The government’s DNA?

There is more quite worrying evidence of the draconian approach taken by the British state with regard to individual civil liberties in today’s Guardian. It’s a shame the judiciary is not a more popular topic on UK Politics papers since it is such a rich vein of material on the battle between the state and the individual.

Today the Guardian reports that the government seems intent on deliberatelt dragging its feet in responding to a ruling by the European Court in Strasbourg (not to be confised, by the way, with the European Union) which stated that police could not hold DNA details of those not found guilty of any crime.

Say the paper:

“Chief constables across England and Wales have been told to ignore a landmark ruling by the European court of human rights and carry on adding the DNA profiles of tens of thousands of innocent people to a national DNA database.

European human rights judges ruled last December in the S and Marper case that the blanket and indiscriminate retention of the DNA profiles and fingerprints of 850,000 people arrested but never convicted of any offence amounts to an unlawful breach of their rights.

Britain already has the largest police national DNA database in the world, with 5.8m profiles, including one in three of all young black males. Thousands more are being added each week.

So far the Home Office has responded to the judgment by proposing a controversial package to keep DNA profiles of the innocent for six to 12 years, depending on the seriousness of the offence. The official consultation period ended today.

The advice to senior officers comes in a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers criminal records office. The letter, seen by the Guardian, tells chief constables that new Home Office guidelines following the ruling in the case of S and Marper are not expected to take effect until 2010.

“Until that time, the current retention policy on fingerprints and DNA remains unchanged,” it says. “Individuals who consider they fall within the ruling in the S and Marper case should await the full response to the ruling by the government prior to seeking advice and/or action from the police service in order to address their personal issue on the matter.”

What this case shows is that the judiciary has no power to enforce rulings and therefore is seen as relatively weak in rights protection. Definitely a good example to use in a question about judges and civil liberties.

In case you are unsure what the fuss is, campaigners argue that the Uk state has such an appalling record of keeping our personal data safe that the potential for misuse of highly sensitive data is cause for concern. There must, say opponents of the surveillance state, be compelling evidence that the expansion of big brother type schemes outweighs any dangers. And retaining DNA records of the innocent has no clear impact on crime, since other countries without such schemes (as well as huge numbers of CCTV cameras) have also witnessed similar falls in crime over recent years.