header-logo header-logo

Government to retain innocent DNA

15 May 2009
Issue: 7369 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Lawyers hopeful government will be forced to change proposals after consultation

DNA profiles of innocent people could be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in S and Marper v UK that the blanket retention of suspects’ data is unlawful.

A Home Office consultation last week, Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database, proposes:

retaining the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted of minor offences, for six years;

removing the profiles of children when they reach 18 only if they have been arrested for only one minor offence;

retaining indefinitely all DNA profiles and fingerprints of those convicted of an imprisonable offence; and

retaining for 12 years the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted of serious sexual and violent offences.

Genetic DNA samples held by the police would be destroyed once they had been converted into a DNA profile.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled last year that retention of DNA samples and profiles of people who had been charged but not convicted was a breach of their Art 8 right to a private life, in Marper.

Peter Mahy, partner at Howells, who represented Michael Marper and a juvenile known as S in the landmark case, says: “We fought a long hard legal battle on this issue for over seven years, which resulted in the spectacular 17-0 victory in the European Court of Human Rights.

“Unfortunately the government is still not proposing to destroy DNA profiles of innocent people when they have been cleared of any crime, but instead keep them for up to 12 years. Hopefully the government will change its proposals after the public consultation.

“Innocent people should be treated as if they are innocent not as suspects.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, says: “This well-spun proposal proves that the home secretary has yet to learn about the presumption of innocence and value of personal privacy in Britain. With regret we shall be forced to see her in court once more.”

Issue: 7369 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Public , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll