Sir, The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“Police are ordered to destroy all DNA samples taken from innocent people”, Dec 5) that the retention of DNA and fingerprint samples by the police breaches Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention makes it a certainty, in the light of the evidence from numerous cases in which DNA has eliminated or confirmed a suspect, that our criminal justice system will deliver more miscarriages of justice in breach of Article 6 (right to a fair trial). Paradoxically, it may facilitate the introduction of a universal database, as the gravamen of the decision is the stigmatisation under present law of innocent people being treated in the same way as convicted criminals.

The court rightly condemns “the blanket and indiscriminate nature” of the powers given to the police. Any national database should not be entrusted to the police but to an independent authority which would not release data from its custody save for good cause, eg, to the police if legitimately needed to match a sample in their possession. As the database would be universal and retention of samples have no time limit, it would not be biased against any individual or group or depend on an individual’s age, guilt or innocence.

The court expressed its wish to balance the “potential benefits” of the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system with important private life interests. On the benefit side there ought certainly to be included the equally important fair trial rights guaranteed by the convention which will minimise the dangers of miscarriages of justice. Such a balance, I suggest, would be achieved by a universal database held subject to stringent parameters.

Benedict Birnberg

London SE3

Sir, The innocent people affected by the landmark ruling from the European Court are not murderers and rapists — their DNA profiles and fingerprints will already have been run against every stored crime scene print and profile on the database. The removal of their records will therefore have no effect on hunts for murderers such as Sally-Ann Bowman’s killer, whose DNA was matched when he was arrested for a subsequent offence.

Britain has by far the largest DNA database in Europe, but one of the worst conviction rates for rape. Storing innocent people’s DNA for life is a shocking waste of money which could be spent on better policing. People should not be hoodwinked by the Government into thinking that they are betraying victims if they stand up for their rights.

Dr Helen Wallace

Director, GeneWatch UK

Sir, Holding DNA in perpetuity in the hope that it will facilitate the future solving of possible crimes is lazy policing and undemocratic. The 1 per cent of records that are eventually matched do not make a case for the 99 per cent of innocent citizens whose fundamental rights are at risk.

However, the furore over the ability to use the DNA of people brought in as suspects is simply resolved. In the same way that fingerprints are taken, DNA taken at the point of arrest might be used to match a crime scene database. In the event of no match, and the later proven innocence of the suspect, the record should be removed immediately from the database.

George Walker

Godalming, Surrey

Sir, Perhaps the police will now take urgent steps to place all 2.3 million criminals already on the Police National Database, but not on the DNA register, on to it. This may entail more effort, but should be seen as a priority.

David Reynolds

St Albans, Herts

Explore Letters

• Feedback