Driver details and DNA records to be shared with EU states
Discussion
You just knew it would happen some day soon.
The Prum Convention forms part of the Schengen agreement and was intended to "help fight terrorism". The record of limiting the use of such laws, treaties and agreements to their initially-stated rationale is not a good one. Home Office statements have oft shown themselves to be 'pliable' too.
On the vehicle details front, EUCARIS - the system intended to provide EU-wide access to vehicle registration details goes live this year. By the same token, expect it to be used for chasing speeding, parking and other offences.
Streaky
Daily Telegraph mobile edition said:
Police could be forced to hand over the DNA of innocent Britons to other EU countries after the Coalition agreed to enforce a controversial treaty.
Driver registration details from DVLA would also be passed on even though criminal justice systems vary considerably across Europe. Under the Prum Treaty, any of the 27 EU members can ask another state to check a DNA sample against their database and pass on the results.
Britain is joining despite concerns that citizens could be wrongly accused of crimes overseas because the project requires a lower accuracy test for DNA matches than is demanded in this country.
Research has suggested that up to two thirds of DNA matches under the EU system could be false positives. It means blameless Britons could be extradited to face trial abroad and would have to fight to prove their innocence.
The Conservatives criticised the treaty while in opposition and warned it increased the risk of people being subject to miscarriages of justice.
t the Government is now pushing ahead with adopting the proposals and intends to begin sharing details by 2015.
Critics last night urged ministers to think again and opt out of the programme, which is still possible.
The Commons European scrutiny committee also plans to examine the latest research, conducted in Holland, as a matter of urgency.
Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “Britain has not suffered from being out of this pan-European data sharing regime. But, if we opt in, with a million innocent people’s DNA on our police database and a 67 per cent error rate under the EU scheme, more and more UK citizens risk finding themselves mistakenly dragged into criminal investigations abroad.
“It is one more reason not to give up UK democratic control over crime and policing in 2014.”
Britain’s obligations under the treaty will increase pressure on David Cameron to pull out of the data sharing scheme in 2014, when the UK has the option to take back control of 130 EU laws.
Under the EU arrangements, police would have to check a DNA profile against the database regardless of whether the alleged offence is a crime in this country. The country requesting the check would then be told whether there was a match and given details.
In Britain, a DNA profile can be matched to a sample only if it passes at least 10 separate checks. Under the treaty, however, the standard is lower with six checks required. Research in Holland found that out of 81 “matches” with six checks, 67 per cent were false positives. In contrast, there was a five per cent error rate among 259 matches where seven checks were carried out.
In 2003, Peter Hamkin, a barman from Liverpool, was wrongly arrested for the murder of Italian woman, Annalisa Vincenti, in Tuscany because of a false positive match. He had never been to Italy but extradition proceedings were only halted after a second DNA test established his innocence.
Bill Cash, the chairman of the parliamentary European scrutiny committee, said: “This new information is clearly relevant to the operation of these proposals and I shall be investigating the matter in addition to the other work the committee has been doing on this.” James Clappison, a committee member added: “Ministers need to look at this and ensure that standards are at least as high on these requests as they are for DNA checks in this country, especially considering the importance courts give to DNA evidence.”
Britain has the world’s largest DNA database with more than five million profiles. The Government’s intention to begin sharing DNA under Prum was outlined in a letter to Mr Cash’s committee last year, which has only now come to light.
A Home Office spokesman said that Britain is only required to hand over DNA profiles of people who have previous convictions. It could still result in someone with a minor conviction being wrongly linked to a crime overseas.
67% error rate, huh? And in The Netherlands too.Driver registration details from DVLA would also be passed on even though criminal justice systems vary considerably across Europe. Under the Prum Treaty, any of the 27 EU members can ask another state to check a DNA sample against their database and pass on the results.
Britain is joining despite concerns that citizens could be wrongly accused of crimes overseas because the project requires a lower accuracy test for DNA matches than is demanded in this country.
Research has suggested that up to two thirds of DNA matches under the EU system could be false positives. It means blameless Britons could be extradited to face trial abroad and would have to fight to prove their innocence.
The Conservatives criticised the treaty while in opposition and warned it increased the risk of people being subject to miscarriages of justice.
t the Government is now pushing ahead with adopting the proposals and intends to begin sharing details by 2015.
Critics last night urged ministers to think again and opt out of the programme, which is still possible.
The Commons European scrutiny committee also plans to examine the latest research, conducted in Holland, as a matter of urgency.
Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “Britain has not suffered from being out of this pan-European data sharing regime. But, if we opt in, with a million innocent people’s DNA on our police database and a 67 per cent error rate under the EU scheme, more and more UK citizens risk finding themselves mistakenly dragged into criminal investigations abroad.
“It is one more reason not to give up UK democratic control over crime and policing in 2014.”
Britain’s obligations under the treaty will increase pressure on David Cameron to pull out of the data sharing scheme in 2014, when the UK has the option to take back control of 130 EU laws.
Under the EU arrangements, police would have to check a DNA profile against the database regardless of whether the alleged offence is a crime in this country. The country requesting the check would then be told whether there was a match and given details.
In Britain, a DNA profile can be matched to a sample only if it passes at least 10 separate checks. Under the treaty, however, the standard is lower with six checks required. Research in Holland found that out of 81 “matches” with six checks, 67 per cent were false positives. In contrast, there was a five per cent error rate among 259 matches where seven checks were carried out.
In 2003, Peter Hamkin, a barman from Liverpool, was wrongly arrested for the murder of Italian woman, Annalisa Vincenti, in Tuscany because of a false positive match. He had never been to Italy but extradition proceedings were only halted after a second DNA test established his innocence.
Bill Cash, the chairman of the parliamentary European scrutiny committee, said: “This new information is clearly relevant to the operation of these proposals and I shall be investigating the matter in addition to the other work the committee has been doing on this.” James Clappison, a committee member added: “Ministers need to look at this and ensure that standards are at least as high on these requests as they are for DNA checks in this country, especially considering the importance courts give to DNA evidence.”
Britain has the world’s largest DNA database with more than five million profiles. The Government’s intention to begin sharing DNA under Prum was outlined in a letter to Mr Cash’s committee last year, which has only now come to light.
A Home Office spokesman said that Britain is only required to hand over DNA profiles of people who have previous convictions. It could still result in someone with a minor conviction being wrongly linked to a crime overseas.
The Prum Convention forms part of the Schengen agreement and was intended to "help fight terrorism". The record of limiting the use of such laws, treaties and agreements to their initially-stated rationale is not a good one. Home Office statements have oft shown themselves to be 'pliable' too.
On the vehicle details front, EUCARIS - the system intended to provide EU-wide access to vehicle registration details goes live this year. By the same token, expect it to be used for chasing speeding, parking and other offences.
Streaky
La Liga said:
Sounds concerning and worthy of attention on the face of it.
On a sceptical note, any idea of the source of this 'research' that gives that comically high error rate figure? I need to be convinced it's that high.
It only needs 1 wrong one ...and if it were YOU...Think you would change your mind then!On a sceptical note, any idea of the source of this 'research' that gives that comically high error rate figure? I need to be convinced it's that high.
Totally crazy... This world is getting smaller, more complicated, and in some cases more dangerous each day that goes by. The politicians seem to live in a bubble all on their own...
Bet Cameron is running around like a headless chicken today sticking up posters saying ...'not at this address' to counter claims that he was snuggling up to a certain female 'ex newspaper' boss...
streaky said:
You just knew it would happen some day soon.
I read this as saying that a DNA sample will be CHECKED against the UK DNA database, not that DNA samples will be made available en masse to foreign agencies.Daily Telegraph mobile edition said:
...any of the 27 EU members can ask another state to check a DNA sample against their database and pass on the results...
StreakyIn any case, as I see it this is something of a non-story.
If you do something really serious like, for example, knock off somebody in Greece, it would be reasonable for Greek Plod to want a word with you, and to do everything in their power to bring you to justice. If that included getting hold of any DNA evideince that the UK happend to have for you then I don't see that as a problem.
The mention of driver details is interesting, but once again something of a non-event. In an age where many more of us drive in other countries than was the case, say, 40 years ago, it is reasonable to take the view that any motoring offences you commit in another country are dealt with in exactly the same way as in this country. From where I live to the Belgian border it is about 230 miles via Dover, some 70 miles closer to me than, say, Carlisle, and about the same distance as to Penzance. There is precious litle justification for me to say that it would be OK (albeit unwelcome) for me to be nicked for speeding in Carlisle or Penzance, but not OK if it happens near Veurne.
And as far as I know, DNA does not come into the matter as far as 99.9999% of motoring offences are concerned. And in the 0.0001% of cases that it does come into the matter, the chances are that you've done something rather more serious than outstaying your parking meter time
As you were, chaps
If you do something really serious like, for example, knock off somebody in Greece, it would be reasonable for Greek Plod to want a word with you, and to do everything in their power to bring you to justice. If that included getting hold of any DNA evideince that the UK happend to have for you then I don't see that as a problem.
The mention of driver details is interesting, but once again something of a non-event. In an age where many more of us drive in other countries than was the case, say, 40 years ago, it is reasonable to take the view that any motoring offences you commit in another country are dealt with in exactly the same way as in this country. From where I live to the Belgian border it is about 230 miles via Dover, some 70 miles closer to me than, say, Carlisle, and about the same distance as to Penzance. There is precious litle justification for me to say that it would be OK (albeit unwelcome) for me to be nicked for speeding in Carlisle or Penzance, but not OK if it happens near Veurne.
And as far as I know, DNA does not come into the matter as far as 99.9999% of motoring offences are concerned. And in the 0.0001% of cases that it does come into the matter, the chances are that you've done something rather more serious than outstaying your parking meter time
As you were, chaps
rs1952 said:
In any case, as I see it this is something of a non-story.
If you do something really serious like, for example, knock off somebody in Greece, it would be reasonable for Greek Plod to want a word with you, and to do everything in their power to bring you to justice. If that included getting hold of any DNA evideince that the UK happend to have for you then I don't see that as a problem.
<snip>
As you were, chaps
The worry is more it'll be used as a fishing trip, not a corroboration tool. And with a wonky hit rate/false positives that's a bad combination.If you do something really serious like, for example, knock off somebody in Greece, it would be reasonable for Greek Plod to want a word with you, and to do everything in their power to bring you to justice. If that included getting hold of any DNA evideince that the UK happend to have for you then I don't see that as a problem.
<snip>
As you were, chaps
sunbeam alpine said:
I read this as saying that a DNA sample will be CHECKED against the UK DNA database, not that DNA samples will be made available en masse to foreign agencies.
The DNA samples themselves will remain in house. However the details of the owner (name, DOB, last know address etc) are likely to be forwarded.I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand given how easily EU citizens can cross borders it's fair to say that a reasonable chunk of serious criminality can be linked to people born in other EU countries and who aren't on UK databases. Having a bigger DNA pool could be very useful to us.
On the other hand that quoted inaccuracy rate does seem quite high, though like LL I'd like to see a bit more information about how they reached that conclusion because it's borderline too high to be true.
In any case the number of occasions when this would be used won't be as high as it first appears given that any element of cross border co-operation tends to be a costly process - getting a bog standard DNA match is expensive when it's just within the UK. I'd imagine that it's use would be restricted to offences serious enough to warrant extradition, and in those proceedings I'd be surprised if a further DNA match to the UK standard wouldn't be considered.
So, undecided.
rs1952 said:
In any case, as I see it this is something of a non-story.
If you do something really serious like, for example, knock off somebody in Greece,
[...]
As you were, chaps
Or be a member of a camera club and innocently take some photographs at an airfield.If you do something really serious like, for example, knock off somebody in Greece,
[...]
As you were, chaps
Or be acquitted of attempted murder in Portugal only to be arrested back home 18 years later on a charge or murder ... when the victim is still alive (and apparently in no danger of dying ... at least not from the injuries received (at whosever hand).
The forensic and investigative techniques used in Italy and Portugal are highly questionable ... judging from two recent high-profile cases.
It's easy to dismiss piecemeal, you need to look at the 'big picture'.
Streaky
streaky said:
rs1952 said:
In any case, as I see it this is something of a non-story.
If you do something really serious like, for example, knock off somebody in Greece,
[...]
As you were, chaps
Or be a member of a camera club and innocently take some photographs at an airfield.If you do something really serious like, for example, knock off somebody in Greece,
[...]
As you were, chaps
Or be acquitted of attempted murder in Portugal only to be arrested back home 18 years later on a charge or murder ... when the victim is still alive (and apparently in no danger of dying ... at least not from the injuries received (at whosever hand).
The forensic and investigative techniques used in Italy and Portugal are highly questionable ... judging from two recent high-profile cases.
It's easy to dismiss piecemeal, you need to look at the 'big picture'.
Streaky
rs1952 said:
Whilst of course you never get miscarriages of justice in the UK, do you? Ask Stefan Kiszko. Oh, wait .....
At least he was acquitted and managed to get home again . In view of the DNA basis for this thread, it is interesting that his 'conviction' was based on cytology/pathology results (a sperm sample) which would have proved his innocence and was withheld (plus an allegedly-bent police officer in charge of his 'case' who also stitched Judith Ward up on his watch - and also oversaw Peter Sutcliffe's journey to trial 
).You are quite right, I am agreeing with you
.
So we've spent £100BN plus and spilled much innocent blood fighting for freedom and democracy in the Middle East to create a Big Brother European state here?
Goes well with the one sided US extradition scheme and the US authorities being able to check all of our bank accounts.
It's the Bottom Inspectors from Viz.
aw51 121565 said:
rs1952 said:
Whilst of course you never get miscarriages of justice in the UK, do you? Ask Stefan Kiszko. Oh, wait .....
At least he was acquitted and managed to get home again . In view of the DNA basis for this thread, it is interesting that his 'conviction' was based on cytology/pathology results (a sperm sample) which would have proved his innocence and was withheld (plus an allegedly-bent police officer in charge of his 'case' who also stitched Judith Ward up on his watch - and also oversaw Peter Sutcliffe's journey to trial ).You are quite right, I am agreeing with you
.Of course, all this touches upon a very potentially sore point and, when anybody bleats about "whassisname might not get a fair trial in xyz," the proverb about stones and glass houses springs to mind. The UK is no better then many other administrations at making sure the right people get nicked for the crime, and history is littered with examples of when we haven't got it right. And there have also been numerous cases where it has been a close call - for some reason the name Christopher Jefferies springs to mind ...
But to pick up on one of Streaky's specific points, there is another old proverb about "doing what the Romans do." If you are aware that, for example, the Greeks get a bit touchy about people taking photographs of their military aircraft, then you are either a prize idiot for wandering around close to a military airfield snapping happily away (no matter how "innocent" you actually are), or you really are the Turkish spy they think you are.
In a way we have a parallel in the UK, where we have more of a mania about potential paedophiles than they do in other European countries. So, to turn the tables, if a Greek on holiday in the UK decides to take a few snaps of all the excellent play equipment they've got down at the local park's playground, he is much more likely to be carted off for questioning here than he is in Athens.
Oh, and by the way, if you don't want to be strapped to a metal chair after 20 years of appeals and being on Death Row, don't kill anybody in Texas
rs1952 said:
Of course, all this touches upon a very potentially sore point and, when anybody bleats about "whassisname might not get a fair trial in xyz," the proverb about stones and glass houses springs to mind. The UK is no better then many other administrations at making sure the right people get nicked for the crime, and history is littered with examples of when we haven't got it right. And there have also been numerous cases where it has been a close call - for some reason the name Christopher Jefferies springs to mind ..
Although this is almost certainly untrue you're missing an obvious point, which is that being at the mercy of 27X more justice systems makes the relatively efficacy of ours irrelevant.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff