Home Office DNA mistake or dodgy civil service practice?

Channel 4 News and Kable report that Home Office minister David Hanson submitted to MPs five case studies to justify retaining the DNA of people not convicted of any crime. But one of the case studies turned out to be fake – a slightly-disguised copy of one of the other case studies.

Hanson had set out the five case studies in a letter to MPs on a committee scrutinising the Crime and Security Bill.

Hanson’s political opponent. Conservative shadow home affairs minister James Brokenshire, noticed that the first case study bore similarities to the fifth case study.

Both cases involved rape charges and the offenders were also both Dutch nationals. The name of the person convicted in the first study was left out.

Under questioning by MPs, Hanson conceded that the two case studies were the same.

He blamed the error on confusion over receiving victim approval to enable the victims’ names to be put into the public domain.

Brokenshiretold GC News that he was “genuinely shocked” by the discovery. He iswaiting for written clarification from Mr Hanson about the error.

“WhenI first noted the similarities I thought, ‘how many Dutch nationalscommit a crime in 2006 and are convicted of rape in 2008? It’s a bitodd’.

“At the very least it is gross negligence. It’s almostlike a dodgy DNA dossier… Quite frankly if this is the best thegovernment can do to argue its case, their arguments aren’t verystrong.”


NPfIT minister “clarifies” incorrect statement to Parliament – IT Projects Blog

Did the MoD mislead Parliament over DII projects costs? – IT Projects Blog

NPfIT briefings to the Prime Minister – was he told the full truth? – IT Projects Blog 

Fake profile used to justify keeping DNA – Channel 4 News

Minister deploys dodgy DNA case study – Kable