WHETHER the police should be allowed to retain DNA samples from suspects who are later found innocent is a policy matter of some delicacy. John Denham, the minister for policing, says that the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 swept away the obligation on the police to destroy DNA samples taken from suspects who are acquitted, or where charges are later dropped or convictions quashed on appeal.
This change in the law followed a decision by the Court of Appeal relating to two cases in which, said Denham, compelling DNA evidence linked one suspect to a rape and another to a murder. At the time forensic scientists made matches between DNA profiles and stains recovered from the crime scene, one defendant had been acquitted and the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to proceed against the other suspect. Under the law as it then stood, the retained DNA should have been destroyed, so this evidence could not be used and neither suspect was convicted, said Denham.
This year the Human Genetics Commission recommended outlawing the 鈥渢heft鈥� of DNA (快猫短视频, 25 May, p 9). The HGC was concerned that there should be protection against the misuse of personal genetic information, or the use of genetic information without consent for reasons other than that for which it was originally obtained. Ministers are considering these recommendations.
Advertisement
In general, I am in favour of allowing the courts discretion on how they handle DNA evidence. The great blessing of DNA fingerprinting technology is that it can enable those who are wrongly suspected to go free without having to wait months for matters to be sorted out. That was the kind of thing we had to put up with in the past, before DNA fingerprinting was developed.
GARDENERS of Britain, you can now uncover those compost heaps you had hidden so carefully. You are not to be criminalised for recycling garden waste. Recent media reports seemed to suggest that as a result of last year鈥檚 foot and mouth disease outbreak, householders would need a licence for their compost heaps. Alarmed by such claims, I asked Michael Meacher, the environment minister, just what it was all about.
He replied that it was quite untrue. Yes, the Environment Agency now required large-scale, commercial composters to get a licence, but it is not necessary for home composting. What is important is that under the amended Animal By-Products Order 1999, all catering wastes which contain, or have been in contact with, meat or other products of animal origin be disposed of in such a way that livestock and wild birds cannot gain access to them. In effect, this means that compost produced from such waste must not be spread on the land. But this does not affect the composting and use of green waste.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had commissioned a risk assessment to examine the potential risks to public, animal and plant health from composting processes compared with other disposal routes. An outline of the assessment is on DEFRA鈥檚 website ().
So we gardeners can happily carry on composting.
