Permit police to take body samples — report

Press, 12 October 1979, Page 26

Permit police to take body samples — report

PA Auckland A Government-appointed legal committee has recommended that the police be given powers to detain suspects without arrest for the taking of body samples — hair, saliva, blood, nailclippings or sei apings — as a means of positive identification The Criminal Law Reform Committee, in a report, outlined a detailed proceedure fur the police to follow in obtaining such samples but two members dissented from the majority decision which suggested tfy police could detain a suspect without arrest. The Minister of Justice (Mr McLay), said in Auckland that he would give the committee’s proposals “ven serious consideration’’ with a view to implementing th?m in the legislative programme for next year or the year after. But. he said, there was n specific intention to give effect to the proposals un-

til the issues raised had been “properly aired.” “The report represents, except for the dissensions, agreement from a considerable legal cross-section,” he said. “It provides a possible solution to the problem of positive identification.” The report recommended that a member of the police above the rank of constable could apply to a magistrate for an order to enable the external examination of a suspect's body of the taking of body samples. The report also said that such a procedure should be available only where there were reasonable grounds to believe that a suspect had committed a specific Offence punishable by more than 12 months imprisonment. The person executing the order should be permitted to use reasonable force to effect the examination or taking of a sample, it said. The order should be available both before and after the arrest of a suspect.

It could be similarly available where suspicion fell on a group of people, one of whom must have committed the offence. While the committee, in its report, recognised the common law principle that detention for the purpose of making inquiries was not permissible, it felt the rights of the individual were no more absolute than society’s need for effective law' enforcement. In a minority report, two dissenting members, Associate Professor B. J. Brown and Mrs J. E. Lowe, said there was no compelling reason for introducing a substantial extension to police powers involving the use of force and restraint on a “mere suspect.” “The proposal represents a disturbing precedent for the extension of pre-arrest powers into other areas of the law’,” they said. “There is scant overseas precedent for w’hat is proposed.” The two members noted that countries with a much

higher crime rate than New' I Zealand’s had resisted the | implementation of the ; kinds of powers the com- I mittee recommended. They said that even the I present blood-alcohol traffic i provisions for the takihg 1 of samples-stopped short of I “allowing force.” Mrs Lowe, in a further minority report, said she was unhappy about the proposals as they related to an arrested person. “To allow’ the forcible examination and the taking of specimens by police officers opens up a risk of oppressive or humiliating treatment,” she said. The other members of the committee include Mr R. C. Savage, Q.C. (chairman). Professor 1. D. Campbell, Messrs A. A. T. Ellis, P. G. S. Penlington Q.C., A. Satynand, P. B. Temm. Q.C.. D. A. S: Ward, G. W. Ward, and Superintendent R. J. McLennan. A number of its recommendations in other areas have been previously put into effect, including the “unlawful assembly” law.