“Innocence is a vague term” say Greater Manchester Police
March 11th, 2010 by richardbaumComment?
My campaign for a fairer system on Criminal Records Bureau checks and Police DNA retention continues.
Frequent readers will remember that I have been highlighting for a while now the injustices in the current CRB system, where rumours, hearsay and spent convictions are revealed on many people’s disclosures. The campaign for reform continues, and I have heard from dozens of people unfairly penalised by the current unfair laws.
A related topic is DNA retention by the Police. At present, despite the European Courts ruling the practive illegal, the government still allows the Police in this country to keep DNA records of innocent people on their database. This needless and worrying invasion of our civil liberties needs to stop.
I have asked a number of formal questions on both of these topics to the Greater Manchester Police Authority in recent times, through Bury Council’s representatives on that body. The latest question on DNA retention of innocent people came in February, and I find its answer is very worrying.
The GMPA said “some people who are arrested in connection with an offence but who subsequently are never charged or against whom no further action is taken still have their fingerprints and DNA taken and retained”
This is a breach of the law. But more worrying was the next passage, which said: “Simply because an individual is not later charged in connection with the offence with which they were arrested or no further action is taken or indeed is acquitted when the matter goes to court, does not necessarily mean they are “innocent” of that offence… Innocent is a vague term that does not adequately deal with the various stages in a criminal case. A simple example could be for instance, where a criminal offence has been committed, but an individual is not charged with that offence since the CPS do not feel that a prosecution would be in the public interest, or indeed where is insufficient evidence to charge.”
I find that very strange and worrying indeed. Remember that that is the official answer from the Greater Manchester Police Authority, and that they are really saying that in their eyes someone who is not charged or is acquitted of an offence is not innocent.
They are also really saying that “innocence is a vague term.” To my understanding, it is absolutely not. Innocent people are innocent until proven otherwise. Even where the Police think they’re guilty, even where they’ve got off on technicalities, they are still innocent. It might be annoying sometimes, but it’s the law and the fundamental basis of how we live. The Police and CPS need to try again to get a conviction, and if they can’t, people are innocent and that’s that. And their DNA should not be taken and kept.
If the Police consider someone not innocent even when the courts have said so, what kind of justice can there be for those seeking to get on with their lives in peace?
GMPA also appear to be saying that even where the CPS have said that a conviction would not be in the public interest, this can be over-ridden by the Police if they wish to keep DNA records. Again, I find this disturbing. What right do the Polic ehave to make this decision and break the law?
I really don’t like that response from the GMPA. It’s not on that our Police have such a loose definition of innocent.
Rick






