A SENIOR Tayside Police officer has said he would welcome the extension of the national DNA database to include people who have never been convicted of a crime.

Deputy Chief Constable Willie Bald (pictured), who sits on the National DNA Database Board, said the decision to review the matter less than a year after it was voted down in the Scottish Parliament was “surprising but not unwelcome.”

Earlier this week, Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson argued that giving police the power to retain DNA samples and fingerprints of all suspects would help catch more criminals and protect the public.

Currently DNA samples taken when people are arrested in Scotland must be destroyed if the person is not charged or convicted, at an annual cost of £500,000, but they are kept by forces in England and Wales.

Earlier this year MSPs voted in favour of allowing forces to keep for up to three years the DNA of those accused of serious violent and sexual offences, even if they are not charged or convicted.

Ms Jamieson has now called for the provisions to be extended to include DNA samples from anyone suspected of a crime, citing the success of English forces who were able to link more than 7000 suspects to more than 10,000 cases as a result of the evidence.

Mr Bald said he reflected the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS) that bringing Scottish legislation in line with England would aid crime detection.

He said, “There is a fine balance between civil liberties, which we do recognise, and the need to prevent serious offenders escaping justice.

“On balance, ACPOS believes that a broadening of DNA retention powers would be in the wider public interest.

“Part of the bill going through parliament at the moment did allow police to keep the DNA of those who were investigated for the most serious crimes like violence or sexual offences for three years.

“I was slightly surprised when I read in the news- papers that the decision to review these measures has come up so quickly after the full measures were voted down earlier this year.

“Normally these things lie for around two or three years before they come up again, so it was surprising but not unwelcome from the point of view of ACPOS members.

“It does merit being reviewed because public opinion on matters like this do change over time, although I do realise that six months is unusually short.”

Mr Bald cited the troubles facing police officers today in identifying criminals.

He continued, “We do recognise the trouble that misidentification from police evidence can cause and the recent Shirley McKie case did create huge problems for fingerprint evidence.

“Fingerprint evidence is based on expert opinion whereas DNA evidence is much more reliable.

“However, most people’s concern (with regard to DNA retention) is not that it will be used to implicate them in a crime they did not commit, but that at some point in the future it will be used by other departments outside the police for other purposes.

“People say to us, ‘You’re all right but what about the next lot who come along in 10 years, who might not be as careful?’

“What I would say to those people is that the police will resist any attempt to divert DNA evidence for any other purpose other than the detection of crime.

“Furthermore, no one would ever be convicted on DNA evidence alone.

“There would have to be whole load of other evidence to support the conviction.

“Everything is taken into account and, depending on the type of crime scene, we would always be aware of the potential of DNA contamination from any number of innocent parties through hair or blood.

“People also say, ‘If I have never been convicted of a crime why should you get to keep my DNA? It’s personal.’

“To those people I would have to present the other side of the argument and say—what if your daughter, wife or sister was assaulted, raped or murdered and we had the attacker’s DNA on file but it had been destroyed?”

He added, “If there is a means that the police can utilise to apprehend criminals it is our duty to use it to the full.”