The NZ government passed a law through this morning that allows the Police to collect DNA and fingerprints from any person that they will charge Parliament passes DNA law. This is different from the current situation where only people who are convicted of a crime that carries a sentence of seven years imprisonment or more have their DNA collected.

As I’ve said previously, personally I have no problem with the NZ Police being given greater powers to collect DNA samples from individuals who will be charged with an offence. At present, DNA and fingerprints are collected from everyone who is arrested in England & Wales, regardless of whether or not they are eventually charged. This is currently the subject of heated debate and the government is today in a position of having to make a decision about when and what samples from people who are essentially innocent of any crime are to be removed from the database: see here. Some would say that perhaps the UK has gone too far.

Compared with the UK, the NZ database is relatively small and even with the additional samples being added as the law will now allow, it will remain relatively small. Concern has recently been raised in the UK about whether or not the DNA database has got so big, interpretation is becoming problematic see here – as at 31 March this year, there were DNA profiles from 4.86 million individuals on the database (http://www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/NDNAD07-09-LR.pdf). Particularly from the first link I note that “there are strong statistical arguments against the application of such a large database in forensics. Not only does the complexity of storing and searching such a large body of data increase substantially with the size of the database, but so too does the probability of errors, duplicates and false entries. Moreover, the chance of getting a false positive match is also much higher, simply due to the vast number of comparisons involved and the percentage of the population who have similar (or identical) DNA fingerprints.”

Cold case reviews in the UK have shown that successful matches can be obtained from people who have previously committed a serious offence and then more recently have had to provide DNA and fingerprints in relation to minor offences such as traffic violations. The beauty of cold case reviews is that DNA can solve crimes that occurred before the use of DNA as a crime fighting tool became widely known. A lot of criminals who committed offences in the 1990s or before probably didn’t even realise that they deposited anything worth collecting at the crime scene. Only the foresight of police and scientists meant that samples were collected and are now available for testing. In NZ, the first case that springs to mind that could have been solved one way or the other if samples had been kept for future analysis is that of David Bain, but samples were not kept and now cannot be analysed.

Overall, I think that if managed correctly and with an eye on what has happened in other countries that have already been along this route, the use of such a DNA database in current and cold cases is potentially of great assistance in solving crimes. It is, however, important that users and interpreters of the database understand and acknowledge any potential failings as the database grows and not blindly accept everything that is suggested by the database. Experience in the UK has told them not to rely solely on DNA hits to successfully prosecute cold cases and I personally am always more comfortable with a multi-disciplinary approach to crime investigation.

Scottish lawyer Donald Findlay QC has suggested it be a criminal offence for jury members to trawl the internet for information about the case on which they are serving – see Veteran QC calls for change in law to protect jurors. He has apparently indicated that the impartiality of jury trials could be hampered by jurors using the internet to research cases in which they are involved. I have no doubt that such browsing occurs – it’s human nature, particularly in high profile cases. I’m not sure whether such a law protects the jury though – surely it should be there to protect justice?
The question then arises: how will it be monitored? Presumably the Police then either would be afforded the power to monitor wi-fi connections in hotels where jurors are sequestered or the power to remotely monitor internet usage of jurors throughout a trial. I understand the need for something to be done to deal with this very real issue but what happens if a juror is caught doing this? Imagine through a long and high profile trial such as those involving Clayton Weatherston, Amanda Knox, terrorists, the difficulties and expense in abandoning a trial and picking a new jury, never mind the physical and mental drain on everyone else who has to remain involved if a trial is abandoned – judges, legal teams, families.
I don’t know the answer but in the digital age, it is a struggle to imagine how internet information (which is often biased or factually incorrect) can successfully be kept from those seeking it.

For many years I have refused to upgrade my cellphone and this article just proves me right (I’ll be able to say “told you so” to sooo many people!). Forensic mobile phone work reveals threat to all of us demonstrates just why we should be very concerned about a) how much information we program into our cellphones, b) the amount of information we are carrying about ourselves, most of which we are unaware is being collected and updated practically by the minute, and c) the very real possibility of fraud, or worse. Mobile phones have traditionally been targeted by thieves because of their value. Now, the more tech-savvy thief can target a specific individual to gain access to all kinds of data and information. Fraud seems to be the minor end of the scale; blackmail and extortion also spring to mind.
Particularly of interest was the data collected by the Sports Tracker facility – who knew that a photo of your home address could be on your own phone without your knowledge? A danger of which women should be aware.
Add to all of this the possibility of hijacking of wireless network connections and the list of potential crimes rolls on and on. Some people will say that that either I’m a pessimist or a drama queen. Others will say that this article is about the UK so why should anyone else worry? Yet others may say that it takes a computer expert to access the data. In my job, computer and technology forensics has increased dramatically over the past five years and it is a very real danger of which all of us should be aware. Some people choose to access data in legitimate settings to help solve crimes. Other people will exploit any weakness they can to make money, in whatever way they see fit.

I read with interest an article Indiana court: no warrant needed to force DNA where the Americans are up in arms about being able to take a DNA sample from someone after they’ve been arrested.  Just as well they haven’t been to England recently then.  In England & Wales, if a person is arrested in relation to any crime the Police can and do take DNA samples and fingerprints.  These are processed and put on the national database, regardless of whether the person is ever found guilty of a crime.  It makes the DNA database an extremely effective tool in the fight against crime.  Many people have been arrested as the result of being arrested for something relatively minor such as recidivist speeding or outstanding Council fines and their DNA has come back with a “hit” on the database for something far more serious such as rape or murder.

I understand from police colleagues that in New Zealand there is no automatic right to be able to collect samples from people when they have been arrested but those arrested people can be offered the option to provide samples.  Police officers I know like to encourage people to give their DNA but if the person isn’t convicted of a crime then the sample and the results must be eliminated.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with contribution to a DNA database.  In fact, I had to provide a sample on more than one occasion in order to be able to even enter some of the forensic science laboratories in England & Wales – and I know those samples weren’t destroyed after I had left the lab.  Perhaps I don’t mind because I know how the database works and I still have faith that it works properly.  What happens when the day comes that it doesn’t work properly and a miscarriage of justice occurs?  It’s happened with the fingerprint database – to a police officer.

I know that many people have a problem with the idea of part of their body being taken by the State and kept for comparison with other samples at a later date.  Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion but at the end of the day, the Police need to be able to tackle crime in the most effective way possible.  Not getting arrested is the best way for a member of the general public to keep their DNA and fingerprints off the database, so therefore I assume the answer is not to become a Person Of Interest to the Police.

I have previously written about getting a career in forensic science (How to get a job in forensic science) because I am always being asked this very question.  I gave a lecture only last Thursday about forensic science in the UK and what a great place it is to get work experience, which is very true.  It’s hard not to be negative about a career in forensic science because there have been so many redundancies (800 in England & Wales) and Police budgets are being cut in both NZ and the UK.  Once again I say that this is setting someone (or more) up for a miscarriage of justice.

Now I see an article that demonstrates my worst fears: The grisly truth about CSI degrees. The article shows that the UK Forensic Science Service currently has 1,300 scientists (but it doesn’t say whether this includes the 800 to be made redundant). It goes on to say that the UK’s largest private provider, LGC Forensics, employs 500 people. In 2008 alone, 1,667 students embarked on the 285 forensic science degree courses (compared with just 2 courses in 1990).  This massive increase in numbers is, as I have commented previously, as a result of the CSI Effect.  I like the final sentence in the article: “in order to ensure there are enough jobs to go round, more than half of them will have to retrain as serial killers.” And what better people to know how to cover their tracks than forensic scientists?!