The Home Office does not issue such guidance. Requests for the release of information from the National DNA Database to overseas police authorities are dealt with by the UK National Central Bureau for Interpol (UK NCB) based at the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which acts in accordance with its internal procedures. Requests are only processed where it is clear that they are in the interest of prevention and detection of crime, national security or the data subject (i.e. the individual who is the subject of the exchange request). They are also subject to a risk assessment, taking into account the justification and the proportionality of disclosure of the information in line with human rights legislation. If cleared for processing, a one-off search of the DNA database is made by the custodian and information fed back to UK NCB.
The National DNA Database records the names of those who have been arrested and had a DNA sample taken, and the force that arrested them, but not whether they are UK citizens.
The mechanism for handling requests from overseas police authorities for information from the NDNAD is that those requests are sent to the UK National Central Bureau for Interpol (UK NCB), based at the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which considers whether the request is in the interest of prevention and detection of crime, national security or the data subject (i.e. the individual who is the subject of the exchange request). It also carries out a risk assessment, taking into account the justification and the proportionality of disclosure of the information in line with human rights legislation. If UK NCB clears the request, a one-off search of the DNA Database is made and information fed back to UK NCB.
Before 2004, no central records were kept on requests from overseas authorities for data from the NDNAD as these were very rare. Between August 2004 and May 2006,121 profiles from the NDNAD were provided to UK NCB to supplement fingerprint information (i.e. fingerprints had been supplied to an overseas authority in relation to an individual residing in their country following which that authority made a further request for the individual’s DNA profile).
Also, during the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06, 398 NDNAD search results were provided to UK NCB in response to requests from overseas authorities, either to see if there was anyone on the NDNAD who matched a DNA trace taken from the scene of a serious crime abroad, or to identify an unknown deceased person who may have been British. However, there is no central record of the number of cases in which these searches produced a result that led to a profile being sent to an overseas authority, and the number in which the search result was simply that there was no trace on the NDNAD.
The benefits of the international exchange of DNA are illustrated by a case in 2000. Sixty Chinese immigrants were found in a Dutch-registered truck in the port of Dover, 58 of whom had suffocated to death.
Following a complex Anglo-Dutch investigation, Perry Wacker, a Dutch lorry driver, and Ying Quo, of Essex, were sentenced to 14 and six years respectively at Maidstone Crown Court in 2001 for manslaughter and conspiracy to smuggle immigrants into the UK; another 10 individuals were convicted in the Netherlands. In both the UK and the Netherlands, exchanged DNA data was used as evidence in court and formed a key element in the case.
The security policy developed by the custodian of the National DNA Database is to keep the threat of both hacking into and identity theft from the NDNAD under constant review. This includes independent security penetration testing carried out by specialists approved by the national information assurance authority. Such tests are carried out on a regular basis and have shown that the NDNAD systems provide a high level of protection against the threat of external attacks.
The National DNA Database (NDNAD) records the DNA profile for a particular individual. It does not hold data on arrest and criminal records. This information is held on the police national computer. The facilities do not exist to cross-refer between all records on the NDNAD and PNC to the level of detail that would be required to provide the information sought.
However, we can say that information provided by the police information technology organisation from the PNC indicated that, as at 14 July 2006, when there were approximately 3,457,000 individuals on the database, 2,922,624 of these persons also had an entry on the PNC. Of these, 2,317,555 (79.3 per cent.) had a conviction or caution (i.e. a criminal record). The difference between the two figures is attributable to: young persons under 18 who have a formal warning or reprimand recorded on PNC; persons who have been charged with a recordable offence where proceedings are on-going; and persons who have been arrested for a recordable offence but against whom no further action was taken.