- 1 of 2HmOff, DNA Databases [30 March 2010] Column 932W
- requesting details of cases quoted in debate 18/1/10 c35 "Alan Johnson [holding answer 24 February 2010]: The information given at Second Reading of the Crime and Security Bill was the outcome of an analysis by the Association of Chief Police Officers' Criminal Records Office (ACRO) and the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) of information held on the police national computer, following consultation with the Senior Investigating Officers in each of the 36 cases referred to. In 2008-09 there were at least 79 DNA matches for rape, murder and manslaughter where the original sample was taken for an offence that did not result in a conviction. 36 of these matches were found to have a direct and specific value to the investigation. It is not our policy to release details of individual cases without the explicit consent of the victims or their families. In any case, some of the cases remain before the courts."
[ Answer quoted in full because (1) how come "at least", sounds like this was all they found in all those big numbers they kept quoting. (2) "did not result in a conviction" can I think mean all sorts of things. (3) 43 of those matches were irrelevant to the cases. (4) "direct and specific value" can mean all sorts of things. (5) if some of the cases are still before the courts, I'm not sure they should be used as examples ]
[ My annoyance may be showing - if they want to make their case then an answer of e.g. "x cases where DNA was part of the evidence that secured a conviction" might help. They've had plenty of time to get their act together, and so far we have only seen 'cases where DNA played a part' which doesn't really mean a lot. ]
[ though (6) it's possible I'm over-interpreting what was said but I don't think so... ]