mr David Winnick

________________

Witnesses: Mr Greg Hands MP and Mr Jonathan Leighton gave evidence.

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 23 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.