Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transnational Exchange of Forensic DNA: Viability, Legitimacy, and Acceptability

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Forensic DNA profiling and databasing have become increasingly significant resources for criminal investigations in many jurisdictions. More recently, there have been attempts to recruit these technologies into the policing of cross-border organized crime, migration and terrorism. We examined the trajectory of one such attempt, the establishment and operationalisation of the Prüm Treaty within the European Union. We describe the way in which early technological considerations underlying DNA profile exchange, managed within law enforcement bureaucracies, have given way to a concern with broader societal issues and the necessity for a multifaceted scrutiny of this particular technolegal innovation. Central to this issue is the hybrid nature of exchange arrangements created as a result of the European Council Decision on Prüm (2008). The Prüm Treaty departs from the increasingly normalized framework for criminal justice cooperation, and at the same time, does not facilitate DNA exchange within a more traditional multinational instrument. We consider the significance and implications of the political decisions behind Prüm, as well as the consequences for the development of transnational DNA exchange in terms of three key issues: technical and scientific challenges (viability); legal challenges (legitimacy); and ethical and socioeconomic challenges (acceptability). Unless the Prüm structure is reformed, an important and promising initiative may remain encumbered with unresolved problems of legitimacy and acceptability. A lack of direct democratic involvement of many member states precluded the creation of consensus on issues such as privacy, data protection and due process issues, upon which legal and political regimes could then act.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Prüm Treaty (2005) and the subsequent European Council Decision (2008), will for convenience be generally referred to in this article as Prüm.

  2. The law is undergoing revision in the England and Wales legislature.

  3. The key texts are the Council Decision of 23 June 2008 (2008/615/JHA) and the instruments relating to Iceland and Norway (OJ L 2009 353 pages 1 to 8 and 2010/482/EU).

  4. June 1997 (97/C193/02).

  5. Council Resolution (2001/C 187/01).

  6. COM 6077/3/11 12 May 2011, Brussels.

  7. 1 mismatch is permitted to make “near’ matches, and 1 base-pair difference is permitted to allow microvariants.

  8. Press release, 2781st Council meeting, Brussels, 15 February 2007, 5922/07 (Presse 16).

  9. “Surge in Britons exported for trial” The Daily Telegraph, 21st August 2010.

  10. Different biochemical kits are sold by companies to test for a variety of STRs, which then produce a DNA profile. For example, Profiler Plus and CofilerTM (PE Applied Biosystems) combine 13 different STR loci. PowerplexTM (Promega) uses the same 13 loci but uses different primers. IdentifilerTM (PE Applied Biosystems) incorporates the original 13 loci but adds 2 additional loci.

  11. With the UK’s SGM + multiplex (11 loci) the chance of an adventitious match (for people who are not siblings) is reported to be 1 in 1,000 million. UK National DNA Database Annual Report 2003–04:33.

  12. EU Council Resolution on the exchange of DNA analysis results (2009/C 296/01).

  13. Elspeth Guild, quoted in House of Lords European Union Committee, (2007), Para 20, commenting that the process appeared to be “underhanded and dishonest”.

  14. Written Evidence of Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection Supervisor, quoted in House of Lords European Union Committee, Para 21.

  15. S & Marper v the United Kingdom, (December 4, 2008) (Application nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04) para.111 and 112.

  16. Commenting upon Williams, Robin, & Johnson, Paul (2007), 'Trace Biometrics and Criminal Investigations. In T Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of Criminal Investigation (Cullumpton: Willan).

  17. Heinz Huber v. Germany, European Court of Justice, Case C-524/06, Judgement of 16 December 2008.

References

  • Alain, M. (2001). The trapeze artists and the ground crew: police cooperation and intelligence exchange mechanisms in Europe and North America: A comparative empirical study. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 11(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. (2002). Trust and Police Cooperation. In M. Anderson & J. Apap (Eds.), Police and Justice Co-operation and the New European Borders. Kluwer: The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq, T. (2006). From a Prum of 7 to a Prum of 8+: What are the implications?, Brussels: European parliament, directorate general internal policies.

  • Balzacq, T., Bigo, D., Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2006). Security and the two-level game: the treaty of Prüm, the EU and the management of threats, Centre for the European Policy Studies Working Document 234.

  • Bigo, D., Carrera, S., and Guild, E. (2009). The Challenge project: final policy recommendations on the changing landscape of European liberty and security, Challenge Research Paper No.16, September.

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2007). The forensic uses of bioinformation: ethical issues. available at: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/bioinformationuse/publication_441.html.

  • Block, L. (2007). International policing in Russia: police co-operation between the European union member states and the Russian federation. Policing and Society, 17(4), 367–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. M. (2006). Genetics and genomics of core STR loci used in human identity testing. Journal of Forensic Science, 51(2), 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. A. (2001). Suspect identities: a history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hert, P. (2005). Biometrics: legal issues and implications, Background Paper for the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla, (European Commission).

  • de Hert, P., & Gutwirth, S. (2006). Interoperability of police databases within the EU: An accountable political choice? International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 20(1/2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Boer, M. (2002). Towards an Accountability Regime for an Emerging European Policing Governance. Policing and Society, 12(4), 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, J., & Pierce, A. (2006). Why the international exchange of DNA information is important. In Maximising the Opportunities for Sharing DNA Information across Europe. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmanouilidis, J. A. (2007). Institutional consequences of differentiated integration. Bertelsmann Group for Policy Research, C.A.P. Discussion Paper.

  • Emmanouilidis, J. A. (2008). Differentiated Europe – Nine Recommendations, ELIAMEP Thesis, 1/2008, Athens.

  • ENFSI (2007) DNA Expert Working Group of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) (2007) Search Request Network Study: Final Report (accessed on 15 April 2007) from the previous ENSFI website: www.enfsi.org/ewg/dnawg/documents/Annex20F20AGISFinal20Report.

  • ENSFI (2009) DNA-Database Management Review and recommendations available at: www.enfsi.org.

  • European Data Protection Supervisor (2007). Opinion dated 19 December 2007 (EJ 10.4. 2008 pages C89/1-7).

  • Fuster, G. G., De Hert, P., & Gutwirth, S. (2008). State of art report on the current scholarship on the law-security nexus in Europe, INEX FP7 Project (Oslo: PRIO).

  • Geyer, F. (2008). Taking stock: databases and systems of information exchange in the area of freedom, security and justice, CHALLENGE Research Paper No.9, May.

  • House of Lords European Union Committee. (2007). Prüm: An Effective Weapon Against Terrorism and Crime? HL Paper 90. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords European Union Committee. (2008). Europol: coordinating the fight against serious and organised crime, HL Paper 183. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • INTERPOL (2008). Global DNA Profiling Survey, Key Facts. Available at www.interpol.int.

  • Johnson, P., & Williams, R. (2007). Internationalizing new technologies of crime control: forensic DNA databasing and datasharing in the European union. Policing and Society, 17(2), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (2010). The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kietz, D., & Maurer, A. (2006). From Schengen to Prüm: deeper integration through enhanced cooperation or signs of fragmentation in the EU?. Siftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Comments, 15, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacohee, H., Crane, S., and Phippen, A. (2006). Trustguide: Final Report, Trustguide.

  • Loader, I. (2002). Policing, securitization and democratization in Europe. Criminal Justice, 2(2), 125–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luif, P. (2007). The treaty of Prum: a replay of Schengen?, EU-Consent Constructing European Network Paper, D38c.

  • Lynch, M., Cole, S. A., McNally, R., & Jordan, K. (2008). Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machado, H. and Silva, S. (2011). Portuguese forensic DNA database. In R. Hindmarsh & B. Prainsack (Eds.) Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

  • McCartney, C. (2006). Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice. Cullumpton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCartney, C., Williams, R. and Wilson, T. (2010). The Future of Forensic Bioinformation, available at http://www.law.leeds.ac.uk/research/projects/bioinformation.php.

  • McGinley, M., & Parkes, R. (2007). Data protection in the EU's internal security cooperation: fundamental rights vs effective cooperation?, SWP Research Paper, May 2007 (RP 5).

  • Neyroud, P., & Disley, E. (2008). Technology and policing: implications for fairness and legitimacy. Policing, 2(2), 226–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (2002a). Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (2002b). A Question of Trust - The Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patyn, A., & Dierickx, K. (2010). Forensic DNA databases: genetic testing as societal choice. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 319–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack, B., & Toom, V. (2010). The Prum regime: situated dis/empowerment in transnational DNA profile exchange. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 1117–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) (2007). Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance.London: Royal Academy of Engineering.

  • Sandler, T. (2006). Recognizing the limits to cooperation behind national borders: financing the control of transnational terrorism. In I. Kaul& P. Conceiçào (Eds.), The New public Finance: Responding To Global Challenges New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Schneider, P. (2009). Expansion of the European standard set of DNA database loci - the current situation, Profiles in DNA, March. Available at www.promega.com.

  • Schuller, W. (2009). Interpol and international DNA exchange, first meeting of forensic specialists, organization of american states, Washington D.C. 24–25 September 2009.

  • van der Beek, C. (2008). Exchange of DNA profiles by the treaty of Prüm. Presented at DNA Data Exchange in Europe conference, June 5–6, 2008. Available at www.dna-conference.eu/ppt/Van%20der%20Beek.pdf.

  • Walker, N. (2008). The pattern of transnational policing. In T, Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of Policing, Cullumpton: Willan.

  • Williams, R., & Johnson, P. (2007). Trace biometrics and criminal investigations. In Tim Newburn, T. Williamson & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of Criminal Investigation, Cullumpton: Willan.

  • Williams, R., & Johnson, P. (2008). Genetic Policing. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. (2009). Forensic science and the internationalisation of policing. In J. G. Fraser, & R. Williams (Eds.) Handbook of Forensic Science Cullompton: Willan.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marie Curie Fellow, School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Carole I. McCartney

  2. Northumbria University Centre for Forensic Science, University of Northumbria, Northumbria, UK

    Tim J. Wilson & Robin Williams

Authors
  1. Carole I. McCartney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim J. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robin Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carole I. McCartney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCartney, C.I., Wilson, T.J. & Williams, R. Transnational Exchange of Forensic DNA: Viability, Legitimacy, and Acceptability. Eur J Crim Policy Res 17, 305–322 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9154-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9154-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation