DNA Evidence (Hansard, 12 July 2000)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Department (Lord Bassam of Brighton)
My Lords, the judgment of the Court of Appeal raises important issues in relation to the use of DNA profiles in evidence. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering whether there is a case for amending the existing statutory provisions in Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I shall let your Lordships know what conclusion he reaches. We do not feel the need at present to seek advice from the Law Commission on the issue. I am advised that the Attorney-General has been granted leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal and that the appeal is due to be heard on 23rd October 2000.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, I have two questions—or perhaps two and a half—for the Minister. However, first I should like to set out the foundation of the questions, namely the nature of the statutory restriction. In a few words, it provides that if a person is acquitted or the case against him is dropped, any fingerprints or DNA samples must be destroyed and that if they are not destroyed, they cannot thereafter be used. My first question is whether the Minister agrees with the Court of Appeal that in the two cases referred to in my question, the result of the statutory restriction was that a person "very probably guilty"—I use the Court of Appeal's words—of a brutal murder and a 225 person "very probably guilty" of a rape of the utmost gravity were acquitted. My half question is whether the Minister also agrees that the reverse can happen to an innocent person, who could be found guilty because he was deprived of the ability to use the DNA samples.
My last question is simply whether, in the light of the words of the Court of Appeal and in the light of those two cases and the repercussions in relation to the other cases, the authorities or Parliament wish to revisit Section 64 of the Act. That is not a matter for the court. There can be no doubt as to the serious consequences which justify the course which I have suggested.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I have a great deal of respect for the noble and learned Lord but, as this case is still subject to the judicial process, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the wide-ranging issues which the noble and learned Lord has raised in your Lordships' House this afternoon.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I was the Minister who took the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill through your Lordships' House. Does not the fact that dangerous criminals may be released onto our streets and innocent people put into prison unnecessarily as a result of the provision to which the noble and learned Lord referred suggest that it would be a good thing to revisit this question? As referring a matter to the Law Commission is rather like placing a paper boat on the upper waters of the Nile and waiting for its emergence in the Delta, would it not be sensible to reconvene the Criminal Law Revision Committee and refer the matter to that committee?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, the case is going to the House of Lords. The concluding sentence of the judgment indicated that Section 64 of PACE could be revisited. As I indicated earlier, that is exactly what Ministers are minded to do. We are looking into the issue as a matter of great urgency. We recognise the fullness of the issues which have been raised this afternoon.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is absolutely right in not commenting on the detail of the case prior to its consideration by the judicial authorities? Does he agree also that this is, perhaps, one of those Questions which is best taken away from Question Time and considered in other ways?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, in fact the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend are suggesting that this matter should be considered in other fora. But is it not the case that the question to be considered is what the law should be whereas the courts are currently considering what the law is now?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, that is the point. But it is right as a matter of public policy that we 226 should consider those matters for the future. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made that plain.