03 July 2006
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Leyden): Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement.
Dr. Henry: I am interested in the area of DNA evidence. The Minister is correct in saying that such material could be useful in the future. However, a person's DNA exposes not only a great deal about that person but a great deal about other people. The DNA of the Minister's brother would be very similar to the Minister's DNA.
Mr. M. McDowell: One would hope so.
Dr. Henry: One can build up a profile of a family and a great deal of information can be gained about people who have had no involvement in the crime committed. This issue is already a problem in the case of insurance companies. Therefore, information is not only exposed about people detained in Garda stations but about their families. One can pick up a great deal of information about a family from the DNA of one of its members. A reason for destroying such material is that while it constitutes information on one person's identity, such information is similar to that of many members of that person's family. We must also recognise that aspect.
Mr. M. McDowell: Senators Norris and Henry represent the Trinity College constituency and Professor McConnell as they probably know-----
Dr. Henry: He is dying to do this.
Mr. M. McDowell: -----is a strong advocate of the universalist principle that, from a criminal law point of view, none of us has anything to concede and we should be happy, in the same way as our photograph is displayed on our driving licence, to assist the Garda to enable it to exclude us from an investigation. I am not being dismissive of Senator Henry's argument. If three brothers were of a criminal disposition, it would be possible to identify that one of them was not the natural brother of the other two and to know that information about a family which is a private family matter. That is a possible abuse of DNA evidence, namely, to be able to prove that a person was not-----
Mr. B. Hayes: Of the same bloodline.
Mr. M. McDowell: -----all he or she seemed to be and had a different parent from those whom that person considered to be his or her natural brothers and sisters. There is an issue in that respect.
Without going as far as Professor McConnell's view of saying that everyone's DNA should be automatically on a register as of duty, although I have some sympathy for that point of view because some of his arguments are good, I would at least agree that where a person has come to Garda attention, the idea of positively destroying something which could come in useful in the future is dubious. If a person is arrested and there is a strong suspicion that this person was involved in a paedophile sex act or an attempted rape, the notion this person's photograph must be deleted from being used in any mug shot album at a later stage where victims of a similar crime come to light is one with which I am sure Joe and Josephine Soap would not agree. It is a matter of judgment. I am not saying that one side is obviously right in this debate or one side is obviously wrong. It is a matter of degree and the issues are complicated. The notion that a sample given ten years ago could not be used to identify somebody who commits a serious offence would strike many people as deeply offensive.
Dr. Henry: I had better spring to Professor McConnell's defence as he is my seconder for the Seanad. I would not share his view that everyone's DNA should be on-line because it depends on who has access to this information. I would not share all his views on the position of the fertilised egg, an issue which is quickly coming down the tracks. It is important to point out that issues of paternity do not only occur in criminal families. Amazing discoveries have been made when people were screened for various conditions and fortunate incidents discovered when it was found that a family member had not developed a condition.
Mr. Cummins: It is a case of stop the lights.
Dr. Henry: I think I can live with that. This is a very difficult area which does not simply affect the families of criminals.
Mr. Norris: Have we moved on to my amendment?
Mr. M. McDowell: We have not moved on the Senator's amendment.
Mr. Norris: I see. The Minister's anticipation was so effective that everyone has been talking about it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: However fascinating this debate is, we must move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech
