DNA Database (Removal of Samples) Bill
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
On 11th June 2008 Jenny Willott presented a ten minute rule bill to the House of Commons on the removal of samples in the DNA database taken from individuals who are not charged or are acquitted.
Private Members Bills rarely become law but give backbenchers in both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to raise issues they feel strongly about.
What the Bill does
Jenny Willott urged the government to follow the example set by Scotland, France and Canada and legislate against retaining DNA samples from those who are acquitted. It was her belief that “samples and profiles should be destroyed if the individual is not convicted or cautioned, although there should be an exception for those accused of a violent or sexual offence. Their samples should be kept—not indefinitely, but for a specified time. In addition, all children under 16, unless guilty of a violent or sexual offence, should have their DNA removed from the database”.
She warned that a case currently being heard by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right of two individuals to have their samples removed could force the Government into reviewing the current practices.
She reported that the UK has the largest DNA database in the world, with 4.5 million people registered, the equivalent of 6 per cent of the UK population compared with the US database which has less than 1 per cent of its population on it. Of these, it is estimated that more than 100,000 children under 18 are on the database that have never been convicted, cautioned or charged with any offence. Furthermore, a disproportionately high numbers on men from Black and Ethnic minority groups are on the register, even though there is no evidence to suggest that these groups are more likely to commit crime. This was not only damaging for race relations but also reinforced negative stereotyping.
She highlighted the procedural difficulties in removing samples from the database, as illustrated by only 700 innocent people out of 1 million being successful in removing their appeals. Maintaining these samples not only placed an unnecessary financial burden on the police forces, but she argued it would be more effective to engage more in DNA matching at the crime scene rather than simply collecting individuals' samples, to be stored for later cases.
The refusal to destroy these samples went against the principle of ”innocent until proven guilty”, and the insistence of holding them was the equivalent of the state saying "well, you might not have been convicted, but we think you may commit an offence in future and we want to make sure we can catch you when you do".
