Big Brother or crime fighting? DNA evidence under the microscope

10 October 2011 by

DNA database impact on human rightsA proposal to retain DNA samples taken from people who have been arrested but not charged with a crime for up to five years has come under criticism from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The committee has been reviewing the Protection of Freedoms Bill for its compatibility with human rights (see our post: Protections of freedom bill under scrutiny and the Committee’s conclusions). The retention of DNA has long been a hot topic.

On the one hand, many people feel strongly that retention of something as personal as someone’s genetic code should never be done when the person has not been convicted of a crime. As DNA analysis gets more advanced, it can reveal increasingly large amounts of information about a person.

However, those in favour of the practice of retaining DNA point out that retained DNA is used to solve serious crimes, and those who do not go on to commit crime have nothing to fear.

Ethnic minorities are often most seriously affected by the retention of DNA, raising the question of whether the practice is itself discriminatory.

The Joint Committee has stated:

Under the Bill, DNA profiles and fingerprints taken from innocent people arrested but not charged will be retained in “prescribed circumstances” for up to 5 years.  The committee concludes that in some cases this may create a significant risk of incompatibility with the right to privacy and calls for further evidence that this approach is justifiable.

As we have reported, in May 2011 the Supreme Court ruled in R (on the application of GC) (FC) (Appellants) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent). The majority found that they could interpret the DNA retention provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in such a way that it would be compatible with article 8 of the ECHR – see Rosalind English’s analysis.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights seeks to ensure respect for private and family life, and it is this right which the Joint Committee fears may be infringed. Whilst it welcomes many of the measures in the bill, on DNA it concluded:

Our predecessor Committee accepted that the Scottish model for retention of DNA samples and profiles taken from innocent people and children is more likely to be proportionate than the measures in the Crime and Security Bill 2010. We agree. In so far as these measures are designed, in comparison, to create a less intrusive mechanism for the retention of biometric material, we welcome the Government’s proposals. (Paragraph 10)

The Committee’s main issue with the proposals is that it provides too much discretion to Chief Officers:

We particularly welcome the decision to allow the Commissioner to overturn decisions on retention for national security purposes. Unfortunately, in the light of the proposed discretion being granted to Chief Officers in practice, we remain concerned about the limitations in these proposed new safeguards

Read more:



  1. Stephen says:

    It’s a slippery and dangerous road that holds that “criminals” give up certain rights. For example, such a view could lead to criminals being used as compulsory experimental units by the medical profession as a means of repaying the debt they owe to Society. So-called criminals are human beings first and foremost. Attaching a label of “criminal” to them condemns them for life and denies them the opportunity to change.

  2. Ownership (of DNA) is one thing, many would concur that being a criminal abrogates certain rights – yet the rest of the world manages with far fewer on it’s National DNA databases than Britain. 5 years is excessive, given that “cold hits” are long surpassed and the likelihood of catching notorious murderers long past. The main concern is with deletion. The process must be independently verified and transparent, who now believes the police?

  3. Stephen says:

    Even those who have been convicted should have a right of respect for their private and family life. I say this despite he risk of being accused of being a “human rights zealot”.

    Retention of DNA, whether or not someone is convicted, opens up the path to a totalitarian state. If DNA is taken following an arrest, once it has been checked against DNA found at cold case scenes of crime it should be destroyed. There is little logic for retaining the DNA of a convicted TV licence dodger on the ground that the same person is likely to commit serious crimes later on. Such an argument is paranoid and irrational.

    It is difficult to see what can be more private than one’s DNA. What guarantees will there be that the State will not misuse or abuse this information? Will the Data Protection Act’s subject access provisions apply so that individual data subjects may retrieve details of their own DNA? Currently, the DPA is stacked against subject access in relation to personal data held for the detection and prevention of crime. The prospect of the State knowing more about me than it permits me to know about myself appals me. That inevitably alters the balance of power between individual and State in favour of the latter.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: