back to article Police DNA retention ruled lawful by NI High Court

Northern Ireland's High Court of Justice has ruled that police retention of a 14-year-old boy's DNA was not illegal, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling that the blanket data retention policy conflicts with human rights law. The Court said that it could not follow the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights …


This topic is closed for new posts.

What do you expect

Police states will do what police states want to do regardless of whether other states flap about and call them naughty.

In this country we washed all of our human rights down the drain looking over our shoulders for terrorists and thinking of the children, so time to reap our rewards.


So, simply speaking...

no one gives a f**k about the ECHR ruling. Wonderful.

Thumb Down

The CSI effect

Someone in the House of Lords is deciding this and watches CSI. I've got news - it doesn't work like that.

Do any of them actually check how much this database costs and how effective it is?

Spending the money of frontline pollice would let police work get done.

We had a break in at work a few years ago and they came in with their alumnium power going all over the place.

Not one usable print.

Anonymous Coward

"effective it is"

This is a key issue.

Ever since courts cracked down on the spurious claims that lawyers et al. used to claim about the accuracy of DNA profiling, the importance of it in a case has diminished greatly (and justly, IMHO).

DNA profiling is used as one part of a defense/prosecution; and, having sat as a juror on a rape case, not a big one.

Alas, I can't source any hard figures right now, but we were told be a DNA profiling expert that DNA profiling normally helps cut a suspect list by around a third, but our expert had never heard of it acting as a deciding piece of evidence.

I'm not saying DNA profiling is useless at all, but the cost of maintaining such a database in a fair way might not be quite as productive as some people (The Mail, for instance) believe.

g e

Ah but!

Does that mean that witch burning is actually still legal then ?

To Westminster my righteous brethren, with torch and kindling!!


They're Irish...

...they just think he'll grow out of his DNA as he gets older!

Anonymous Coward

DNA everyone from birth

I would. Why not - oh, of course, human rights... yep.

Tell you what, imagine someone close to you was brutally attacked. DNA was left at the scene but that dna was useless because the database only went back so far because keeping samples longer was an infringement of human right.

DNA not effective? Bloody sight more effective than non at all or no database to check it against.

Don't keep sample of those that are not convicted of a crime you say? Of course, all murderers and rapists where innocent up until the point they committed the crime - we just need to wait until they get convicted of something so we can profile them. The fact that they were profiled years previously but the samples were destroyed because they weren't convicted is just par for the course.

Same as all those who demand we get rid of CCTV because it infringes their rights. Guarantee they would be the first to complain if something happened affecting them in an area that was previously covered by CCTV but now is not because someone complained.

DNA and CCTV have been directly responsible for the conviction of numerouscriminals who would still be walking free today if those who complain over their human rights had their way.

Thumb Down

The same CCTV

that has too low resolution to discern a face?

And the same DNA profiles that can be used to very easily fake evidence?

The more databases you have, the higher the chance that an error in one of them will affect you severely, rather than just slightly. And errors do, and will happen.

DNA and CCTV are useful aid for the court, but never should be sufficient for conviction, and AFAIK, they aren't, which means that there is other evidence as well. So I'd rather have my human rights, please. And even if, every now and then someone would slip through the net because of that (which I'm not as sure as you are), I'd rather have that than land in jail because of "database error".


Re: DNA Everyone from birth

Ignorant troll is ignorant.

Paris Hilton

And then imagine

That the sample at the scene was degraded and they had to use LCN DNA and it pointed to you even though it wasnt you ergo the Omagh bombing case


Just before the attack you kissed her/him on the cheek and the recovered DNA was from your salivia, thats you sharing soap with big bubba for 25 years, after all thats your DNA in an intimate place.

What you dont realise is that the DNA at the scene isnt useless, the oft quoted Sally Bowman case was solved because a sample taken lawfully following an arrest some time later produced a match to the crime scene.

I will wager two things, one you havent voluntarily provided a life time sample to the police and, secondly, that you believe CSI Vegas, Miami, Grimsby et al are reflective of modern UK policing!

If your so adamant the system works pop down your local nick and volunteer your DNA, just remember when you do, DNA at crime scenes carries no real time stamp so you better hope you havent shed a hair,skin or anything else somewhere that ends up a crime scene!


Was a juror on an attempted murder case.

The DNA evidence was one more useful piece of evidence in that case. Along with CCTV footage. If you take away evidence like this, what are we left with? Witness statements which often conflict or are poorly remembered due to the time involved. The defence loved to pick holes in the statements of witnesses and conjured up their own version of events, trying to pin the blame on another individual who hadn't yet been apprehended. If the CCTV hadn't shown the events so clearly that individual might have taken the blame because the witness descriptions of who had actually made the attack varied.


and here I was hoping...

that all POLICE past, present and future would have their DNA on record not only with the PD but avail for outside comparisons as well. Not that corruption has ever existed in a government.



EU? What is it goiod for?

European law has been proven to have primacy over UK law. Expect a big fine for HMG, which they will ignore.

Wankers all.

This topic is closed for new posts.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017