DNA Retention Approach in the UK - Coursework Example

DNA Retention Approach in UK Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction In the context of criminal proceedings, most of European countries particularly England and Northern Ireland allowed the criminal investigators to take fingerprints and DNA samples. When an individual is arrested, sample of DNA was taken and recorder in the National DNA Database. The DNA profile of the arrested person could be kept for an indefinite period of time even if the person is acquitted of any criminal acts. According to statistics, United Kingdom has the largest DNA databases in the world. It is estimated that the database holds more than 5% of the country’s population. Despite its wide use in the country, there is great deal of issues regarding over representation of particular societies or communities. Evidently, most black young men represent the highest of people in the UK DNA national database. DNA database was established without explicit statutory grounds in reference to individual protection in the country. Unlike Scotland, DNA samples for suspected criminals were not destroyed when individuals were acquitted from any criminal acts (Arnold & Farringdon, 2007). This phenomenon attracted the attention of many human rights activists in the country and around the world. During the beginning of 21st century, a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) proposed eradication of this criminal approach arguing that the act amounts to invasion of individual privacy as conveyed in the European Convention on Human Rights. The case of S and Marper v UK brought the matter to the limelight. This case involved two claimants namely Sheffield England and Michael Marper, both citizens of United Kingdom. Mr. Sheffield was arrested in 2001 on allegations that he attempted robbery. When he was arrested, his fingerprints and DNA samples were taken and kept in DNA national database. Mr. S was acquitted later in June, 2001. Both Mr. S and Michael Marper went to court on claiming that the criminal investigators and authorities retained their fingerprints and DNA profiles despite the fact that their criminal proceedings were terminated through an acquittal (Grand Chamber, 2008). Basis of ECtHR arguments ECtHR unanimously dismissed the approach of handling criminals arguing that it was not compatible with privacy rights of an individual as stipulated in the European Convention Human Rights. This proposition was seconded by the European court which noted that DNA samples carries very sensitive information about individual health. The court held that retention of the cellular samples and DNA samples constituted interfering with the respect for private lives of the subject as contained in Article 8 of the constitution of United Kingdom. ECtHR claimed that retention of criminal fingerprints also interfered with private lives of the concern thus constituting interference, and this amounts going against basic human rights of individuals. Despite the fact that the blanket approach of retention of the samples is an attempt to detect criminals in the society, the court held that the interests and rights of citizen in protecting personal data. Therefore, fingerprint and DNA information forms an integral part of individual interests, and this matter outweighs the legitimate interests in the pursuit of crime detection in the country. Further more, the court held that the private character of cellular and DNA information demands that the court consider decisive measures that legitimatize the retention of the information without the concern of the individuals (Grand Chamber, 2008) ECtHR dismissed the approach as bogus and indiscriminative in nature hence required necessary changes to allow individual consent. Particularly, the court retained the delicate data irrespective of the gravity of the criminal act with which an individual was arrested for. The court could retain this information without considering the age of the person, and this amount breaching the rights of minors in the country. In conclusion, the court rules the matter in favor of the human right activist proposal. The court realized that the indiscriminate nature of powers vested upon them to retain fingerprints and DNA profiles of arrested but not convicted individuals, as applied in case of S and Marper v UK, did not consider private interests of the suspects. The court accepted that the government had overstepped its mandate in detecting criminals in the country. Therefore, the retention power amounted to inappropriate interference with private lives of the applicants, something unusual in democratic states. Measures taken by the United Kingdom in response to the matter The case raised eyebrows among human rights activists and the members of civil societies in United Kingdom and the rest of the world. To a greater extent, UK government was requested to intervene with the matter very urgently. When confronted by the human right bodies, UK government reiterated that fingerprints and DNA samples were kept in the National DNA databases within the jurisdiction of government and within the meaning of personal meaning stipulated in Data Protection Act. The government considered courts action to store the profiles was done while following section 64 of PACE hence does not amount to interference of private life of an individual or suspect. The government argued that it does so while considering the Section 1 and 8 of the Convention Act of England. The DNA profile taken for suspected individuals did not interfere with the psychological integrity of an individual. The government also stressed that such retention did not constitute breach to the rights of personal development but are meant to enhance positive relationship between human beings within the country. In responding to the looming accusations, the government emphasized that the permitted extent of use of the DNA profiles for criminal purpose was done within the limits of legislations (Arnold, & Farringdon, 2007). Upon realizing the nature and the gravity of the matter, the government took the necessary actions to improve the blanket approach. In response, UK government introduced numerous provisos in the Policing and Crime Bill. These provisions would enable the relevant authorities under the directions and the request of the government to make the necessary changes and regulations regarding the power of retention of the cellular and DNA samples of suspected criminals in the country. Through the paper, Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database, the government put forward appropriate regulations of the retention power which were later subjected to thorough consultations. Through the paper, the government proposed various measures that ought to be taken when handling Marper and Sheffield case; however, these measures could be subjected to consultations. In the paper, the government advocated for removal of the DNA profiles of suspected but not convicted individuals. Through the European Council, the European countries were requested to follow the UK response towards the matter. No sooner than the European countries eradicated the fingerprints and the DNA profiles of suspected but not charged individuals in court. However, United Kingdom did not remove the DNA profiles for all individuals on the premise that arrested but not charged individuals would offend in future. Immediately, the paper received sharp criticisms. Critics termed the paper as flimsy and ineffective in protecting the innocence individuals (Arnold & Farringdon, 2007). The consultation paper further stipulates that samples and DNA profiles would be destroyed and removed from national database upon justified acquittal and release of an individual from arrest. In the consultation paper, UK government was shortsighted hence missed public expectations. Critics argued that the government consultation paper failed the test of proportionality in the sense that the retention period of between six and 12 years were not explicitly justified. Despite numerous criticisms, the government proposals had some positive effects. In the consultation paper, the government proposed that physical DNA samples that were contained in the national database could be destroyed. The profiles that would be kept were those deemed important for further investigative purposes. According to the proposals contained in the consultation paper, the DNA profiles and cellular samples of court volunteers would not be kept in the national database. This principle was applicable especially when volunteers are in mass and come from similar geographical areas as this would force the court to undertake mass screening to promote smooth criminal proceedings. However, this provision had certain limitations that call for attention. The provision is not explicit on the fate of existing volunteers whose profiles are already in the DNA national database. People argued that the government should also remove them because there was no legal basis for such retentions (Casciani, 2009). Rainey (2008) asserts that UK government also conceded the matter and accepted that DNA and cellular samples taken from young people who are considered under age should have their DNA profiles removed from the national database. The government ordered the courts to remove DNA profiles for children below age of ten. Through the consultation paper, the government demanded the courts these profiles to be removed with immediate effect from the database. Plainly, it was a wrong moved by the courts and the criminal investigation departments to take and retain the DNA samples for the young children in the country. However, pressing concerns overcome the positives of the government proposal. In the consultation paper, it is explicit that the government failed to consider removing the fingerprints, cellular and DNA samples of grown ups who convicted and charged for minor offences (Rainey, 2008). The approach was bogus in the sense that it did not consider the negative effects of the approach on minors whose profiles had been kept in the DNA database. Broadly, the primary legislation has various shortcomings in reference to the basis of retention of the DNA profiles of individuals in United Kingdom. The express concerns of the ECtHR have been expressly left to government regulations that are expected to be improved by secondary legislations that ought to be established by the Home Office of UK government. The consultation paper does not explicitly clarify the express concern of the public concerning overrepresentation of particular ethnic minorities in the DNA National Database. As stated earlier, the black people represent the largest percentage in the DNA database (Rainey, 2008). To be precise, UK government response to the judgment of the case S and Marper V UK by ECtHR has not been sufficient enough as it does not alleviate major concerns that gave rise to such developments. The government has failed to provide sufficient justification as to why it retains fingerprints and DNA samples of innocent people in the country. The consultation paper proposed by the government does not consider the negative effects of DNA National Database on society solidity and structure within the United Kingdom (Arnold & Farringdon, 2007). Recommended reforms in the DNA retention approach As Police Foundation in United Kingdom advocated for restructuring of the DNA retention approach, I also contends that there is need for immediate revamping of the approach. Following the judgment from the case of Sheffield and Marper, it is vital to consider other additional areas to ensure striking balance between the private lives and public needs. To ensure balanced approach, the government through courts should formulate a policy which considers holistically the gravity of the offence committed by an individual. The approach should ensure that the DNA of the minors and those who have committed lesser criminal offences are not retained. The government should specify appropriate time-limits for DNA retention so as to concur with practices of other countries of European Union. It is recommendable that courts design a process which allows acquitted individuals to have their DNA profiles deleted from database without necessarily applying for such information to be deleted. Supposedly, the government should formulate effective procedures that would ensure that the integrity of the DNA data is preserved (Casciani, 2009). Conclusion Explicitly, United Kingdom government has violated the rights of suspects for a long period of time. DNA retention approach has been marred by numerous limitations hence resulting in invasion of rights privacy of suspected individuals. The government responses towards ECtHR reactions towards S and Marper v UK case are not sufficient enough. Therefore, there is need for more reforms to ensure maximum preservation of personal integrity and confidentiality (Casciani, 2009) Bibliography Arnold, G. & Farringdon, C 2007, A presumption of guilt: the government’s response to S and Marper v UK, Bradford School of Law, viewed 13 April 2011, Casciani, D 2009, Q&A: The national DNA database, viewed 13 April 2011, Grand Chamber, 2008, Case of S and Marper v The United Kingdom, Cardiff Law School, viewed 13 April 2011, Rainey, B 2008, Case comment: S and Marper v UK-protecting privacy and fighting crime: getting the balance right, Cardiff Law School, viewed 13 April 2011,   Read More