Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
that DNA profiles are retained on the database, even if the suspect has been
cleared.
2009 European Court of Human Rights
In the appeal case of S and Marper, the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHRs) ruled that the retention of samples collected from person for whom
there was no criminal conviction was a violation of Article 8 and 14 of the
Convention of Human Rights.
Criteria for entry onto the UK NDNAD
The original criterion for addition of a sample from an individual to the NDNAD was
that the person had been arrested for an offence punishable by imprisonment. If the
person was found not guilty at a subsequent trial, or the case was discontinued, then
their profile would be removed. In 2001 the Criminal Justice and Police Act allowed
samples to be retained on the NDNAD, even if the individual was not found guilty.
The regulations were further relaxed in 2003 and 2005 with the Criminal Justice Act
and Serious Organized Crime and Police Act. This led to an ever-increasing number
of DNA profiles added to the NDNAD with a mix of those for whom there was
a criminal conviction and those who provided a sample as part of an investigation
but no further action was taken. As of 2010 the NDNAD contained the profiles of
approximately 1 million individuals that had not been found guilty of any crime.
Challenges had been raised to the inclusion and retention policies of the NDNAD
and in 2008 a landmark ruling was made by the ECHR in an appeal case by two
individuals from England, S and Marper (S was under 10 years old when his samples
were taken). The proposed response from the UK Home Office to the ECHR's ruling
was that profiles of all those over 18 years convicted of a criminal offence to be
retained indefinitely; all samples from those under 10 to be removed; profiles of those
over 18 arrested but not convicted to be stored between 6 and 12 years; profiles from
those between 10 and 18 stored either up to the eighteenth birthday or stored for
12 years, depending on the nature of the offence [3, 4].
In addition to the inclusion and retention policies of the NDNAD, ethical concerns
have also been raised that the database discriminated against vulnerable sections of
society - 75% of young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 are on the
database, whereas only 22% of white males in the same age bracket are repre-
sented [5].
Technology underlying the NDNAD
The development of STR profiling was essential for the successful implementation
of a large-scale DNA database. Attempts had been made to construct databases of
VNTR profiles [6], and these did produce some matches. However, the difficulty of
Search WWH ::




Custom Search