The Crime and Security Bill

Written by Colin Breed and published in Lowdown Article on Tue 19th Jan 2010

The Government's desire to push through as many Second Readings of Bills, knowing that they have little or no chance of being completed in Parliament before it is dissolved for the election, continues to amaze me. The latest is yet another Crime and Security Bill, in fact, the 60th criminal justice Bill since 1997. One might have thought they would have gotten it right by now, particularly as these Bills have introduced no less that 3600 criminal offences! One of the measures in this Bill even amends the Policing and Crime Act 2009, just 13 days after that Bill was given Royal Assent.

The Government has a penchant for bringing forward omnibus Bills which contain a variety of measures only loosely connected. Some have merit, some are innocuous but somehow, hidden amongst those, there is always one highly emotive, controversial and often unacceptable clause, as if by surrounding it with more reasonable measures will somehow make the offending clause more palatable.

In this case it is a clause dealing with the retention of DNA samples. The European Court of Human Rights determined that retaining DNA samples from people not convicted of a crime was of a "blanket and indiscriminate nature" and its use in a database was therefore illegal, violated their right to a private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. It seems pretty clear to me, yet what the Government is now proposing flies in the face of that decision and seeks merely to water down current practices by reducing the number of years such samples can be retained.

Even the effectiveness of the DNA database for innocents as a tool for fighting crime is itself questionable. Figure show that despite the huge increase in the number of profiles on the database, from 2.1 million in 2002 to 5.6 million at the last count, the number of detected crimes for which a DNA match was available has fallen from 21,098 to 17,614 last year. The Government wants to retain the right to keep the DNA of all innocent people for six years and has used as evidence, statistics which have been criticised by the Vice President of the Royal Statistical Society who believes "misleading arguments in public consultations should be regarded as a statistical felony." In effect, it is the statistical equivalent of lying to the House.

Clearly there has to be a divide between those found guilty of a criminal offence and those who remain innocent. It has been a fundamental principle of our law that a person remains innocent until proven guilty. To retain DNA samples of those who have been found innocent, those arrested and not even charged, and those who just happen to be a witness is not illegal, but it is deeply damaging to the legal traditions of this country. The Government is profoundly wrong on this matter and that is why I and my Party voted against the Second Reading of the Bill