Conservatives demand that innocent people's DNA must not be stored by the state

Some in the party - especially members of the David Davis and Dominic Grieve fan clubs - have privately expressed concerns about whether the recently-appointed shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, shares his predecessors' commitment to civil liberties.

He may be putting a different emphasis on the home office brief, but today Mr Grayling will please the civil libertarians in the party by championing the plight of the millions of inncoent people whose DNA is being stored by the Government.

He is demanding an immediate end to the practice and accuses the Government of breaking a European Court ruling by storing the samples as it currently does, a huge number of which are from innocent people - including tens of thousands of children - tested purely in order to eliminate them from criminal inquiries.

Mr Grayling says:

“People know that I believe we should be tough on crime. DNA data plays an important part in many modern criminal investigations. So it should be taken and used where needed.

"But I also believe in the fundamental principles of our nation – and one of the most important of those is that people are innocent until proven guilty. So if the system judges someone innocent, or if they are only peripherally involved in a case, there is no excuse for storing their DNA indefinitely.

"This practice has now clearly been ruled illegal by the courts. It is morally wrong as well. Yet Ministers are dithering about what to do. It’s very simple. They should stop breaking the law, and remove this data right now.”

The Conservative Party is announcing proposals to build on the existing system in place in Scotland, which would only allow Ministers to order DNA from innocent people to be retained in cases involving some sexual and violent offences – and only then for up to five years (rather than indefinitely).

Incidentally, this is also a theme which Hammersmith and Fulham MP Greg Hands took up in this CentreRight post last summer: his DNA has remained on the national database after he was interviewed in the wake of his uncle's murder.

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[michael mcgough]

Excellent.

[Ross Warren]

"So if the system judges someone innocent, or if they are only peripherally involved in a case, there is no excuse for storing their DNA indefinitely."

I want to see this commitment in our manifesto. labour have eroded far to many of our natural rights, time for a return to British standards. To me there is no more important issue than Labours slide towards a police state. Even the economic mess pales into insignificance, this is the most important issue we are facing today in England.

[Chris Blore]

This is good. However, I still do not fully understand the position in Scotland that is to be announced by the Conservative Party.

As I see it, a decision not to charge (as in the case where the CPS decides that it would be difficult to successfully prosecute) or a not guilty verdict should mean that an accused is seen as innocent by the law. Therefore there should be no reason to retain the DNA of any individual who finds themselves in that situation as they are not guilty of any crime and as a result, they should be in the same position as any other innocent citizen - i.e. not on the database and.

[Robert Eve]

About time - why has this taken so long?

[Arron Fitzgerald]

"....which would only allow Ministers to order DNA from innocent people to be retained in cases involving some sexual and violent offences.."

How disappointing that the Party still doesn't quite grasp the concept of presumptive innocence. If a person is innocent, then the particulars of the offence with which they were charged are irrelevant. There are not 'degrees of innocence' depending on the gravity of the charge.

There is no justification for the DNA retention of any person who has not been convicted of an offence, period.

[Tony]

The excuse for this outrageous liberty has been that it helps to solve previously unsolved crimes.

This is of course complete rubbish. If the police arrest you they will still be able to run your samples against unsolved crimes but when they have done it they will have to destroy the sample.

There will be a small loss of convictions for those who are caught as DNA techniques are improved and are then matched to stored samples but there aren't too many of them

[ToryBlog.com - not a Cameron Conservative]

Huh? As Anon says, innocent is innocent, irrespective of the nature of the crime.

If you do not accept that, then your position is not really any different from Labour, as you both want to retain innocent peoples DNA, you just differ on the scope of the affront to civil liberties.

[Jane Gould]

this is a principle which barely disturbs the consciousness of our populstion.
(innocent until proven guilty)and is key to our way of life in Britain.
In the immortal words of Rumpole/John Mortimer "Why not bang us all up on the offchance that one of us might commit a crime?"
Those of us who are aware of it have been increasingly scared by the way this Government has eroded our civil liberties.
Ergo, I am pleased to read Chris Grayling's statement.

[anne allan]

I am heartily relieved by Chris Grayling's statement. Reference to the European Court is unnecessary; for hundreds of years in this country there has been a presumption of innocent unless proved guilty.
Not guilty does mean innocent - no ifs and buts depending on the type of alleged crime.

[John Anslow]

I shall be very interested to read contributions to this thread, as I have great difficulty in reaching a firm opinion and find myself agreeing with the view expressed by Arron Fitzgerald above.

David Aaronovitch wrote an enlightening piece in The Times a couple of weeks ago: Stand up for convicts, if you want to be fair.

[Victor, NW Kent]

I am a heretic on this one. I cannot see any circumstances in which it is harmful to public interest for DNA to be retained.

I can see many instances in which it can be beneficial - identification of corpses, of people found wandering in mental distress, of criminals of all sorts.

I would go further and establish DNA recording at birth against such eventualities.

There are a sufficient number of real breaches of civil liberties to worry about without chasing a phantom here.

[The Bishop Swine]

"I am a heretic on this one. I cannot see any circumstances in which it is harmful to public interest for DNA to be retained."

I know the argument, if you have done nothing wrong etc etc. However innocent is innocent. The alternative is for the state to take a sample of every baby at birth. I don't know about you but I don't 100% trust the police or DNA evidence.

"There are a sufficient number of real breaches of civil liberties to worry about without chasing a phantom here."

I agree with the first part of this sentence but agree that this is a lesser issue. A bit like asking Heroin addicts to pee in a bottle before they get any state benefits, its going to far. If I do not own my body and by that definition my DNA then what do I own? I am surprised nobody has invoked habeas corpus to get the return of their DNA samples so far.

[RichardJ]

"I cannot see any circumstances in which it is harmful to public interest for DNA to be retained."

Fine, feel free to give your DNA to the state. Just don't force the rest of us too as well. The less the state has to do with me and my body the better.

[True Blue]

Kilwillie out of Monarch of the Glen has joined the Tory front bench? Why weren't we told?

[Julian L Hawksworth]

Storing innocent people's DNA for up to five years (but only for certain serious offences), sounds like a positive alternative.

Like many people, I am very uncomfortable with the "guilty until proven innocent" approach which this Labour Government continues to follow.

[Stewart Geddes]

Under no circumstances should any DNA or indeed anything else belonging to people who are innocent of a crime be stored by the government or any of its agencies.

Indeed you have to ask, why the DNA of someone convicted of a crime should be retained? After all, once convicted and punished is the crime not spent? If we retain information are we not saying that once convicted of an offence there can be no rehabilitation?

[ToryBlog.com - not a Cameron Conservative]

"Storing innocent people's DNA for up to five years (but only for certain serious offences), sounds like a positive alternative."

Well until you are wrongly accused of one of these crimes and people ask you why your details are still on the db when the Tory government has loudly announced that innocent people will be removed.

"Oh, but they retain the details of innocent people for certain crimes you cry".

"Uh-huh, OK, we believe you..." the people (potential employers etc) reply.

In short, this will actually make things a whole load worse, leaving a cloud of suspicion hanging over those wrongly accused of certain crimes.

The government does *not* own us. It has no right to store the dna of innocent people against their will.

Why doesn't New and Blue Labour understand this?

[Tony Sharp]

I think you miss the point Victor. Why should the state take routine, default ownership of our genetic material? Why should the essential elements of our very being be handed over to strangers? We know what happen soon after, just by looking at how DVLA sell our details.

Insurance companies would press for the right to buy the information - saying it does not harm anyone - to decide which 'risks' they will refuse to underwrite. We would create an underclass of people considered not sufficiently 'sound' genetically. Then Labour's flirtation with eugenics can take on a whole new dimension.

How on earth did the police cope before fingerprints and DNA? Anyone would think that crimes had never been solved before now.

The state is there to serve us, not enslave us. God help us if we end up with a regime that is not benign and wants to control us rigidly. With all the data it plans to store about us and our movements the state would reduce us to nothing more than living chess pieces.

[YMT]

From Monday Internet providers will start storing all user data details of customers e-mails, website visits and net phone calls under an EU directive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7985339.stm

[Jack Stone]

Innocent peoples DNA should of course not be stored but I think that Chris Grayling may find that people are far more concerned about crime and thuggery in this country than civil liberty`s.

[Joe De Mocritus]

Our DNA is our own property and does not belong to the State. The State should only be recording the DNA of those who are guilty of a crime.

This would be a welcome addition to party policy.

[Freddy]

Chris Grayling is quite right.

If the government procrastinates I hope that further legal action results.

[Joe De Mocritus]

A further wider point.

Having worked as a freelance database specialist in IT for 20 years I would like to point out that I have never come across a system (public or private) that is 100% accurate. All have mis-keyed data, mis-read data, data corruption of various types.

In the worst case at an insurance company nearly 20% of data was corrupted in some way and the only way to deal with it was through manual checks as a claim came in or an annual statement went out.

The scope for miscarrages of justice when you rely on a database of DNA and links to other data eg. NHS, Revenue & Customs, etc. are very worrying. Of course, the Government and the companies with their hugely over priced contracts for IT work are not going to tell you that.

[Winston C]

Chris Grayling is a star performer.He is absolutely right to pursue this line.The insidious diminuation of our liberties under this terrible government beggars belief.

The pretence that we are constantly in peril and that end always justifies means is plain nonsense.This is particularly so when one considers the terrible record the state has in protecting our personal information.

[Ross Warren]

" I would like to point out that I have never come across a system (public or private) that is 100% accurate. All have mis-keyed data, mis-read data, data corruption of various types. "

Also we have cases like the one in Australia recently were DNA from a technician was being incorrectly identified as the perpetrator of numerous crimes. Far to much credence is given to DNA and other forensic evidence. As in the case of Barry George.In addition there is the very real danger of dishonest evidence manipulation.

"The scope for miscarrages of justice when you rely on a database of DNA and links to other data eg. NHS, Revenue & Customs, etc. are very worrying. Of course, the Government and the companies with their hugely over priced contracts for IT work are not going to tell you that"

You are absolutely right. How many people are currently behind bars for crimes they did not commit because of compelling DNA evidence is anyone's guess.
There is certainly a place for DNA evidence in certain crimes, sex crimes being the obvious example. However there is no good reason to compel everyone to give a sample to the state. Most especially, as you rightly point out, when so many mistakes are made in the input and upkeep of data bases.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Graying is wrong; soppy knee jerking liberalism, but it sounds good. Playing to the gallery is always popular and bound to a raise cheer (how dare I be suspected of anything).

The Government can have my DNA anytime. DNA is can also be used in finding those suspected of being guilty innocent thereby negating a reason to arrest.

"There is no justification for the DNA retention of any person who has not been convicted of an offence, period"

Believe it or not, but some commit horrendous crimes even though they do not
have a previous conviction.

"This is of course complete rubbish. If the police arrest you they will still be able to run your samples against unsolved crimes but when they have done it they will have to destroy the sample"

But when there is no arrest police will not already have your sample to check.

Grayling is quoting the presumed innocent guff, is if we are unaware of it and which we all are familiar with, is appealing to all of you who like to their politicians to believe and engender comfortable mother and apple pie politics; the very ethos that has done much to destroy former values. Very sweet of him and, imho, what a nice (but ineffectual person he is)

Sorry to say boys and girls, but criminals who do not have their DNA in the data base will be assisted in literally getting away with murder, rape etc, but hey! who cares as long as police have not got my DNA and we have an excuse to attack Labour – as if there are not enough reasons.

[Victor, NW Kent]

Tony Sharp

I was well aware that my view would not find favour. However, I have not missed the point - it is just that you disagree with my points. I am well aware of the contrary arguments as they were those I shared until a couple of years ago.

Bishop Swine - you did not read my post - I had already said that all DNA should be recorded at birth.

I also cannot see that there is any association with the concept of innocence until guilt is proven. If all give their DNA then none are being singled out as possible criminals.

But, OK - most of you want fingerprints also to be erased. Can those be peddled to insurance companies? Do they have commercial value? Have you given away a part of your body? Those arguments are emotive but not logical. I have no problem with emotive arguments but they weigh lightly against logic even if they temporarily enthuse.

You may be surprised that I am equally opposed to the current scope of proposed ID cards and the inevitable huge cost to the taxpayer. I am not some sort of totalitarian nutter.

[Opinicus]

I also think this is knee jerk liberalism. The possession of a DNA database is a great crimefighting tool and also acts as a strong disincentive to crime. I think it would cost too much to test everyone but building up a database of those arrested seems a good way of keeping details of the more "physical" part of the population, for even if innocent getting arrested in the first place puts you in a particular subset of the population and in reality implies either aggression or alcohol/drug misuse.

Clearly the database must be private to the State and never sold or made available to researchers even anonymously.

The Conservative case for ID cards is even easier to make. It is important not to get hung up on the idea of a card and the ability of officious officials to demand it. What the database is is a membership list of the UK club, those paying the subscription and those with temporary membership. A complete database with fingerprint identification would render illegal immigration virtually impossible and end health tourism in the NHS. It would also stop bigamy and double lives and benefit fraud from multiple claims. The cost of setting the system up will be paid back in a couple of years of savings from fraud.

[Tony Sharp]

Victor

I appreciate your response. If having read my comment (and those of others) you disagree that it is harmful to public interest for mass DNA harvesting and referencing, then I respect that even though I vehemently disagree.

But if the issue is as you suggest, that you still cannot see the circumstances under which it is harmful, then you must be blind to the obvious.

[Tony Sharp]

Opinicus, you say that clearly the database must be private to the State and never sold or made available to researchers even anonymously.

Far better that our genetic material remains private to the individual and never retained by the state unless the individual has committed a serious criminal offence against another individual or group of people.

The state is supposed to serve the people by the consent of the people, not afford itself the power to act as our master.

[Kevin]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN

[Julian L Hawksworth]

Staying with the same kind of subject, I also recommend that readers of this post should sign the petition which YMT has drawn attention to. There is also another one on this issue, at petitions.no10gov.uk

[Julian L Hawksworth]

Correction! The site to which YMT refers has no petition, although it does have an interesting and informative article about this subject. My apologies.

[Marian]

"Graying is wrong; soppy knee jerking liberalism"

Where as your reaction is its rightist equivalent?

A DNA database of all citizens, sounds like a recipe for abuse to me. I can see that such a database is useful for catching sex offenders, but how often is DNA evidence that cut and dried? Often the DNA evidence is far more open to interpretation. For example a murder happens and a cigarette butt is found near by which has your DNA on it. In a trail such evidence can be absolutely devastating despite the fact that it proves very little. DNA in the hands of an unscrupulous police officer is a recipe for abuse. It might be acceptable to hang onto the DNA of convicted criminals but as for the innocent, there should be no presumption that they will ever commit an offense. I consider myself to be on the right of the party, and as far as I am concerned the DNA data base hanging onto the DNA of innocent people is offensive. Its exactly this type of thing that is a recipe for a repressive police state. No way would I give the government my DNA willingly.

[Thatcherite88]

Good to see some opposition for once from the shadow cabinet. Why should inncoent people be treated as criminals because they were suspected of a crime? This is just another example of the 'security state' that the Labour party is allowing to creep up upon us and before we know it we won't be able to sneeze without the government taking records of it!

[YMT]

@Julian

When it comes to the massive encroachment of EU sanctioned control of data networks as a powerful surveillance tool the socialist EU and its partner countries will never give up their relentless pursuit of controlling, recording and utilising private citizen data for means of control. Democracy means nothing to these people.

But! there are ways around it, with new barriers will come new methods for protecting the user that eventually will become easily adopted by the masses.
All it takes is one ISP to located a high-speed connect to a server base offshore so that it is outside the control of the EU or UK government, then it's simply a matter of having a router/model or OS with VPN functionality to automatically connect to this server and utilise it as the internet gateway. The ISP would provide the road the external protect server would provide the data. It's amazing that its starting to come to this.

[Julian L Hawksworth]

I am most reassured by your "ways around it", YMT? How would it be paid for? Also, would it mean that our country is in contravention of any mandatory legal requirement to the EU? Of course, leaving the EU altogether would prevent that issue from ever arising.

As you suggest, the current situation is already dire. We should say no to the "database state". Clearly, it is not just libertarians who are concerned about this issue.

[JPW]

The DNA database is an effective tool for solving crime. I would support its extension to include all citizens and long term visitors/residents.

[Malcolm Stevas]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN

[Julian L Hawksworth]

JPW, you are missing some key points. Most of us do not want to live in a society, where we are considered "guilty until proven innocent". In your utopian world, there would be an increased risk of miscarriages of justice too. Already, there have been examples in the news of cases in which DNA evidence has been misused.

[YMT]

@ Julian

Windows 2x and plus are natively able to set-up and go secure VPN connections, I would go with opensource prods myself, then there is other more complex software for other secure comm such as SSH for secure comm between devices. One can also buy a VPN capable router from a company such as Draytek, The crux of the matter is that getting around these laws is easy for someone with the know-how, its a hassle but all it serves it to place an extra cost on ISPs and penalise the standard user.
You can either buy VPN accounts in the US, or get a friends in a country with good laws to set up a VPN server for you to use. Of course VPN connections are slower than your basic ISP connection.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Why was my post at 14.48 overwritten? It was not abusive.

[anne allan]

How about a return to writing letters? Or pigeon post?
Dead letter drops are out of the question because our every move is photographed.
What a dreadful Orwellian society this has become.
How did we get here?
How do we escape?

[Hugh Oxford]

Get with the program folks. Millennia of ancient liberties are as so much canine excreta to New Labour. Thought you had freedom of speech? Think again. Thought you had habeas corpus? Ha ha ha ha ha. Thought you were innocent until proven guilty? Oh that's just SOOO first millennium.

For Kafkaesque stuff that makes you wonder why we have a legislature at all, check out the definition of a "hate crime".

New Labour despise us. You have little idea how much they despise us.

[Steve Foley]

Totally with Chris Grayling on this one!

My problem is that I no longer trust "officialdom". Let us say there was a rape in my area and the Police ask for DNA samples from all males between the age of say 14 and 80. Now I give a sample and of course I am not in any way connected and in due time the rapist is apprehended, charged, and found guilty. Now of course the Police will say "We will destroy all samples from innocent people". But WILL they? Would it not be too tempting to retain this valuable resource? Now I understand that a small sample is all that is required so what is to stop them handing me back a small bottle with my sample to flush down the toilet or whatever I wish to do with it but keep some back for their database. I would never know after all?

No, I do not like this idea one little bit, and let's face it, one cannot get anything more innocent than a newborn baby so why take its DNA?

[Masi]

Anyone who supports a DNA database does not understand the science. DNA is NOT a way of identifying people infallibly. Yes it works sometimes, but can't you see what will happen? An innocent person is accused and denies the charge, "but the DNA says he's guilty so he's guilty". What would you do if someone was a mosaic for a critical SNP, what about say a cancer patient who has multiple mutations everywhere? Take some classes in basic biology before you pollute your misguided views.

[John Broughton]

I support all those who have rightly identified that the state exists to serve us and not we the state.

There is a case to be made for convicted criminals to have their DNA (and other identifiers) retained on a data base (so the state can lose it!) but as Masi correctly says DNA is far from infallible and any prosecution ought to rely on the weight of evidence rather than DNA indicators.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Steve Foley:
"..I give a sample and of course I am not in any way connected and in due time the rapist is apprehended, charged, and found guilty. Now of course the Police will say "We will destroy all samples from innocent people". But WILL they? Would it not be too tempting to retain this valuable resource?"
But you haven't just thought of this, have you? History teaches us infallibly that the answers to your two questions are (a) No, and (b) Of course it would. Whatever powers are granted to the State and its servants, wherever and whenever, those powers will be abused. Full stop. It's bad enough when they're just ordinary things like granting themselves expenses which they use to buy new kitchens or soft-porn DVDs... But when you grant them the ability to seize your DNA - the unreliability of the science notwithstanding - and keep monstrously detailed records of people who are not convicted of any crime, things become very dangerous. I am disturbed by the number of people, including many on ConHome, who are sanguine about such things.

[Jill, London]

Chris Grayling says: “people are innocent until proven guilty” – and that’s the basis of our law. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution.

However, in France under what’s called the Napoleonic Code – it’s the reverse – guilty until proven innocent.

Why does it look as if the Comrades are trying to invert our whole legal system, and bring in the Napoleonic Code?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

That well known right wing organisation, the BBC:

"Introduction
Recent advances in scientific knowledge have produced sophisticated analytical techniques surrounding DNA, whereby samples can be traced to specific individuals. This has particular practical value to criminal investigations, as DNA has been produced in court as evidence to help secure convictions; DNA matches are now so sensitive that according to statistical probability, only one person could have left the sample. The work in this field has obvious implications for other pursuits, including genealogy; the ability to connect branches of the family, often separated by both geographical and chronological distance, is only one possible use, alongside more prosaic activities such as determining paternity".

"Chris Grayling says: “people are innocent until proven guilty” – and that’s the basis of our law. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution".

Very perceptive of him. But first police have to be in posession of evidence before a case is taken to court to test the burden of proof. Criminals have been caught because police had the DNA of their relatives.

[SimonToo]

Those that propose a universal DNA database are suggesting that it could be used to establish innocence. That is mistaken. The absence of a DNA match cannot prove innocence. At best it can say that one individual's DNA does not correspond to any of the samples actually found and collected at the scene of the crime - it cannot prove he was not there committing the crime.

[Thatcherite88]

@JPW

DNA evidence is not 100% accurate, I believe the current figures are 99.7% accurate. This means that for every 997 crimes solved correctly, 3 innocent people may be convicted. I am aware that DNA on its own will not lead to a conviction, but any risk that innocents could be prosecuted turns me off the idea.

When I read ideas regarding this, I see a draconian, police-state mentality that is creeping into our state.

On an interesting aside: Would you really trust the Labour government with even more confidential details? I certainly don't want mine left on a train.

[Ross Warren]

"From Monday Internet providers will start storing all user data details of customers e-mails, website visits and net phone calls under an EU directive."

This is an issue that really should be the subject of its own thread Tim.

A very worrying development which in one stroke has destroyed any illusion that our Internet communication is private. Of course they will say "if you have nothing to hide, why would you object". The golden age of the Internet is over and has been for sometime now. Of course those who really are determined to stay invisible can continue to use a dial-up connection for the time being.
At least that way they will continue to be issued a different IP address each time they log on. Yet another important freedom has been distroyed without any public debate.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

An interesting case below - the full details can be read by a Google search on the case - whereby the request for a retrial was overturned. The case involved a partial DNA sample evidence and complicated by the accused having a brother:

"R. v. Watters
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
October 19, 2000

The appellant appeals against conviction by leave of the full court.
He was arrested on 16 December 1998 in connection with the two counts on which the learned judge directed acquittal. A DNA sample was taken from him and was matched with DNA profiles taken from cigarette ends that had been found at the scene of what were described as five sophisticated burglaries of commercial premises in Birmingham which had occurred over two years before, in 1996. Those burglaries were burglaries of a warehouse, a betting shop and three post offices.

There are features of each burglary that are remarkably similar, for example as to the manner in which the premises were entered and the sophisticated attacks on safes that then took place therein.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant was part of a team responsible for each of the five burglaries. They relied solely on the DNA evidence taken from the cigarette ends found at the scene of those burglaries. In so far as that evidence may not have been strong in relation to some matters, they indicated that the jury could draw an inference from the similar features that in fact the same team had been responsible for each of the burglaries.
The appellant denied the offences and contended that the DNA evidence was relatively weak.

There was evidence from the police officer in the case, Detective Constable Piggott, that the appellant had two adult brothers and that one of them had been arrested and released without charge in connection with these offences. DNA samples had not been taken from him, nor had they been taken from the brother who had not been arrested. No other evidence was called which in any way eliminated the brothers from the enquiry.

"I estimated the chance that a brother of Robert Watters would share the same DNA profile as him is about 1 in 29,000." (DNA profiling expert at the trial).

That means, as we understand it, that the odds are considerably more than was thought to be the case at the time of the trial in favor of the police having charged the right man. However, at the end of the day, greater though those odds are, they do nothing to eliminate the possible brother. They certainly make it unlikely, perhaps unlikely in the extreme, that it was the brother, but they are not sufficient, taken on their own, to enable one to be sure that it could not be the brother in the circumstances of this case. We do not think that that would be a sound basis for ordering a retrial. For those reasons, we allow this appeal. We quash each of the convictions and we make no order as retrial.

Every case of this kind has to be judged on its own facts. There is no rule that enables the court to say, well, when a figure reaches a certain level then it is safe to leave it to the jury, but below that it is not. But in every case one has to put the DNA evidence in the context of the rest of the evidence and decide whether taken as a whole it does amount to a prima facie case". For full text see source as above.

It would appear in this case the prosecution was weaked by not being in possession of the DNA of the brothers.
I would agree that we cannot rely on DNA alone, but that is why we have the burden of evidence tested and juries. Police are not the ultimate arbitrators.

I sill favour a DNA data base.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

On 23rd March (see Hansard) the Home Secretary was able to get away with assertions that 'her' DNA database was both legal and in accordance with human rights legislation by claiming that its existence was in the common good, despite the fact that the latest report by the Rowntree Foundation (http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State.pdf) states precisely the reverse. Indeed, it singles out the DNA database; NIR; Contact Point; Detailed Care Record; Common Assessment Framework; ONSET; National Fraud Initiative; DWP information sharing programme; communications data sharing and Interception Modernisation Programme and Prum network as initiatives that should be scrapped immediately. What I also find most telling is that Smith lays a proprietorial claim to said database; it is by her own admission 'hers'; she has in effect defined herself as the arbiter and overseer of the nation's morals and personhood. Such a stance is highly dangerous due to its very illogicality; it brooks no argument and takes no account of individual concerns or, indeed, of individuality at all save that of the self-appointed Justice.

[Stephen]

I can see from the comments above that the Tories also have problems with few totalitarian loonies who want to put innocent people on a criminal database. Though you can take satisfaction that there are fewer of them here than on a Labour blog. I simply do not understand their mentality. They say 'what have you to worry about if you haven't committed any serious crimes'. Well I haven't committed any serious crimes so why do you want my DNA? 'But you might do so in the future so we have to have your DNA'. So you think by accusing me of being a future rapist, I am am going to let you have my DNA? If you want it, you can scrape it from my cold dead hand; and you can work out for youself what might happen to you in the process!

[Stephen]

On 23rd March (see Hansard) the Home Secretary was able to get away with assertions that 'her' DNA database was both legal and in accordance with human rights legislation by claiming that its existence was in the common good, despite the fact that the latest report by the Rowntree Foundation

Rather more importantly, Smith's statement is at odds with the ECHR, which ruled last November 17 to zero that the government's DNA retention policy was against article 8.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Stephen:
"I am am going to let you have my DNA? If you want it, you can scrape it from my cold dead hand; and you can work out for youself what might happen to you in the process!"
Way to go, Stephen! You're playing my tune. The English used to be renowned for their stroppiness, which made them somewhat feared across the Channel, but of late we seem to have turned into apathetic, cowardly wimps. A refusal en masse to tolerate such gross impositions as compulsory DNA sampling would be the most encouraging development in years, together perhaps with the sacking of a few government buildings and the lynching of selected MPs and Ministers...

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Rather more importantly, Smith's statement is at odds with the ECHR, which ruled last November 17 to zero that the government's DNA retention policy was against article 8.

Posted by: Stephen | April 07, 2009 at 16:58

Would that be the same mob that Lord Hoffman complains about subverting British justice with the Human Rights garrotte?

Another post by Stephen | April 07, 2009 at 16:33 informs that some of us are totalitarian nuts, where in fact we believe that DNA will help save further victims.

Someone cites the Rowntree Trust. Its motto: "We fund political campaigns in the UK to promote democratic reform, civil liberties and social justice". (I wont be joining) Having just read parts of its blog I have come to the conclusion that its contributors are from the great and the good, Left leaning and what Thomas Sowell would call the "Self Anointed" and very much likely to make matters worse.

I note, that very much against the advice of the security services, that it wants intercepted evidence produced in court; is very much for the surveillance measures undertaken by the Government to obtain intercepted evidence, but in another piece moans the fact that we are (supposedly) living in a surveillance society.

I am not quite sure if it is or it isn't a charity, but I wont be donating.

[Stephen]

Would that be the same mob that Lord Hoffman complains about subverting British justice with the Human Rights garrotte?

No that is your rather juvenile and offensive characterisation of them. And not what Hoffman said, by the way. Strange how Hoffman has become the hero of the right wing nutters suddenly. He wasn't so much to your taste when he was indicting the tyrant Pinochet. Go figure, as they say.

Another post by Stephen | April 07, 2009 at 16:33 informs that some of us are totalitarian nuts, where in fact we believe that DNA will help save further victims

The question is whether the government's DNA retention policies will save further victims and there is no substantive evidence that it will. So believe what you will. Evidence is what counts.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"No that is your rather juvenile and offensive characterisation of them. And not what Hoffman said, by the way. Strange how Hoffman has become the hero of the right wing nutters suddenly. He wasn't so much to your taste when he was indicting the tyrant Pinochet. Go figure, as they say.
Posted by: Stephen | April 07, 2009 at 21:12

Well, I figure this: is this some of what Lord Hoffman said, as recounted by Melanie Phillips (a right wing nutter perhaps?)

"Now he tells us! One of this country’s top judges has torn into the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Lord Hoffmann, the second most senior Law Lord, has questioned the court’s constitutional legitimacy, ridiculed its judgments and said it should get its nose out of our national affairs.

Given the fact that human rights law has effectively become a secular religion for the higher judiciary, this is what you might call a flying wig moment.

Some of us, after all, have been saying for years what Lord Hoffmann has now proclaimed.

But before anyone gets carried away with elation that common sense has at last broken out among the judges, it should be realised that these comments stop well short of tackling the real problem".

As for Pinochet: are you a Left-wing "nutter" (to use your descriptive nutter word) I believe that Mrs T was quite sympathetic toward him - so what was she?

“The question is whether the government's DNA retention policies will save further victims and there is no substantive evidence that it will. So believe what you will. Evidence is what counts”.

DNA has put away those that if left to carry on would have continued being an absolute dangerous menace. Evidence is not what counts - on all sorts of issues. From our membership of the EU to Global Warming being non-existent; the politically expedient classes ignore evidence with an axe to grind and an election to win. Imho Grayling is ignoring the evidence.

The "Party of Law and Order" with its continual bleating that we are living in a police state might well find itself relabelled by Labour as the party of Lawless & Disorder.

[Stephen]

DNA has put away those that if left to carry on would have continued being an absolute dangerous menace

Such formulaic responses imply that you do not understand the point on which the ECHR ruled against the government. It ruled that its retention policy was in violation of article 8, without - and this is the critical point - there being sufficient countervailing evidence that it was a necessary violation of article 8. If the government complies with the court's ruling, the police will still be able to take DNA samples from arrested people and match them to those recovered from crime scenes. What they will not be able to do is retain the sample or the profile if the person is not convicted. Nearly all of the 'cold case' successes attributed to the DNA database arose through this mechanism. And that is why the government lost, as it was unable to show that its blanket retention policy made a significant difference to crime detection rates.

The "Party of Law and Order" with its continual bleating that we are living in a police state might well find itself relabelled by Labour as the party of Lawless & Disorder

Defending the rights of the innocent not to be placed on a criminal database is supporting law and order.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

I admit that the following is tangential to DNA but it is an example of "Evidence" of NOT living in a police state: From the Telegraph: "Welfare cheats have nothing on MP's.

Benefits cheat Sylvia Rogers claimed £28,000 from the state which, by shrewd investment and careful husbandry she turned into a very comfortable £60,000. She showed up in court this week, provocatively wearing novelty socks with "Show Me the Money" on them, and received a six-month suspended sentence. She should also be fast-tracked on to a women-only shortlist for a safe seat. With such an eye for financial detail, Mrs Rogers, from Wythenshawe, Manchester, would be at home in the Palace of Westminster.

A stiff suspended sentence - she must be terrified.

[Stephen]

I admit that the following is tangential to DNA but it is an example of "Evidence" of NOT living in a police state: From the Telegraph: "Welfare cheats have nothing on MP's

'Tangential'? It is utterly irrelevant. And in any case, the argument against the government's DNA retention policy does not rest on some silly assertion that this country is a 'police state'. It rests on its being unjust to place the innocent on a criminal database and a violation of their privacy that cannot be mitigated by any improvement in the detection of crime.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

'Tangential'? It is utterly irrelevant. And in any case, the argument against the government's DNA retention policy does not rest on some silly assertion that this country is a 'police state'. Posted by: Stephen | April 07, 2009 at 22:57

I am pleased to see that you agree that this country being a police state (an assertion made by some leading Tories) is a silly assertion. At least we agree there.

I note that you have nothing to say about "Lord Hoffmann, the second most senior Law Lord, who has questioned the court’s constitutional legitimacy, ridiculed its judgments and said it should get its nose out of our national affairs".

Imho you are somewhat "holier than thou" in you approach to a DNA data bank. I have said all that I intend to, so you can have the last word for the defence.

[Stephen]

Imho you are somewhat "holier than thou" in you approach to a DNA data bank. I have said all that I intend to, so you can have the last word for the defence

Yes, you have defended the criminalisation of the innocent. If taking exception to that makes 'me holier than thou' then so be it. I am content to stand for what is right and and just.

[D Walton]

Excellent - you've got my vote !!!(ex-Lab voter)