[Back to Document View]

                            LexisNexisª Academic

                Copyright 2001 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
                            DAILY MAIL (London)

                              January 20, 2001

SECTION: Pg. 6

LENGTH: 772 words

HEADLINE: Fears for civil liberty as Straw widens DNA database;
Police will store the genetic samples of thousands of innocent Britons 'This
is the state collecting yet more information on its citizens' Roger Bingham,
Liberty, yesterday 'The public are more interested in the prosecution of
criminals' Jack Straw yesterday

BYLINE: Michael Clarke

BODY:

DNA samples from innocent members of the public will be kept on file by
police, under plans unveiled by Jack Straw yesterday.

Detectives will no longer be obliged to destroy genetic samples taken from
suspects if they are cleared.

They will also be allowed to keep DNA and fingerprint samples taken during
mass screenings, when hundreds of innocent people come forward to help rape
and murder inquiries.

The plan will massively increase the size of the national DNA database,
which holds one million samples from convicted criminals. Within three years
it will more than triple to hold 3.5million samples. Yesterday civil
liberties groups were outraged at the Home Secretary's plans.

'This is the state collecting yet more information on its citizens,
particularly its innocent citizens,' said Roger Bingham from Liberty.

The proposals, contained in the new Criminal Justice and Police Bill, will
allow any samples 'lawfully taken' by police to be kept forever.

This will close a loophole that emerged in two separate cases in which one
man accused of rape and another accused of murder went free despite clear
DNA evidence linking them to the crimes.

The DNA database was already expected to grow substantially after cash was
allocated to allow the police to take genetic samples in a wider range of
cases.

The Government has pledged GBP 143million over several years to allow
samples to be taken at the scene of burglaries and car thefts.

The high cost of submitting DNA for testing GBP 43 a time means most police
forces only use it for the most serious crimes like rape and murder.

Yesterday's announcement was seen by some as a step towards a database of
the entire population, which has been demanded by some senior police
officers.

Mr Straw refused to rule out such a move but said there were no plans at
present.

DNA can be obtained from tiny fragments of hair, saliva, skin and semen and
matched to a suspect with unerring accuracy.

It is seen as the 21st century equivalent of fingerprints and a vital tool
in the war on crime.

But when the Tories set up the police DNA database in 1994 they agreed in
order to placate civil libertarians' protests that only convicted criminals
would be held on it.

Yesterday Mr Straw said: 'The public are more interested in the arrest and
prosecution and conviction both of very serious criminals but also of
persistent offenders like burglars through the use of this kind of
evidence.'

He drew a parallel with the growth of closed circuit TV cameras.

'Twenty years ago if you had said to people, if you walk through central
London it would be possible to track you on every street corner using CCTV,
there would have been lots of people talking about Big Brother. But they now
welcome it because it makes them feel safer.' The proposed police powers
follow the failed prosecution of Michael Weir for murder and Wendell Baker
for rape.

Weir was linked by DNA samples to the murder of pensioner Leonard Harris.

Baker was linked by samples to the scene of the rape of a 66-year-old woman.

In both cases, these samples were the only evidence against the men. However
they only came to light because of DNA samples each had given when arrested
over unrelated charges on previous occasions.

Under the existing law, once the unconnected investigations ended without
conviction, the DNA should have been destroyed.

But by mistake it was kept on the system, providing what the Court of Appeal
said was 'compelling' evidence of their guilt.

In a test case covering both men, Appeal Court judges said the law on DNA
was clear and the samples should not have been used.

But the Law Lords overturned the ruling, saying in such cases samples could
be used if the trial judge said so.

Mr Straw said the judgments had left the law confused and clearer
legislation was needed.

But civil liberties campaigners were aghast. Mr Bingham said: 'This is a
significant extension of police powers.

'Innocent people might be concerned about the amount of information about
them that could be kept on what is effectively the police's criminals'
database.' He said police already had the power to take DNA samples by
force.

Tory home affairs spokesman Ann Widdecombe said the plans had 'serious civil
liberties implications which will require detailed scrutiny'.

She added: 'With an election looming in coming weeks, there is little chance
of this Bill becoming law.

'There is nothing in this Bill to address the shocking rise in violent crime
and robbery revealed this week.' m.clarke@dailymail.co.uk

GRAPHIC: ANNE WIDDECOMBE: 'SCRUTINY' JACK STRAW: HE HOPES 3.5MILLION SAMPLES
WILL BE STORED BY 2004

LOAD-DATE: January 21, 2001