UK: Police to get new powers on DNA testing

[anonymous at openpgp.net]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000114832908976&rtmo=0xGisxNq&atmo=0xGisxNq&pg=/et/01/1/20/ndna20.html

By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor

THE prospect of routine DNA screening of the entire population drew nearer yesterday when the Government proposed to give the police the power to retain indefinitely samples taken from innocent people.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, said he would "proceed cautiously and proportionately" on extending the law further. But the measure would allow a tripling of the existing database of one million samples.

The proposal forms the centrepiece of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which also provides for a significant extension of police powers to control the streets and seize property. 

Officers will be able to issue fixed penalty notices for a long list of misdemeanours, ranging from drunkenness to throwing fireworks and making hoax 999 calls. The level of the fines has still to be fixed, but could be between £100 and £2,500.

Police will also be able to enforce curfews imposed on children up to the age of 16, stop people drinking in designated public places, arrest suspected kerb crawlers and close down unruly pubs. The Bill gives the police new powers to seize documents and computer disks even if they contain privileged legal information.

But the powers to retain DNA samples and fingerprints are the most controversial elements of the Bill. For the first time, police would be able to keep samples taken from volunteers, or from people later eliminated from inquiries for possible future use. At the moment, the samples must be destroyed if a suspect is not charged or not convicted.

The police called for additional powers after two cases in which convictions were quashed because guilt was proved with DNA evidence that should have been destroyed.

One was the case of Michael Weir, who was convicted of the murder of Leonard Harris, 79, on the basis of blood samples taken during a drugs investigation that was discontinued. As a result, his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal, although the Law Lords said later that this was "contrary to good sense".

Mr Straw said the new Bill would clarify the law in this area. He did not regard it as any more of an infringement of civil liberties than the widespread use of closed-circuit television cameras.

He said: "The public are more worried about the arrest and conviction of very serious criminals and persistent offenders through the use of this kind of evidence. They will widely welcome this change because it will greatly help the police and it will cut lots of costs."

Asked why he had not gone the whole way and introduced automatic screening of the population, Mr Straw said that the new measure was a "proportionate" response. He said: "You have to move cautiously in this area. I am clear that there is an overwhelming case for this change and there will be wide acceptance for it."

The Home Office hopes to build the national DNA database from one million samples to 3.5 million in the next three years. As well as retaining the samples and fingerprints of all suspects, those taken from volunteers in mass screenings will also be retained, provided they give written permission.

Ann Widdecombe, the shadow home secretary, said that the DNA and police seizure powers had "serious civil liberties implications". But she predicted that the legislation would run out of parliamentary time if an election were held in May.

She said: "This is yet another example of Labour's obsession with spin. It is little more than an attempt to grab headlines with spot fine and curfew powers that will overburden police forces when they are already at breaking point."

Simon Hughes, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "This is a typical mixture of useful reform and gimmickry. We are still to be convinced that fixed penalty notices will not turn into a bureaucratic mess."