DNA evidence not a ‘knight in shining armour’ in fight against crime, warns Crockart (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh Liberal Democrats)

Edinburgh East and Musselburgh Liberal Democrats <Charles.Cavaye@talktalk.net>

DNA evidence not a ‘knight in shining armour’ in fight against crime, warns Crockart

July 6, 2010 4:00 PM
Originally published by Scottish Liberal Democrats

Edinburgh West MP Mike Crockart has today spoken in a debate at Westminster Hall on the use of DNA data in tackling crime.

The debate, initiated by Shipley MP Philip Davies, also dealt with CCTV, and addressed the government's proposed changes to the use of CCTV and DNA technology in fighting crime.

In the debate Mike urged against overestimating the potential of DNA technology to act as a "scientific knight in shining armour for serious crimes". He emphasised the need to "protect the right of the innocent to privacy" and expressed his concern at a system which had "blurred the line between guilt and innocence."

Mike criticised the "unrestrained proliferation of CCTV across the country". Pointing out that there are many more CCTV cameras in Shetland than San Francisco, he pointed to statistics showing that just one crime per year is solved for every thousand CCTV cameras, which cost the taxpayer £25,000 each. "The numbers just don't stack up", said Mike.

Mike stressed that both DNA and CCTV should be evaluated solely in terms of their effectiveness as tools against crime.

Raising questions about the cost-effectiveness of DNA information, Mike pointed out that while the cost of the National DNA database (NDNAD) - the largest of its kind in the world - had doubled in the past two years, the number of detections made using DNA information had fallen by a quarter over the same period due to what he called a "law of diminishing returns".

Mike strongly opposed the suggestion by the Conservative MP David Nuttall that DNA samples should be mandatory taken from all children at birth.

Speaking after the debate Mike said:

"There are too many people who believe that to have a safer society we need a CCTV camera on every street and to hold the DNA of every citizen. That's not a description I recognise."

"The move towards the Scottish model for using DNA against crime in England and Wales is long overdue and I welcome it. There should be no hazy middle ground between guilt and innocence - those who have committed crimes have forfeited their right to privacy, but I will oppose any system which threatens the right of innocent people to their privacy."

"Of course CCTV is an important weapon against crime if it's used strategically. The problem comes when it becomes something of a comfort blanket, giving people a false sense of security. That's when it can actually work against creating the kind of responsible society we need"

Notes:

Mike has a wealth of expertise on issues of crime and policing having worked as a police officer with the Lothian and Borders force for eight years.

· Home Secretary Theresa May recently outlined her intention to respond to a European Court of Human Rights ruling by moving the rules on DNA information in England and Wales closer to the Scottish model. The English system has allowed for the DNA of anyone arrested to be held indefinitely, whereas in Scotland only the data of people convicted of criminal offences is retained.

· Dec 2008: European Court of Human Rights ("S and Marper" case) found that the policy on DNA in England & Wales - eg indefinite retention on NDNAD of all samples, regardless of seriousness of offence, conviction - did not comply with Article 8 (right to privacy) of the EU. Charter of Human Rights; describes existing English/Welsh policy as 'blanket and indiscriminate'

· Court noted with approval the consistency of the Scottish approach (since 2006): data retained only on conviction, or for those arrested suspected of 'relevant' sexual/violent crimes; all other data deleted/destroyed; three year maximum retention period subject to two year extension on court application by sheriff/ Chief Constable

Govt response to ECHR ruling: Crime and Security Act 2010; fingerprint, DNA data from those arrested but not convicted to be deleted after 6 year period.