Children’s DNA stored on Government database

Vulnerable children are being targeted for fingerprint DNA in order to build up the Government’s surveillance databases, rights groups have warned.

Police are arresting youngsters who have done nothing wrong, simply to get their hands on their DNA, according to Genewatch and Action on Rights for Children (ARCH).

The claims follow research by the two in which they found that at least 100,000 children aged between 10 and 17, who had not committed any criminal offence had had their details recorded on the Home Office's National DNA Database.

Of this number, the research found that 80,000 children had been added to the database in the past year, something Dr Helen Wallace, director of Genewatch believes is down to the Home Office’s “shift in policy”.

“The Home Office has gone from running a criminal database to building a context one which is getting ready for the Government’s plans on ID cards and a Big Brother society,” she told Computeractive.

“Collecting children’s fingerprints is a deliberate strategy to get people on these databases. It is the easiest way to populate them by starting with young people.”

This, Dr Wallace said, was because “young people [were] vulnerable and don’t have legal rights when it comes to taking their DNA if they are found guilty of a recordable offence”.

DNA can currently be taken without consent from anyone aged 10 or above, on arrest for most offences. Wallace said this was anything from illegal demonstrations or non serious criminal damage, such as carving names on trees.

“Police will also arrest children in a group and fingerprint all of them even if one is found guilty or committing a crime,” she added.

The computerised DNA profiles and original DNA samples are in most cases then kept permanently and crossed referenced in cases even if people were never charged or acquitted.

Terri Dowty, director for ARCH, who agreed with Wallace, said: “Children are an easy target as now, and historically, no-one wants to defend them, this makes it far easier for the police to create excuses to get them onto the database.”

In addition to building up the Government’s surveillance nation she also suggested that the Home Office was using the records to build up overall family identification as only a “few samples are needed from one member to build up a whole family DNA”.

However, the Home Office disagreed, claiming that any DNA and fingerprints collected were “invaluable tool[s]” that could protect the “public through identifying offenders and securing more convictions”.

In a statement it justified its actions, likening the collection of DNA to being “no different to recording other forms of information such as photographs and witness statements".

"In exceptional circumstances, for example in the case of mistaken identity, chief police officers have the operational discretion to remove and destroy DNA profiles and samples from the database,” it added.

This is something Dowty strongly objected to. She said: “These children will be on the database for the rest of their lives. This means that whenever their DNA is found at a crime scene, they will have to be prepared to justify themselves."

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary David Davis agreed, saying: "This is an extremely sinister development. One hundred thousand innocent children have their DNA data stored by stealth. This is a big move towards the end of the presumption of innocence for our youth."

As a result the party has launched a petition calling on the Government to remove innocent people's DNA from the police database, something that is currently not a straightforward procedure.

Genewatch has also set up a page on its website encouraging people to sign up for a number of petitions which it believes may help change the laws through creating a more public debate which is needed to determine the appropriate balance between crime detection, human rights and privacy.

It also urges people to sign the petition on the Prime Minister's website, opposing the retention of DNA from innocent people.

See also: