Report of the Civil Liberties Panel: Protecting the innocent: the London experience of DNA and the National DNA Database

Report: 4
Date: 30 June 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This is a covering report to the Civil Liberties Panel review into the National DNA Database and the use of DNA in the Metropolitan Police Service.

The Panel’s report is circulated with this agenda as a separate document (appendix 1).

A. Recommendations

1. endorse the findings of the Panel; and
2. endorse the proposal that the MPS should respond to the recommendations within 3 months of the publication of this report and produce a timetable for implementation.

B. Supporting information

1. The Civil Liberties Panel (the Panel) was set up as part of Met Forward, the MPA’s strategic plan. The Panel is chaired by Victoria Borwick. Other members are Valerie Brasse, Dee Doocey, Kirsten Hearn, Jenny Jones, Clive Lawton and Joanne McCartney.

Rationale

2. The Panel decided to focus on DNA and the DNA Database due to heightened political, media, public and civil libertarian concerns following the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the blanket and indiscriminate retention of DNA in England and Wales is in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, the Right to Privacy.

3. The Government responded to the European Court of Human Rights ruling with the Protection of Freedoms Bill which was presented to Parliament in February 2011. The Bill is currently at the committee stage in the House of Commons. Primarily the Bill seeks to limit the retention of DNA samples and of DNA profiles retained on the DNA Database depending on conviction, the type of offence and if the offender is an adult or child.

4. The Panel wanted to focus on the London experience of the taking of DNA from an individual by the Met, for the purposes of investigating crime. This includes a number of processes culminating in the recording of a DNA profile on the National DNA Database.

Methodology

5. In the process of gathering evidence for this report the Panel engaged with the public, community and civil liberty groups, through a public meeting and an online survey. Evidence was taken from senior MPS officers, forensic science practitioners and national policing organisations. Visits to an MPS Custody Suite, an accredited DNA laboratory and the National DNA Database Custodian were undertaken. The Panel also spoke to government groups and advisors including the Forensic Science Regulator and the Chair of the National DNA Ethics Group.

In summary, the Panel found:

• Public uncertainty about when and why DNA is taken by the police, how it is used and who else has access this personal information. There was a lack of clear and simple information available to inform the public
• A need for consistency and integrity across all DNA processes within the MPS from collection through to the eventual storage, recording and destruction.
• Some members of the public raised concerns about the process for applying to have their DNA removed from the DNA Database, including the time taken to be deleted after wrongful and/or unlawful arrest.
• A fear from some sections of the community that their DNA may be taken and used for unethical or illegal purposes.

6. The Panel acknowledges clear improvements in the management of DNA in custody suites within the MPS. However, the Panel believes that there remain issues around guidance, training and consistency which should be addressed. Additionally the Panel identified issues around communication to and information provided by police, to forensic service providers.

7. In relation to the current Protection of Freedoms Bill the Panel have documented the concerns of police regarding the impact of the current Bill provisions on the detection of crime. Cost implications and governance issues are also addressed.

Our Recommendations

8. The Panel make a number of recommendations (page 13 of the report) for the MPS which are focused on delivering clear, accessible information and reassurance for those who are having their DNA taken by the police, as well as the wider public. Recommendations are also made on the strengthening of MPS processes involved in relation to DNA in order to achieve consistency as well as urging the MPS to address a number of equality and diversity implications in relation to the use of DNA.

9. The Panel also comment on how communication, research, independence and an increased focus on ethical issues might enhance the governance structure and reassure and inform the public. These issues are noted for consideration by the Secretary of State, given current parliamentary debate on the Protection of Freedoms Bill.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equalities Impact

1. The review considers the extent to which the MPS has addressed the equality implications of the use of DNA and the DNA Database. This is covered within section 3.6 of the report and details the impact of MPS DNA policy in relation to some ethnic minority groups, young people and those experiencing mental ill health. It also examines the impact in relation to women and the importance of the DNA Database in relation to the detection of sexual offences.

2. The provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, if enacted, will go some way to address the concerns regarding the retention of DNA profiles for those not convicted of a crime. However, the MPA need to be reassured that the MPS are taking steps to fully consider the impact of its policies and practices in relation to DNA. The panel make a specific recommendation to the MPS in relation to this issue.

Met Forward

3. The Mayor set up the Civil Liberties Panel (CLP) in 2009 to look at whether the Met has got it right in terms of achieving a balance between reducing crime, protecting the public, and upholding civil liberties. The Civil Liberties Panel falls under the Met Specialist category within Met Forward. The CLP is a standing panel that meets as the need arises.

Financial Implications

4. The Panel was supported by MPA staff, as part of business as usual. The open meeting at City Hall incurred costs of approximately £4k, to cover venue hire, catering, sound equipment, webcast and provision of a transcript. There will be financial implications arising from the MPS implementation of the Panel recommendations. The MPA would be asked to outline these costs when they report back to the Authority.

Legal Implications

5. The report considers the implications of the enactment of the Protection of Freedoms Bill which is currently being debated in the House.

Environmental Implications

6. None.

Risk Implications

7. None.

D. Background papers

• Civil Liberties Panel Terms of Reference, Full Authority July 2009.

E. Contact details

Report authors: Simon Efford and Shirani Gunawardena, MPA

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback