Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It goes without saying that forensic science has transformed crime detection and investigation and enabled police forces to solve crimes that would have remained unsolved in earlier times. We are all aware of forensic science through entertainment and the media, with a plethora of books, films and television programmes on the topic. It is an area that has both influenced and been influenced by artistic content. I recall reading a work which traced the link between the fictional character of Sherlock Holmes and the real life experience of the writer, Arthur Conan Doyle, with one of the earliest forensic scientists. Such works entertained the public and inspired greater research and examination of forensic science.

Another development which has greatly increased the effectiveness and usefulness of forensic science has been the substantial advances in information technology. I am reminded of a particularly disturbing case in the United Kingdom which occurred when information technology and genetics-based forensic science were still very much in their infancy. The case involved serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire Ripper, who was responsible for the murders of 13 women and the attempted murders of several others. A 2006 report into the handling of the case detailed how the police had interviewed Sutcliffe on several occasions but released him, thereby enabling him to continue his heinous crimes. The lack of an information technology system and absence of a forensic evidence database led to shocking oversights and the further loss of life. Such cases demonstrate how crucial it is to have proper use of information technology and other scientific tools such as a DNA database to combat crime successfully.

I welcome this Bill as a vital innovation which will help the Garda Síochána to combat crime. I note it was first recommended by the Law Reform Commission a decade ago. It is regrettable that such a lengthy period elapsed before the introduction of this legislation.

I note also the ethical considerations at the heart of the Bill. We pride ourselves in Ireland on a criminal legal system rooted in the presumption of innocence. The collection and retention of DNA evidence during an investigation is understandable and reasonable. However, it is the retention of such information in the event of an acquittal or a decision not to prosecute which has been the source of controversy. There is a great need to strike the right balance between a person's individual rights to privacy and bodily integrity and the interests of wider society, which include ensuring the safety of citizens when detecting and preventing crime.

Examining practice in other jurisdictions is always a useful exercise, and even more so when procedures have been in place for several years or decades, as this can bring to light problems, issues or mistakes. One such issue is what is known as "function creep". The experience of the United States is a clear example of the original purpose of a DNA database extending far beyond what was envisaged, to the extent that samples are now taken and retained for the most minor of crimes. Furthermore, individual US states are only obliged to destroy profiles of persons acquitted when such persons actually make an application for destruction. I harbour concerns of such a practice emerging here. A person, particularly one who has volunteered a sample, should not have to apply to have samples and profiles removed. They should be destroyed automatically and without undue delay.

The position in the United Kingdom should serve as a lesson for all legislators that personal rights must be balanced with the requirements of a functioning law enforcement agency. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 effectively removed the original safeguard that DNA samples and profiles be removed and destroyed following acquittal or where criminal charges have been dropped. This clear abuse of power was only remedied when the parties concerned took legal action via the European Court of Human Rights. We have had recent experience of the effect of decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights, of which every Deputy will be aware. The court has been the subject of some very negative commentary, the majority of which has been uncalled for, and I am encouraged that, in drafting this legislation, the Minister has been mindful of the relevant decisions of the court and provisions of our Constitution, respectively.

It is too easy in the intense heat of a moment, often in the aftermath of a particularly heinous crime, to rush through legislation which has not been afforded proper consideration and reflection. While no legislation can be said to be watertight, I welcome the provisions of the Bill in introducing a statute only approach to the collection of samples. This brings an end to common law practices and will, I am certain, provide a surer footing and promote standardised practices. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this important legislation.

See this speech in context