22. V. Kearney, “Approval for Low Copy DNA Testing,” BBC News, April 11, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7341782.stm (accessed April 14, 2010).
23. Bruce Budowle, executive director, Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, statement at the 19th Annual Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference, Washington, DC, June 2–4, 2009.
24. The Queen v. Sean Hoey, Neutral Citation Number [2007] NICC 49, http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Hoey.pdf.
25. Carole McCartney, “Ethics Watch,” Nature Reviews Genetics 9 (May 2008): 325, http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n5/pdf/nrg2362.pdf (accessed April 14, 2010).
26. “Scientists Affirm DNA Test Criticized in Omagh Trial,” News Letter, April 11, 2008, http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Scientists-affirm-DNA test-criticised.3974115.jp (accessed April 14, 2010). See also Bruce Budowle, Arthur J. Eisenberg, and Angela van Daal, “Validity of Low Copy Number Typing and Applications to Forensic Science,” Croatian Medical Journal 50 (2009): 207–219, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702736/ (accessed April 14, 2010).
27. James Randerson, “‘We’ve Now Pushed the Technology to the Absolute Limit . . .’: The Case Against the Latest DNA Evidence,” Guardian, January 16, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/16/ukcrime.forensicscience1 (accessed April 14, 2010).
28. Budowle et al., “Validity of Low Copy Number Typing and Applications to Forensic Science,” 207.
29. Budowle, statement at the 19th Annual Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference.
30. Jason Gilder, Roger Koppl, Irving Kornfeld, et al., “Comments on the Review of Low Copy Number Testing” (letter), International Journal of Legal Medicine 123, no. 6 (2009): 535–536.
31. Randerson, “‘We’ve Now Pushed the Technology to the Absolute Limit.’”
32. Carole E. McCartney, “Forensic DNA Sampling and the England and Wales National DNA Database: A Skeptical Approach,” Critical Criminology 12 (2004): 157–178, quotation at 174.
33. See Human Genetics Commission, “Inside Information,” May 2002, http://www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/DocPub/Document/insideinformation_summary.pdf (accessed April 14, 2010). See also Human Genetics Commission, “HGC Response to the Scottish Executive Consultation on Police Retention of Prints and Samples,” September 30, 2005, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/77843/0018244.pdf (accessed April 14, 2010).
34. Home Office, “Supplementary Memorandum, Appendix 20,” in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Forensic Science on Trial, vol. 2, HC 96-II (2005), www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/96/96ii.pdf (accessed April 14, 2005).
35. Home Office, Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database: Science and Public Protection, May 2009, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/may/uk-ho-dna-consult.pdf (accessed June 23, 2009).
36. See generally Council for Responsible Genetics, http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/. See also Helen Wallace, “The UK National DNA Database,” EMBO Reports 7 (2006) (Special Issue): S26–S30.
37. Helen Wallace, “Prejudice, Stigma and DNA Databases,” GeneWatch 21, no. 3–4 (November–December 2008): 14–16.
38. Nick Taylor, “Genes on Record—One Size Fits All?” New Law Journal 156 (September 8, 2006): 1354.
39. Helen Wallace, “GeneWatch PR: Home Office Drags Its Feet on DNA Database Removals,” May 7, 2009, http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als%5Bcid%5D=539478&als%5Bitemid%5D=564505 (accessed April 14, 2010).
40. Select Committee on Home Affairs, Parliament, United Kingdom, “Second Report,” June 15, 2007, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/181/18103.htm (accessed June 20, 2007).
41. U.K. Parliament, House of Commons, Select Committee on Home Affairs, Second Report, Part I: “Nature and Extent of Young Black People’s Overrepresentation,” May 22, 2007, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/181/18105.htm (accessed June 29, 2007).
42. Richard Ford, “DNA of Children Under Ten Are on National Database,” Times Online, June 15, 2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1934914.ece (accessed April 15, 2010).
43. Ibid.
44. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, “The National DNA Database.”
45. GeneWatch UK, “Human Genetics Parliamentary Briefing No. 6.”
46. Dr. Helen Wallace, statement in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Between “S” and Marper v. The United Kingdom, application nos.30562/04 and 30566/04.
47. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Forensic Use of Bioinformation: Ethical Issues (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, September 2007), xv, http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/The_forensic_use_of_bioinformation_-_ethical_issues.pdf (accessed April 14, 2010).
48. Ibid., xv.
49. Ibid., 54.
50. Ibid., 52.
51. BBC News, “Teacher Wins Police DNA Battle,” March 23, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm (accessed April 14, 2010).
52. S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom (Marper), European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04.
53. S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom, 30562/04 [2008] ECHR 1581 (December 4, 2008), ¶ 69, http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1581.html (accessed May 9, 2010).
54. Ibid., ¶ 71.
55. Ibid., ¶ 121.
56. Ibid., ¶ 75.
57. Ibid., ¶ 124.
58. Ibid., ¶ 47.
10. Japan’s Forensic DNA Data Bank
1. Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA), “Opinion on the National Police Agency DNA Database System,” December 21, 2007, English summary and full text of the opinion at http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/en/activities/statements/071221.html. (accessed May 18, 2010).
2. The loci that are currently used in generating a profile are as follows: TPOX, D3S1358, FGA, D5S818, CSF1PO, D7S820, D8S1179, TH01, vWA, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, D2S1338, and D19S43. E. Omura, discussion with T. Simoncelli and written comments by T. Yamamoto, professor, Waseda Law School, Tokyo, July 30, 2007.
3. Japan’s Supreme Court first established the “balancing test” in 1969 in the Hakata Station TV Film Subpoena Case. Supreme Court (Japan), grand bench, Keishu, vol. 23, no. 11, at 1490, November 26, 1969.
4. Omura, discussion with Simoncelli and written comments by Yamamoto.
5. Ibid.
6. National Public Safety Commission Regulation No. 15, Based on Article 13, Section 1 of the Police Law Enforcement Rules, Regulations on Treatment of DNA Type Profiles, enacted August 26, 2005, Article 1.
7. Omura, discussion with Simoncelli and written comments by Yamamoto.
8. Dr. Kazumasa Sekiguchi, National Research Institute of Police Science, personal correspondence with Sheldon Krimsky, February 16, 2007.
9. National Police Agency (NPA), “Towards Activating DNA Profile Information” (publication date unknown), translated by E. Omura, January 2008.
10. National Police Agency, “Guidelines on Operating Expert Examination of DNA Profiles,” referred to in Toshikazu Shimizu, National Policy Agency, Criminal Bureau, “Commencing the Operation of the Crime Scene DNA Profiles Database System, 2005” (English summary prepared for authors by E. Omura).
11. Tania Simoncelli, interview with H. Tokunaga, professor of law, Konan University, Osaka, Japan, July 18, 2007.
12. These cases all rested on intentionality; the courts found that the police agency did not exhaust the sample intentionally. See H. Tokunaga, “Sample Preservation for Evaluation by Experts,” Konan Law Review 45, nos. 1–2 (2004): 229–257.
13. Omura, discussion with Simoncelli and written comments by Yamamoto.
14. Sekiguchi, personal correspondence with Krimsky.
15. Japan’s population is approximately 127 million. See National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, “Population Statistics of Japan: 2006,” http://www.i
pss.go.jp/p-info/e/PSJ2006.pdf (accessed April 15, 2010).
16. See, for example, H. Tokunaga, “DNA Database Without Proper Legislation,” Konan Law Review 46, no. 3 (2005): 115–134; Tania Simoncelli, interview with T. Yamamoto, H. Sato, and K. Kai, Waseda Law School, Tokyo, July 30, 2007, translation by E. Omura.
17. JFBA, “Opinion on the National Police Agency DNA Database System.”
18. Omura, discussion with Simoncelli and written comments by Yamamoto.
19. JFBA, “Opinion on the National Police Agency DNA Database System.” See also Tokunaga, “DNA Database Without Proper Legislation,” and Omura, discussion with Simoncelli and written comments by Yamamoto.
20. Article 31 of Japan’s Constitution states, “No person shall be deprived of life or liberty, nor shall any other criminal penalty be imposed, except according to procedure established by law.”
21. H. Tokunaga, “Quality Assurance System of Forensic DNA Typing,” DNA Polymorphism 15 (2007): 349–353, summarized and translated by E. Omura, January 2008.
22. Tania Simoncelli, interview with H. Tokunaga, professor of law, Konan University, Osaka, Japan, July 19, 2007. In addition, in June 2004 the NPA held a forum titled “Use of DNA Profiles: Reference to the UK System” that featured a U.K. law-enforcement official as the keynote speaker. See H. Tokunaga, “Issues on DNA Database” (presentation to the Human Rights Committee, Japan Federation of Bar Associations, August 2005), summarized and translated by E. Omura, January 2008.
23. NPA, “Towards Activating DNA Profile Information,” sec. III; Simoncelli, interview with Tokunaga, July 18, 2007.
24. Toshikazu Shimnizu, NPA Criminal Bureau, “Operation of Crime Scene DNA Database System,” April 2005, summarized and translated by E. Omura, January 2008.
25. Simoncelli, interview with Tokunaga, July 19, 2007.
26. David Cyranoski, “Japan’s Ethnic Crime Database Sparks Fears Over Human Rights,” Nature 427 (January 29, 2004): 383.
27. Ibid.
28. None of the legal scholars we spoke with in Japan were aware of any ethnicity testing occurring to date or of the initial proposal.
11. Australia
1. Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia (Sydney: Australian Law Reform Commission, 2003), pt. J, chap. 39, para. 39.14 (March 14), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96/ (accessed April 19, 2010).
2. Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Commonwealth of Australia, Inquiry into the Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2000, November 2000, www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/download/8630/6479 (accessed April 18, 2010).
3. New South Wales, “Review of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000,” Parliamentary Paper no. 1118, February 2002, 13.
4. Deborah Crosbie, Protection of Genetic Information: An International Comparison (report to the Human Genetics Commission, U.K., September 2000), 83, http://www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/DocPub/Document/international_regulations.pdf (accessed May 27, 2010).
5. Mark Findlay and New South Wales Government, Independent Review of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000, Criminal Law Division, Attorney-General’s Department (Sydney, 2003), 22, http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/clrd/ll_clrd.nsf/pages/CLRD_forensics_report (accessed April 18, 2010). See also Ian Frekelton, barrister, Owen Dixon Chambers, Melbourne, “DNA Profiling: Forensic DNA Under the Microscope,” Criminal Law Journal 14 (1990): 23–41.
6. Frekelton, “DNA Profiling,” 29.
7. Transcript from the PM radio program titled “DNA Laws Begin in Victoria,” September 2, 2002, Kate Tozer, reporter. “[Mark Colvin:] In Victoria, the police force has been given the power to take forced DNA samples from people who aren’t serving any sentence.” http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s665063.htm (accessed April 18, 2010).
8. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), pt. 1D, div. 8.
9. Findlay and New South Wales Government, Independent Review of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000, 12, 17.
10. Richard Hindmarsh, “Australian Biocivic Concerns and Governance of Forensic DNA Technologies: Confronting Technocracy,” New Genetics and Society (September 1, 2008), 269.
11. Smith Alling Lane, “DNA Legislation and News,” September 22, 2000, http://www.dnaresource.com/documents/2000_09_22.pdf (accessed April 18, 2010).
12. Justice Action, “The Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000: Justice Action’s Submission to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice Inquiry,” June 6, 2001, http://www.justiceaction.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=28&Itemid=142 (accessed April 19, 2010).
13. Parliament, New South Wales, Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Bill, June 28, 2000, full-day Hansard transcript, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20000628005 (accessed April 19, 2010).
14. CrimTrac, Annual Report 2006–7 (Canberra: CrimTrac, 2007), 19.
15. Rachel Lebihan, “DNA Database Not a Perfect Match,” Australian Financial Review, April 3, 2006.
16. Hindmarsh, “Australian Biocivic Concerns,” 272.
17. Ibid.
18. Australian Law Reform Commission, Essentially Yours.
19. Ibid., “List of Recommendations,” pt. J.
20. Charles Lawson, Griffith University Law School, personal correspondence with Sheldon Krimsky, November 12, 2007.
21. CrimTrac, Annual Report 2006–7, 19.
22. Hindmarsh, “Australian Biocivic Concerns.”
23. Colin James, “Officers Acted Illegally, Judge Rules,” Australian Business Intelligence, May 28, 2006.
24. Genetic Future, “Australian State Government Outsources Forensic DNA Testing,” January 21, 2008, http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/01/australian-state-government-outsources.html (accessed April 19, 2010).
25. Justice Action, “Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry into the Commonwealth Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2000,” October 30, 2000, http://www.justiceaction.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=179&Itemid=149 (accessed April 10, 2010).
12. Germany
1. Martin Kreickenbaum, “Germany: Expansion of DNA Testing—A Step Towards Genetic Registration,” World Socialist Website, February 24, 2005. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/dna-f24.shtml (accessed April 20, 2010).
2. Ian Mader, “Mass DNA Test Nets Murder Suspect,” San Diego Union-Tribune, May 3, 1998.
3. Hermann Schmitter and Peter M. Schneider, “Legal Aspects of Forensic DNA Analysis in Germany,” Forensic Science International 88 (1997): 95–98, citing Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW, translated as New Legal Weekly) 1990, 2944–2945, http://rsw.beck.de/rsw/shop/default.asp?site=njw (accessed May 27, 2010).
4. Ibid., 96 (citing NJW 1996, 3071–3073).
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. See Federal Constitutional Court, 2nd Chamber of the Second Division of the Federal Constitutional Court, August, 2 1996, 2 BvR 273/06; 1511/96; NJW 1996, 3071, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20070212_2bvr027306.html (accessed April 20, 2010). A summary of the case results is given by Schmittter and Schneider: “In serious crime cases the judge may order the taking of blood samples for DNA analysis even if there is no strong suspicion against the persons the blood is taken from. Thus, under certain circumstances mass screening of a large number of potential suspects does not interfere with constitutional rights.” Schmitter and Schneider, “Legal Aspects of Forensic DNA Analysis in Germany,” 96.
8. German Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 81g [DNA Analysis] (2): “The cell tissue collected may be used only for the molecular and genetic examination referred to in subsection (1); it shall be destroyed without delay once it is no longer required for that purpose. Information other than that required to establish the DNA code may not be ascertained during the examination; tests to establish such information shall be inadmissible.” http:/
/www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StPO.htm#81g (accessed April 20, 2010).
9. German Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 81a (3), http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StPO.htm#81a (accessed April 20, 2010).
10. Ibid., 96–97.
11. Alexander Hanebeck, “DNA Analysis and the Right to Privacy: Federal Constitutional Court Clarifies Rules on the Use of Genetic Fingerprints,” German Law Journal 2, no. 3 (February 15, 2001), http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=50 (accessed April 20, 2010).
12. Peter M. Schneider, Institut für Rechtsmedizin, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany, personal correspondence with Tania Simoncelli, August 28, 2008.
13. See Bundeskriminalamt, Bundeskriminalamtgesetz (BKAG) 32 II.
14. Carole McCartney, Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk (Uffculme, UK: Willan Publishing Co., 2006), 162. See also Hanebeck, “DNA Analysis and the Right to Privacy.”
15. Schneider, personal correspondence with Simoncelli.
16. The provision of the German Code of Criminal Procedure allowing for a determination of gender was added to Section 81e by Parliament.
17. Hermann Schmitter, Bundeskriminalamt, Wiesbaden, Germany, “Promoting DNA in Germany” (First International DNA User’s Conference, Lyons, France, November 24–26, 1999, hosted by Interpol), http://www.interpol.int/public/Forensic/dna/conference/Promoting03.asp (accessed April 20, 2010).
18. Schmitter and Schneider, “Legal Aspects of Forensic DNA Analysis in Germany,” 95–98.
19. See Bundeskriminalamt, BKAG 8 III.
20. Christopher H. Asplen and Smith Alling Lane,, “International Perspectives on Forensic DNA Databases,” ISRCL Conference, The Hague, August 24–28, 2005, http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Asplenn.pdf (accessed April 20, 2010). See also Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Forensic Use of Bioinformation: Ethical Issues (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, September 2007), 52.
Genetic Justice Page 45