DNA – cearta.ie

Under changes announced last Friday (11^th), DNA profiles and fingerprints taken from people who have been arrested but never charged or convicted of a crime will be destroyed. Previously, police had powers to keep these records indefinitely. This legislation draws heavily on the recommendations made by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in the 2007 report ‘The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues’ which had suggested that the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be brought into line with Scotland, where other than in exceptional cases, DNA profiles and biological samples from a person are kept permanently on record only if they have been convicted of a recordable offence.

via humanrights.ie

This post, by David O’Dwyer, doctoral student at the Centre for Criminal Justice at the University of Limerick, updates my post on Retention of DNA, and the effect of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. There is a good piece in the Guardian about the issue: DNA profiles to be deleted from police database. And Cian Murphy has an excellent discussion of the Bill in which the DNA proposals are to be found: Protection of Freedoms Bill Published. Magna Carta Unfazed.

…

Maud Newton | A talk with Misha Angrist, whose genome is online

30 January, 2011

| No Comments

| General, Privacy

My friend Misha Angrist, a former geneticist and the author of Here is a Human Being At the Dawn of Personal Genomics, answers some of my questions about DNA research at The Awl.

Holy crap, Misha, you’re making your entire genome public! Are you nervous?

It’s already done. All of my data are here. Frankly I don’t think anything in my DNA could be as embarrassing as this kelly green shirt that continues to taunt me from the interwebs.

via maudnewton.com

…

NI High Court reluctantly holds that police retention of photos and DNA compatible with ECHR

21 January, 2011

| No Comments

| General, Privacy

JR 27’s Application [2010] NIQB 143 (Judgment No 2) (23 December 2010)

The judgment of the Divisional Court (Morgan LCJ, Weatherup J and McCloskey J) was given by McCloskey J:

[2] This is an application for judicial review by a litigant to whom anonymity has been granted, by virtue of his age. The factual matrix, which is uncontentious, can be stated in brief compass. The Applicant is aged fourteen years. On 7th October 2008, he was arrested by the police by reason of his suspected involvement in a burglary. At the police station, in the presence of his solicitor, he was interviewed. Following interview, the Applicant provided two DNA samples and fingerprints and he was photographed (hereinafter described as “the impugned measures”). He neither consented nor objected to the impugned measures. By letter dated 21 November 2008, the Public Prosecution Service intimated that the Applicant would not be prosecuted.

III THE DECISIONS IN S and MARPER.

[10] … In R (S and Marper) –v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196 [[2004] UKHL 39 (22 July 2004)] … by a majority of four to one, the House of Lords held that the retention of the Applicants’ fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles did not interfere with their right to respect for private life under Article 8(1).

…