Making Do With Partial Matches: DNA Intelligence and Criminal Investigations in the United Kingdom Robin Williams School of Applied Social Sciences University of Durham UK

Recent and Current Studies : Participation Observation of Crime Scene Examiners in One Police Division : Study of Management of Crime Scene Examination in Seven Police Forces : Development and Police Uses of National DNA Database : Study of forensic DNA Databasing and Datasharing across European Union

Structure of Presentation The National DNA Database Two kinds of low stringency searches –Loading, searching and investigating ‘partial profiles’ –Familial Searching Using familial search results in investigations: contestation, negotiated arrangements and continuing issues Concluding remarks on forensic DNA innovation and database governance

The National DNA Database Established April 1995 as Police Intelligence Database ‘Active Criminal Population’ ‘All Active Offenders’ 31 st July 2004: –2,396,429 Criminal Justice profiles (10% are ‘duplicates’). ‘Suspect offenders, the great majority of known active UK offenders’ –227,010 Unmatched Crime Scene Profiles 3,409 matches in June ,965 matches since May 2001

Widening the Net Main UK Net widening through expanded powers to retain samples and profiles taken from suspects on arrest. Also increased crime scene sampling But –Very strong external and internal pressure to improve detection rates –Duty to investigate under Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act (1996) Routine Process: TIE Exceptions and Innovations: Centres of Expertise

Low Stringency Searches and the NDNAD Two recurrent/developing practices: –Automated and bespoke searching and reporting of matches from incomplete (partial) profiles. ‘PARTIAL HITS’, ‘MULTIPLE HITS’ –Bespoke searching for partial matches (with some mismatching alleles) between profiles. ‘FAMILIAL SEARCHING’ Different search methods and different investigative issues.

Familial Searching on the NDNAD (i) Basic assumptions Confined to ‘cold case reviews’ and ‘hard to solve’ serious crime investigations By April 2004: 20 investigations, 5 identifications. –Some highly publicised by FSS and Police Service 2002 Joseph Kappen – sufficient certainty to authorise exhumation of dead suspect for offences in Geoffrey Gafoor – cold case review following miscarriage. Original offence Jason Ward – murder of Gladys Godfrey 2004 Craig Harman – death of truck driver.

Familial Searching (ii) NDNAD Search Trajectory –First search on ‘rarest allele’ (many thousands of hits) –Include more alleles and also limit search by geographical area or by other ‘intelligence’ e.g. witness statements –Obtain names of these partially matched individuals from Police National Computer –Agree list of names with SIO for further investigation Investigative Trajectory –Choose ‘overt’ or covert’ approach to Trace, Interview and Eliminate potential close relatives of individuals on NDNAD. –If overt: approach profiled person to name close relatives. TIE those named suspects –If covert: obtain relevant names from other intelligence, TIE those named suspects by ‘mass screen approach’

Overt Approach to Parent/Child of Suspect “Scientists investigating……have obtained a DNA profile. The police believe that this profile will belong to the offender. You will be aware that your DNA profile is recorded on the National DNA Database. Your DNA contains half of the characteristics of the DNA that was recovered from exhibits in this case. As DNA characteristics are inherited it follows that your parent’s/child’s DNA may also contain these similarities. We ask for your assistance in locating your parent/child so that a sample can be taken from him/her and he/she can be eliminated from this investigation.”

Overt Approach to Suspect “Through forensic intelligence we have information which leads us to believe that there may be similarities between the DNA profile of the offender and your DNA profile. This intelligence is based on the fact that the DNA profile of your parent/child is on the NDNAD. Their DNA contains half the characteristics of the profile of interest. As DNA characteristics are inherited it follows that your DNA may also contain these similarities. Therefore we ask for your assistance in providing a sample so that you can be eliminated from the investigation.”

UK Debate on the ethics of familial searching Between –Human Genetics Commission, Information Commissioner, Association of Chief Police Officers, Home Office and Forensic Science Service About –Compliance with relevant UK legislation on uses of the NDNAD? –Even if compliant, is the practice a breach of ‘qualified’ privacy rights under ECHR?

European Convention on Human Rights Article 8(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence Article 8(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

Current Negotiated Arrangement Differences ‘resolved’ in ACPO/FSS Agreement of Understanding and ACPO Code of Practice (‘restricted documents’) FSS ‘Hard to Access’ Service –Narrow range of crimes; full profiles only –Necessity for other ‘relevant intelligence’ for the ‘prioritisation of potential relatives’ –High-level authorisation –Family Liaison strategy –Community Impact assessment –Detailed policy file

Issues Database Searching –possible problems arising from –2001 legislation on voluntary sample retention –2003 legislation on retention of all arrestee samples Investigative Strategies –What can be legitimately expected of those approached? –Consequences of request surveillance –False inclusions and exclusions –Confidentiality and disclosure

Low Stringency Searching & Net Widening: Summary Remarks Forensic DNA innovation, Database Governance and Accountability –‘A repository of sensitive personal information such as this must be managed in an open, ethical and accountable manner to protect the civil rights of those whose information is held’ (Police Science and Technology Strategy

Incomplete/Partial Profiles on NDNAD 31 st March 2003 CJ Samples –73% are 10 locus (20 alleles) ‘Full Profile’ –27% are 6 locus (12 alleles) Crime Scene Samples –70% are 10 locus (20 alleles) ‘Full Profile’ –20% are 6 locus (12 alleles) –10% are between 8 and 11 alleles Partial crime scene profiles with fewer than 8 alleles cannot be loaded but can be ‘challenged’ on an ‘one- off’ basis. 1,394 such searches in 2002/2003)

NDNAD Partial Profile Hits and Criminal Investigations Partial crime scene profiles may facilitate categorical exclusions Partial crime scene profiles may match other crime scene profiles Newly loaded profiles match existing six locus profiles Partial crime scene profiles may match varying numbers of reference profiles –Avon & Somerset LCN study: 495 samples 89 profiles: 31 profiles ‘loadable’; 58 ‘challengeable’. 42 single hits; 20 hits against 2-10 profiles; 2 hit against 50 or more