A Nation Of Suspects?

[Lonan3]

SUNDAY TIMES LINK

 

Police are holding the DNA records of more than 1m innocent people — eight times more than ministers have previously admitted.

Official figures slipped out by the Home Office last week show that almost one in three of the 3.4m individuals whose details are kept on the database do not have a criminal record or a police caution. The government has now been accused of trying to bury “the bad news” among last week’s police announcements over the murders of five prostitutes in Ipswich.

Earlier this year, the Home Office reported that the figure was just 139,463. But in a parliamentary answer last week, ministers said that of the 3,457,000 individuals on the database, just 2,317,555 had a criminal conviction or caution recorded on the Police National Computer. That means that 1,139,445 people have their personal details stored without having been found guilty of any crime.

 

Sir Alec Jeffreys, a pioneer of DNA forensic science, has said the expansion is out of control. He has condemned the “mission creep” behind the project, protesting that the database was never intended to include innocent civilians.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent think tank, has said the country risks being transformed from a nation of citizens into a nation of suspects.

Civil liberties groups say the DNA database is just the latest example of the gradual creation of the “surveillance state” by Labour. They warn that innocent people could find themselves under suspicion if their DNA is found at a crime scene through no fault of their own, for example on a stolen mobile phone.

 

I know there is the theory that 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear,' and the forces of law and order will protest that it's a great benefit in being able to eliminate innocent people from enquiries, but I can't help feeling uncomfortable with the feeling that so many of our personal details are becoming so available.

[lectro]

Store loyalty cards - Tesco etc. That's where the big abuse of personal information is going on. Analysing what you eat, drink, wipe your arse with is more intrusive than having your fingerprint or DNA on file along with everyone else. But hey the big corporations seem to get away with what they want. Anyway I disagree that having a DNA/fingerprint database is making the UK a nation of suspects. If it speeds up the solving of crimes, identifying bodies, proving identity etc then that can only be a good thing. The current case in Ipswich is an example. If there were a full national database then any DNA that were found on/in the bodies of the victims (and knowing their chosen profession there could be multiple samples) could be used along with traditional policing methods to eliminate people from their enquiries and close in quicker on the killer. Therefore the database is more about proving innocence and less about making you a suspect?

 

Having said all that I think the use of the database should be strictly monitored and any guidelines strictly adhered to. Plus to make the whole thing fairer everyone should be on the database - not just the 2million with convictions and the 1million.

 

Civil liberties groups say the DNA database is just the latest example of the gradual creation of the “surveillance state” by Labour.

Rubbish. Don't believe the hype. Big business spends more money harvesting, analysing and transferring personal data then any Govt dept could ever dream of. I find it more offensive and feel more under siege by the huge amount of junk mail and e-mail and unsolicited phone calls from companies trying to sell me crap when I didn't give them any of my details in the first place.

 

They warn that innocent people could find themselves under suspicion if their DNA is found at a crime scene through no fault of their own, for example on a stolen mobile phone.

"Excuse me sir, sorry to contact you at home, but we found your DNA on a mobile phone at a crime scene. We've been able to contact you quickly because we have every-one's details on file. I can also see that you reported your phone stolen last month. Can you confirm where you have been for the past 3 hours? I see at home in the Isle of Man. So you haven't been in Plymouth anytime in the last 3 hours? OK we'll have an officer from the IOM constabulary call round to take a statement and confirm your details but it would appear that we can quickly eliminate you from our enquiries, and go and spend valuable police time eating doughnuts and oh yeah finding the perp. Oh and you can have your phone back when we wipe the blood off it."

 

OK maybe a bit far-fetched (not sure they can check DNA that fast - the doughnuts bit is true though) but you see where I'm coming from. Hardly a big deal. No different from being stopped on suspicion of drink-driving when you've not even had a drink.

[slinkydevil]

Store loyalty cards - Tesco etc. That's where the big abuse of personal information is going on. Analysing what you eat, drink, wipe your arse with is more intrusive than having your fingerprint or DNA on file along with everyone else.

 

Why? What do you have to hide? How is it more intrusive than having your DNA? Why don't you just not have one? Why don't you give them a false name? Why? Why? Why? Did you use your credit card recently? What did you buy? Where? What was your last triangulation point on your mobile?

 

By the time I die I doubt I'll ever be wrongly imprisoned because I bought a tin of sardines.

 

I don't know how you people sleep. Live in fear people they WILL get you in the end. Jeez.

[Albert Tatlock]

They warn that innocent people could find themselves under suspicion if their DNA is found at a crime scene through no fault of their own, for example on a stolen mobile phone.

"Excuse me sir, sorry to contact you at home, but we found your DNA on a mobile phone at a crime scene. We've been able to contact you quickly because we have every-one's details on file. I can also see that you reported your phone stolen last month. Can you confirm where you have been for the past 3 hours? I see at home in the Isle of Man. So you haven't been in Plymouth anytime in the last 3 hours? OK we'll have an officer from the IOM constabulary call round to take a statement and confirm your details but it would appear that we can quickly eliminate you from our enquiries, and go and spend valuable police time eating doughnuts and oh yeah finding the perp. Oh and you can have your phone back when we wipe the blood off it."

 

OK maybe a bit far-fetched (not sure they can check DNA that fast - the doughnuts bit is true though) but you see where I'm coming from. Hardly a big deal. No different from being stopped on suspicion of drink-driving when you've not even had a drink.

...or perhaps it might go something like:

 

"Excuse me sir, sorry to contact you at home, but we found your DNA on a mobile phone at a crime scene. We've been able to contact you quickly because we have every-one's details on file. You say you sold the mobile phone three months ago, but can you prove that? What do you mean you can't find the receipt? Where where you for the last 3 hours? Alone at home where you? I can't be arsed doing any more leg work, so since I have sufficient evidence, I'm arresting you for this crime. By the way your DNA also matches that found on bank notes at the scenes of other crimes. It's all very well you saying you probably handled them innocently, but since you clearly did this crime we don't happen to believe a word you say anymore sir. Yes sir, since we've arrested you for this, then even if you're later cleared this will still be on your permanent record so you can forget your trip to Disneyland this year as the americans won't let you in their country."

 

Another statistic cleared up - a potentially innocent man in jail all down to lazy police work, because they 'had enough evidence'.

 

The point is, everything you own or handle suddenly becomes part of your 'DNA life' trail. How are you responsible for what happens to your old phone or your old belongings such as cars etc after you have got rid of them?

[Cronky]

I don't trust this culture of collecting peoples data one tiny little bit. There is no reason to believe those working for the State are any more trustworthy than those who don't. I know incidents of data being mis interpreted. I also know a civil servant who blatantly admitted to usind a Government database for personal reasons.

 

DNA can be collected from a single hair follicle. This allows for all sorts of corruption on behalf of the State should someone wish to plant 'evidence' on someone.

 

I have nothing to hide and I have a right for a private life which the State should uphold.

[slinkydevil]

I know incidents of data being mis interpreted.

 

Example?

 

I also know a civil servant who blatantly admitted to usind a Government database for personal reasons.

 

Report.

[Albert Tatlock]

I know incidents of data being mis interpreted.

 

Example?

 

• the Darvell brothers
  
• Danny McNamee
  
• the M25 Three
  
• Jonathan Jones
  
• Sheila Bowler
  
• Robert Green, Henry Berry and Lawrence Hill were hanged in 1679 at Greenberry Hill on false evidence for the unsolved murder of Edmund Berry Godfrey.
  
• Adolph (or Adolf) Beck, whose notorious wrongful conviction in 1896 led to the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  
• Timothy Evans' wife and young daughter were killed in 1949, and Evans was convicted of killing of his daughter and hanged. It was later found that the real murderer was Reg Christie, another tenant in the same house, who eventually killed six women. Evans was first person in Britain to receive a posthumous free pardon.
  
• Derek Bentley, executed for murdering a police officer. The charge was based on the fact that during a police chase, he shouted to an armed friend 'Let him have it'. There was doubt about whether this phrase meant shoot the officer (as a phrase common in gangster movies), of if it literally meant to give the gun to the officer. Derek was also mentally retarded, with a mental age of 11, but English law at the time didn't have a notion of diminished responsibility on the grounds of retardation.
  
• Stephen Downing was convicted of the murder of Wendy Sewell in a Bakewell churchyard in 1973. The 17-year-old had a reading age of 11 and worked at the cemetery as a gardener. The police made him sign a confession that he was unable to read. The case gained international notoriety as the "Bakewell Tart" murder. After spending 27 years in prison, Stephen Downing was released on bail in February of 2001, pending the result of an appeal. His conviction was finally overturned in January 2002.
  
• John Joseph Boyle aged 18 was convicted under the pretences of an alleged confession to membership of the I.R.A possession of a gun and murder of a policeman he was sentenced to twelve years inprisonment when released he underwent a long fight to prove his innocence in 2003—his conviction was quashed but has been denied compensation.
  
• Andrew Evans served more than 25 years for the murder of 14-year-old Judith Roberts. He confessed to the 1972 murder after seeing the girl's face in a dream. His conviction was overturned in 1997.
  
• In 1974 Judith Ward was convicted of murder of several people caused by a number of IRA bombings 1973. She was finally released in 1992.
  
• The Birmingham Six were wrongly convicted in 1975 of planting two bombs in pubs in Birmingham in 1974 which killed 21 people and injured 182. They were finally released in 1991.
  
• The Guildford Four were wrongly convicted in 1975 of being members of the Provisional IRA and planting bombs in two Guildford pubs which killed four people. They served nearly 15 years in prison before being released in 1989. (See Tony Blair's apology under The Maguire Seven below.)
  
• The Maguire Seven were convicted in 1976 of offences related to the Guildford and Woolwich bombings of 1974. They served sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years. Giuseppe Conlon died in prison. Their convictions were quashed in 1991. On 9 February 2005 British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a public apology to the Maguire Seven and the Guildford Four for the miscarriages of justice they had suffered. He said: "I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and such an injustice. They deserve to be completely and publicly exonerated."
  
• Stefan Kiszko was convicted in 1976 of the sexual assault and murder of an 11-year old Lesley Molseed in 1976. He spent 16 years in prison before he was released in 1992, after a long campaign by his mother. He died of a heart attack the following year at the age of 44. His mother died six months later.
  
• The Bridgewater Four were convicted in 1979 of murdering Carl Bridgewater, a 13-year-old paper boy who was shot on his round when he disturbed robbers at a farm in Staffordshire. Patrick Molloy died in jail in 1981. The remaining three were released in 1997.
  
• The Cardiff Three, Steven Miller, Yusef Abdullahi and Tony Paris were falsely jailed for the murder of prostitute Lynette White, stabbed more than 50 times in a frenzied attack in a flat above a betting shop in Cardiff's Butetown area on Valentine's Day 1988, in 1990 and later cleared on appeal. In 2003, Jeffrey Gafoor was jailed for life for the murder. The breakthrough was due to modern DNA techniques used on evidence taken from the crime scene. Subsequently, in 2005, 9 retired Police Officers and 3 serving Officers were arrested and questioned for false imprisonment, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in public office.
  
• Peter Fell, a former hospital porter, described in the media as a "serial confessor" and a "fantasist", was sentenced to two life terms in 1984 for the murder of Ann Lee and Margaret "Peggy" Johnson, who were killed whilst they were out walking their dogs in 1982. His conviction was overturned in 2001.
  
• Sally Clark was convicted in 1996 of the murder of her two small sons Christopher and Harry, and spent 3 years in jail, finally being released in 2003 on appeal. The convictions were based solely on the analysis of the deaths by the Home Office Pathologist Alan Williams, who failed to disclose relevant information about the deaths, and backed up by the paediatric professor Sir Roy Meadow, whose opinion was pivotal in several other child death convictions, many of which have been overturned or are in the process of being challenged. In 2005 Alan Williams was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and barred from practicing pathology for 3 years. In July 2005 Meadows was also struck off for serious professional misconduct and barred.
  
• Donna Anthony, 25 at the time, was wrongly jailed in 1998 for the death of her 11 month old son, and finally released in 2005, also because of the opinion of Sir Roy Meadow.
  
• The Gurnos Three, also known as the Merthyr Tydfil Arson Case
  
• Annette Hewins, Donna Clarke and Denise Sullivan were wrongly convicted of the arson attack on the home of Diane Jones, aged 21, in October 1995. Someone had torn away part of the covering of her front door and poured in petrol to start the fire. The fire spread so rapidly that Ms Jones and her two daughters, Shauna, aged two and Sarah-Jane, aged 13 months, were all killed. The convictions of Ms Hewins and Ms Clarke were quashed at the Court of Appeal in February 1998 and a retrial ordered in the case of Ms Clarke.
  
• Michelle and Lisa Taylor, wrongly convicted for the murder in 1991 of Alison Shaughnessy, a bank clerk who was the bride of Michelle's former lover. The trial was heavily influenced by inaccurate media reporting and deemed unfair.
  
• Paul Blackburn was convicted in 1978 when aged 15 of the attempted murder of a 9-year old boy, and spent more then 25 years in 18 different prisons, during which time he maintained his innocence. He said he had never considered saying he was guilty to secure an earlier release because it was a matter of "integrity". He was finally released in May 2005 when the Court of Appeal ruled his trial was unfair and his conviction 'unsafe'.
  
• The Cardiff Three, Michael O'Brien, Darren Hall and Ellis Sherwood, were wrongly convicted for the murder of a newsagent, Phillip Saunders. On October 12 1987 Mr Saunders, 52, was battered with a spade outside his Cardiff home. The day's takings from his kiosk had been stolen, and five days later he died of his injuries. The three men spent 11 years in jail before the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in 1999. The three have since been paid six fugure compensation, but South Wales Police had still not apologised or admitted liability for malicious prosecution or misfeasance.
  

Estimate of innocent people in UK prisons 1% to 10% (800 people minimum). Most organisations agree that perhaps 5% of the UK prison population (some 3,000 people) are there due to miscarriages of justice, many attributable to poor forensic work.

[Cronky]

Happy to oblige.

 

The civil servant in question works for a very large Government department in the UK. The person in question had a romantic interest in a local professional person. Before taking the relationship a little further the civil servant accessed the individual's records, as held by the Government, in order to ascertain who was living in the househould. When our friend found out who was at home an assumption was made that a relationship was already in progress and the civil servant called things off.

 

The point is, as private citizens we cannot log onto a computer and find out what people in the civil service are up to in their private lives can we? As it happened this local professional person had a lucky escape. Had she / he known about our friend they might have been equally put off the relationship for an entirely surprising reason.

 

The other issue relates the Childrens Index which will comprise a common database of every record pertaining to data on individual children. This will be monitored by the local children's commissioner. There will be a yellow flag / red flag system on the database. These 'flags' will be put in place if there a couple of pieces of concerning information are noticed on the database. I.e. a poor school report coupled with a minor criminal conviction (speeding fine?) against a parent. The children's commissioner will then be empowered to authorise some kind of intervention. I.e. a visit from social services.

 

This scenario is already being played out in England. Two families known to me have been called in to educational establishements to account for the way their children are being treated at home. One incident concerned a little boy at nursery who was seen to be ' a bit to shy' for his age. The parents were constanly badgered by the nursery for an explantion as to the childs shy behaviour. It turned out the the local health visitors had been putting pressure on the nursery to flag up any behaviuour which didn't seem to fit the 'norm'.

 

Another family were treated in a most assertive fashion by a primary school. Their child was thought to be a loner in the playground and had written some gloomy comprehensions. The school jumped on the parents in a really assertive fashion. The child had brought a book of ghost stories (Harry Potter type stuff but a different author) to school and the school deemed the material 'innapropriate' for reasons of political correctness and had a real go at the parents.

 

These incidents may seem of low importance to some. However, the parents suffered a lot of distress and anxiety due to the assertive manner of the schools. The schools attiutude was 'we have information on you and we are going to use it'.

 

The database State comes with a very intrusive and controlling culture. It's a world away from the society I grew up in.

 

It doesn't have to be this way if enough people object.

 

According to the BBC patients will now be able to opt out of the NHS database. It may be a phyric victory but it's a step in the right direction.

[Cronky]

Discussed in the letters page of today's (19 December) Daily Telegraph:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...mp;targetRule=0