Despite public assertions by a Government Minister that records on the National DNA Database belonged to individuals who had at least been arrested,[1] statistics released in Parliament in December 2005 revealed this is not the case. At that time, DNA profiles belonging to 15,116 volunteers, who were attempting to assist police investigations and exonerate themselves from being suspects in some criminal investigation, were retained on the DNA Database on the grounds that they had ‘consented’.
In the last decade, police forces throughout the UK are increasingly encouraging certain classes of individuals to submit DNA samples to the police in order to assist with investigations. Such mass testing may facilitate identification of the perpetrator of a crime through ‘familial searching’[2] or via suspicion cast on individuals who refuse. Whilst individuals are not required by law to submit DNA samples, many people do so presumably to eliminate themselves from an inquiry.
However, what individuals may not have realised when they submitted samples is that the DNA profile created from their DNA sample is kept on the national DNA database indefinitely. The Government had justified the retention of volunteers’ samples on the basis that the volunteers had consented, although it is highly questionable as to how informed this consent is and how freely it is has been given, particularly in light of the fact that strong suspicions will be conferred on to those individuals who do not consent.
As a result of concerns regarding informed consent, the Forensic Science Service, who play a leading role in the gathering, profiling and retention of DNA samples developed a “volunteer kit”. The purpose of this special kit was to ensure that a volunteer sample would not be loaded onto the national DNA database, unless the donor has completed a consent form which will differentiate between consent to merely provide a sample and consent to retention of the DNA profile on the database. The introduction of the new kit was set for April 2005, although it is unclear as to how effective its introduction has been in ensuring fully informed consent.
Nevertheless, in the United Kingdom, there have been various mass requests for volunteer DNA samples for some serious crimes before and after the release date of the new kit. During Parliamentary questions on 20th December 2005 between Andy Burnham (a Home Office minister) and Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson), it was revealed that the national DNA database contained the DNA information of more than 15,116 individuals who gave their samples voluntarily to assist an investigation.
Mr. Burnham also commented at later Parliamentary questions on 16th January 2006, that “no volunteer records were loaded onto the National DNA Database before 2004-2005, for technical reasons. In that year, 12,095 volunteer records were loaded. Some of these were given during previous years, but there is no record of the date they were given, as opposed to the date they were loaded. Between 1st April 2005 and 10th January 2006, a further 3,221 profiles have been loaded”.
Below is a selection of some of the circumstances where mass DNA screening has been instigated:
1998 - 2005: In an attempt to catch the perpetrator of 84 sexual offences and burglary against elderly women, the Metropolitan Police instigated one of the largest voluntary DNA screenings in 1998 which was aimed at black males in South London. However, individuals who did not ‘volunteer’ to submit DNA samples were sent 'threatening letters' from Scotland Yard, who alleged that their actions were hampering investigations. A senior detective, Will O’Reilly, who in support of the mass tests, argued that the suspect is the least likely to provide a sample and ‘catching him will be far easier if he is the only one’. The police are still instructed being encouraged to take DNA samples in relation to this case.
Concerns were however raised by Lynne Featherstone, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and now a Liberal Democrat MP, who argued the scheme was damaging already fragile relations between the police and the community and questioned its legality.
Arrests made to date have been unsuccessful and the perpetrator is yet to be apprehended.
January 2005: In County Tyrone in Northern Ireland, police instigated voluntary DNA screening after a vicious attack on an elderly man, who was killed, and his sister, who was sexually assaulted and beaten. Police called for all men between the ages of 14 and 40 living in the Killeen area to provide a DNA sample. The men were given assurances that their samples would not be added to the DNA database, nor would they be compared with existing scene of crime samples and would be destroyed upon completion of the investigation. However, despite the introduction of separate consent forms for consent to submit a sample and consent to retention on the DNA database, the latter type of consent, once given, is actually non-revocable. It is also uncertain as to whether individuals are aware what they are consenting to[3].
October 2005: Following the sexual assault and death of a teenager in South London, Police commenced taking DNA swabs from men throughout the borough of South Croydon, where her body was found. A Detective Chief Inspector said that it wasn’t mass DNA testing but they had approached men to be voluntarily tested, most of whom had responded positively.

[1] BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, Saturday 21st January 2006.

[2] Familial searching describes the process where significant similarities can be identified between a scene of crime DNA profile and a profile obtained from an individual or already existing on the DNA Database. Similarities will arise where an individual is related to the owner of the scene of crime sample and police can question this individual about family relations to try and identify the perpetrator. Concerns have been expressed about the intrusion into a family member’s life or that the police may uncover family links that are not known by those concerned.

[3] “DNA Database: Balancing Crime Detection, Human Rights and Privacy”, Genewatch UK, page 41-42