The publication by the Law Reform Commission of a consultation paper on the establishment of a DNA database is the first step in the likely legislation for this resource.
A number of serious crimes have been solved in Ireland with the help of DNA evidence, which could not have been solved without it. Among them was the murder of Phyllis Murphy in 1979, which remained unsolved until 2002, when DNA samples taken from the victim's body were compared with those taken from 52 men interviewed at the time. Other previously unsolved crimes are being re-examined in the light of this technology.
However, this is only possible where a DNA sample has been given voluntarily by a suspect who has come to the attention of the police in relation to the crime. There can be no comprehensive trawl for likely suspects without a DNA database, and such a database can only be established if there is legal provision for the collection of samples.
There are a number of human rights concerns in this area, involving the right to privacy, the right to bodily integrity, and the right not to self-incriminate, all protected in the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission points out that these are not absolute, but any restriction on them must be proportionate to the desired public good.
The paper stresses the need to distinguish between DNA samples, which contain the whole of an individual's DNA, and DNA profiles, which contain only information relating to parentage and likely relationships. Information on, for example, genetically-based disease would not be contained in them. The Commission recommends that only DNA profiles should be retained on a database.
It also stresses the need for the strictest controls on the use and maintenance of such a database, to ensure that it can not be accessed or used in any unauthorised way. To this end it recommends a range of measures, including the setting up on a statutory basis of a Forensic Science Agency, incorporating the present Forensic Science Laboratory.
Finally, the Commission makes the important point that this technology, though it has proved itself a useful tool in both the apprehension of the guilty and the exoneration of the innocent, is not infallible, and it draws attention to the capacity for various types of error. It makes a number of proposals to ensure that proper safeguards are built into its use in court.
It is to be hoped the discussion to follow publication of the consultation paper will match it in depth and seriousness.