DNA technology versus right to privacy
It was more than 15 years after Teresa Cormack died that Napier detective Keith Price knocked on the door of a house in a Wellington suburb and arrested Jules Mikus for her murder.
When her body was found in June 1987, DNA analysis was in its infancy and samples from 21 suspects were tested and found inconclusive.
It wasn’t until September 2002 that an advanced test on a single hair hit a match, leading to Mikus’ arrest.
While DNA advances have aided police in solving many historic crimes, academics are concerned about social issues arising out of such technology.
Otago University law faculty dean and co-director of The Innocence Project New Zealand Mark Henaghan said a key principle of Western democracy was that the state shouldn’t have access to information citizens don’t voluntarily offer.
“The basic principle of civil liberties is you should be free to go about your business and not be interfered with by the state unless you do something improper.
“Once the state gets more and more information about you, there’s the fear that they can misuse that information.”
Henaghan said that while the Cormack case was fair use of DNA samples, advances in technology created human rights issues.
Citing the research of Dr Nessa Lynch of Victoria University, he said present legislation, the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, needed to be more specific in terms of how DNA samples are retained and civil liberties upheld.
“There seemed to be not much control and accountability in terms of protecting our civil liberties.”
While the legislation sought to balance the interests and opinions of both sides, Henaghan said “the infringement on my liberties is able to be argued more strongly than the possibility that you might catch someone committing a crime”.
Institute of Environmental Science and Research forensic programme manager Dr Jill Vintiner said the ESR destroyed DNA samples within the timeframes provided by the legislation.
“This means the legislation ensures the DNA samples cannot be stored permanently.”
However the legislation does state destruction is not required of any DNA profile that may lawfully be retained in a DNA databank and extension of the period for which a sample may be retained can be applied for.
Henaghan said more discussion was needed of the tension between human rights and criminal justice.