‘Genetic fingerprinting’ favoured by Minister

Press, 24 February 1988, Page 42

‘Genetic fingerprinting’ favoured by Minister

By

PETER O’HARA

of NZPA London The Minister of Police, Mr Tapsell, has given a strong indication that he favours “genetic fingerprinting” in New Zealand after seeing the success of the new crime-fighting technique in Britain. Mr Tapsell said it could be used not only to fight the growth of “mindless” and brutal crime such as child rape but also in paternity checks for immigration. People from some Pacific Islands had caused concern among immigration authorities who suspected children they were bringing into the country were “ring-ins,” he said. A technique developed at Leicester University analyses deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which is present in every human cell and carries a code as individual as a fingerprint. Samples taken from blood, semen, skin or hair can be matched to evidence from the scene of a crime. British estimates related to Mr Tapsell say the genetic fingerprints are unique, at the very least, to one person in

four million. The estimates range as high as one in 30 billion. British courts have accepted the evidence in recent cases and one of the issues Mr Tapsell is examining on a tour of several countries is the reliability of the tests. He has gone on record in New Zealand as saying if the testing proved as infallible as seemed to be the case it would inevitably become part of the judicial system, although not necessarily compulsorily.

After visiting the Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory in London, he said: “Bearing in mind accuracy figures of between one in four million and one in 30 billion I think we may well see the beginning of a very big change.

“The courts here in Britain have accepted DNA testing as legitimate evidence. “Hitherto we staked all our confidence in human cross-examination. “Now we’re seeing an area of technology which has advanced beyond our thinking in terms of individual and community rights.

“In light of the apparent infallibility of the test and the growth of seemingly mindless brutal crime like child rape it will not be long before we are forced to reassess our attitudes to the individuals’ right and the rights of the community.” The Ministry of Justice has been studying the implications of DNA testing amid conflicting views of whether it is an abhorrent invasion of individual rights or a much-needed step against growing violent crime. Mr Tapsell said the question as to what extent DNA testing was made use of in New Zealand “has not been decided and is not my responsibility.

“Those are matters for the Justice Department and for the Government and people of New Zealand as a whole. “At the moment there has been no discussion, I am simply looking here at the police and forensic aspects.” Mr Tapsell said the test was accurate beyond any other available. “It will have very important police implications in rape for example.”

The vital link might be small traces of semen or bloodstains left at the scene of a crime.

Testing was “not extremely expensive,” costing between £lOO ($265) and £l2O ($320) for a sample in Britain. “I’ve no doubt that we will see it come into much greater prominence and be refined further. “In the next few years we are going to have to reassess this question of the individual rights as compared with the rights of the community as a whole. “It’s one of those areas where technological development has outstripped our ethical, moral, and judicial consideration.” A person had the right at the moment to refuse testing. “Equally, looking at the community rights and the betterment of the community as a whole, ought a person to be required to provide a specimen? Those are questions we have yet to deal with.” One objection was that "distasteful” tests had to be made, for instance taking sperm, he said.

“We have seen fit to require that a person pro-

vide blood for a traffic offence. The slaughter on the road was such that the public attitude determined that the individual’s rights should be subservient to the good of the community.”

A person could be required under the law to provide a blood sample which might incriminate him after a traffic accident.

Mr Tapsell noted conflicting concerns in the Government about DNA testing, saying that on one hand there was “a very real concern among many people to ensure individual rights are not infringed.”

On the other hand “we have seen recently a Whole new public abhorrence on things like child rape where there is often very little actual evidence to assist the police apprehend the criminal.”

The crimes were costly also in terms of police man hours “and very damaging to a city or village where that has occurred. People are fearful for their other children.”