Tonight:
-1°c
Arrested teenagers' DNA to be kept on record for six years
Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor10.11.09
Thousands of innocent teenagers will have their DNA kept on the national database into adulthood.
Under plans to be announced tomorrow, the genetic profiles of any 16 or 17-year-old arrested for a serious violent or sexual offence will be held for six years - even if they are not convicted.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson will also rule that the DNA of adults who are not convicted should be retained on the database for six years.
The decisions will infuriate opposition politicians and civil liberties campaigners who argue that the DNA of the 850,000 innocent adults and juveniles whose details are on the national database should be deleted.
Campaigners accuse the Government of unfairly "criminalising" teenagers. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in December last year that the practice of blanket retention is illegal.
Mr Johnson, who was understood to be finalising his plans today, is preparing to defy his opponents because of concern that crime detection would be undermined if the DNA records of all innocent people on the database were deleted.
He will cite cases such as that of chef Mark Dixie, who was jailed for the murder of London model Sally Anne Bowman after a DNA sample he gave when arrested over a different incident was linked to the killing.
Mr Johnson will also claim that teenagers arrested for serious offences could commit crime in future and that to remove their DNA could reduce the chances of catching them if they do. He will use a similar argument to justify the retention of the DNA of innocent adults.
Previous plans to keep the genetic profiles of those arrested for serious offences for up to 12 years were abandoned last month in favour of the blanket six-year period for all samples.
Research has shown that most unconvicted people who go on to offend do so within six years. Only a relatively small number commit a first crime after this period.
Mr Johnson will argue that, although this means some crimes might be harder to detect, retaining the DNA of innocent people for beyond six years would not be appropriate because a significant number who are never likely to offend would be kept on the database for too long.
Tomorrow's planned announcement will dash hopes among critics that the Government would be abandoning its plans altogether.
Reader views (5)
DNA should ONLY be collected when someone is found GUILTY of a crime, in a court of law.
- Porky Pies, Land of Make Believe, UK
Sometime in 2007 I (black male) was driving a car in south london and was stopped by a white police officer who alleged that i was using my mobile fone while driving, i prooved to him that what he thought was a mobile fone was actually my sat-nav which came off the windscreen cause of a fault, and i had to hold it in my hand for the short period. He took my fone off me and checked my last dialled number...... he found out the last time i used the fone was about 1 hour before he stopped me.
Still he arrested me and took me to a police station where i was locked up for 3 hours and my DNA was taken. I was not charged with any offence but I am sure my DNA is still on the national database, now tell me? Was I guilty of any crime? I strongly think the DNA of innocent people who have not been convicted of any crime should be wiped off the national database. The aim of the whole DNA database will be defeated if officers store database of innocent people.
- Lola Phillips, London
The whole tenet of English law for centuries has been a presumption of innocence. All these Government databases are nothing short of sinister: the reasons for advocating them are quite trivial compared to the appalling crimes for which databases like this one have historically been used. It's classic Labour 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' - leaving the State free to wield a sledgehammer as and how it pleases.
- Roz, France
In case anyone decides to use the old chestnut "if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to fear". Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes.
Reuben - Even if the rest of your deranged comments didn't already signpost it, your description of fellow human beings as "sheeple" marks you out as the kind of arrogant and condescending person whose opinions are best avoided.
- Nolan, Londonist
The UK has the largest illegal DNA database in the world.
Peeps in the once UK and now called EUSSR have less freedoms than peeps living in Third World banana republic Police States.
You get exactly what you vote for sheeple.
- Reuben Camara, Plot 1, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR
