UK uses fake case to justify DNA retention
Fake profile used to justify retaining DNA
Updated on 11 February 2010
Cathy Newman
Exclusive: Channel 4 News learns a government minister used a fake case study to justify retaining DNA samples from people not convicted of any crime.
Five case studies were used to illustrate the government's case for retaining DNA samples from those questioned by police, but not convicted.
Channel 4 News has learnt that one of the case studies put forward to a select committee by the Home Office minister, David Hanson, was a fake, copied from one of the other cases with the name changed.
In a letter to MPs on a committee scrutinising the Crime and Security Bill, Mr Hanson had set out the five case studies in an attempt to justify the retention of DNA samples.
But shadow home affairs minister James Brokenshire noticed that the first case study, involving a rape charge, bore certain similarities to the fifth case study.
Under questioning, the Home Office minister admitted that the two case studies were one and the same.
Today, Mr Brokenshire said; "The minister has clearly provided information that is fundamentally incorrect. He's saying it was an administrative error.
"Well at the very least it says gross incompetence in the preparation of evidence on such a sensitive and significant issue as DNA retention and its use in serious crime.
"I think he's got more answers to give in relation to this."
"Regrettable administrative error"
In a statement tonight, the Home Office said the two case studies had been duplicated because of a "regrettable administrative error".
It insisted that the evidence supplied to MPs illustrated the usefulness of the DNA database.
But David Hanson said: "The Tories are on the wrong side of the argument on this issue. The use of DNA is a very valuable crime fighting tool.
"We believe that the indefinite retention of the DNA profiles of all those convicted of crimes, and all juveniles convicted of serious offences together with the retention of the DNA profile of those who are arrested but not convicted for six years is an appropriate and proportionate approach based on the best available research.
"The case studies presented to the Committee, which were quite properly anonymised to protect the identities of the victims, provide further evidence of the usefulness of the DNA database."
"I offered an explanation to the committee regarding this regrettable administrative error, which the chairman accepted. We are currently writing a letter to clarify this and other information."
DNA concerns
The teenage model Sally Ann Bowman's killer Mark Dixie was brought to justice after his DNA was taken during a minor scuffle at a World Cup match.
But critics are concerned that samples from people who are arrested but not convicted remain on police databases for too long.
The Home Office was forced to change the law after the European Court of Human Rights ruled in November that DNA records of people who hadn't been charged or convicted could not be held indefinitely.
Measures going through parliament will allow people who are arrested but not convicted to remove their DNA from police databases after six years. But critics say that's still too long.
Damian Green had his DNA profile deleted after he was arrested as part of an inquiry into Home Office leaks.
But many innocent people have not been so successful.
And with five million samples on the national police database, the Home Office is under pressure to mount a better case for retaining DNA than it has so far presented to MPs.
