Watchdog criticises DNA database plan

The Government today insisted it has not finalised its plans for a national DNA database branded a threat to human rights.

The Department of Justice said work was still ongoing on the proposals, which have come under attack from the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC).

The official watchdog said the present plans for a database which will indefinitely retain people’s genetic identities is an unacceptable invasion of the right to privacy.

It said the Government’s proposals fall short of European and international standards and needed further safeguards to avoid potential miscarriages of justice.

Des Hogan, the watchdog’s acting chief executive, urged a major public debate over the scheme ahead of any legislation being brought in to set up a database.

“The current proposal to indefinitely retain samples is an unacceptable invasion of the right to privacy,” he said.

“The commission recommends, in general, the removal and destruction of the DNA samples of people who have not been convicted of a criminal offence as soon as possible after the conclusion of legal proceedings.”

The Government wants to create a DNA database that would store the genetic identities of suspects and convicted criminals for use in Garda investigations.

It would also allow for voluntary mass screenings of population centres such as villages or neighbourhoods at the centre of rape or murder inquiries.

The planned database is provided for in the Criminal Justice (Forensic Sampling and Evidence) Bill expected to be published later this year.

The Department of Justice moved to allay fears about the database insisting it will take note of the IHRC’s concerns.

“The department is consulting widely in developing its legislative proposals in advance of publication of a draft Bill by the end of the year,” a spokeswoman said.

“The observations of the commission will be examined as part of that consultation process.”

The IHRC also warned against the routine use of mass screenings in Garda probes, insisting anybody volunteering for screenings should be given legal advice.

“Such screenings should not be used as an ordinary investigative tool, but should only be used when other less intrusive and expensive methods have proven unhelpful,” said Mr Hogan.

“Any person volunteering their DNA sample should be made fully aware of the implications of doing so, and should be entitled to withdraw their consent without difficulty.”

The human rights watchdog said it was concerned about a provision allowing DNA samples to be passed to other bodies and agencies both inside and outside the state.

It wants safeguards written into the laws ensuring this only happened in exceptional circumstances and under strict and rigorous procedures.

Informing the owner of transferred information should be mandatory, allowing the individual a chance to challenge the transfer in advance, it argued.

The IHRC called for the video recording of taking bodily samples – usually through a mouth swab or hair strand – and stringent safeguards for dealing with the vulnerable.

“A DNA database stores and retains the most personal information an individual may possess,” said IHRC president Dr Maurice Manning.

“The guarantee of a person’s right to privacy is fundamentally affected by the retention and storage of their DNA sample on a database.

“The commission believes that a widespread inclusive debate is essential to ensure that the general public fully understand the implications of this new technology before a DNA database is established.”

In Britain, a DNA database was set up 12 years ago, originally only keeping samples of convicted criminals but which has now been extended to retain samples of everyone who comes into contact with police for arrestable offences.

There are 3.5 million on that database, around half a million of them children who could remain on the register indefinitely, according to the IHRC.