FOI release

Automated deletion of DNA profiles and samples

Published 18 December 2014

  1. Where fingerprints have been erroneously retained because of the ‘proceedings stayed’ or ‘discontinued’ issues, guidance to forces and a software change have remedied the situation in relation to future entries with effect from 9 July. A further software change will be introduced to remedy the situation in relation to past entries by the end of October 2014.

Where fingerprints have been erroneously retained because of the ‘foreign convictions’ issue, the position will be remedied by software changes due to be implemented on 18 August 2014. Guidance has been issued to police forces stating that if they receive a match between a person’s fingerprints and those found at a crime scene, they should check the person’s PNC record to confirm that their fingerprints are legally held before proceeding

2.If fingerprints are accidently deleted, it is not possible to take fingerprints again, as police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act do not permit the taking of further fingerprints unless the originals were insufficient or the investigation has been closed and then subsequently reopened at a later date. If a force held both paper and electronic copies of fingerprints and one was destroyed, the other could still be used.

3.In relation to the erroneous deletion of fingerprints since October 2013, it is estimated that about 30 persons’ fingerprints were erroneously deleted due to a software issue. These were records where there was an unusual combination of multiple arrests without convictions and would have been the same persons whose DNA profiles were also erroneously deleted. As the records no longer exist it is not possible to determine the number precisely, but investigation of the software issue indicates that about 30 individuals were affected. The software issue has now been resolved.

We are also aware that certain records have been erroneously retained because proceedings were stayed or discontinued, and in some cases relating to foreign convictions, though we do not know the numbers of such records. This occurred both before and after October 2013.

Foreign convictions

Under PoFA, if a person has a conviction in England or Wales their DNA profile and fingerprints (FP) may be retained indefinitely (except for first minor offences committed under the age of 18). At present the same principle is applied to persons with foreign convictions. However the legal basis for retention from those with foreign convictions stated in section 63J of PACE, as added by section 6 of PoFA, makes reference to conditions laid down in other sections of PACE. The effect of these is that DNA profiles and fingerprints taken from those with foreign convictions can be retained only if three conditions apply: a. The conviction is equivalent to an England and Wales qualifying (i.e. more serious) offence b. DNA/Fingerprinting were not taken previously, or were insufficient, under the sections of PACE allowing taking for a foreign conviction (61(6D) and 63(3E) for Fingerprinting and DNA respectively). (So taking previously under other sections of PACE (e.g. those allowing taking on arrest) does not prevent taking again under these sections). c. Authorisation of an officer of the rank of inspector or above for the taking was given.

Therefore persons with foreign convictions where these conditions do not apply have had their DNA and fingerprints erroneously retained. This applies to those with such convictions dated either before or after October 2013. (If a person has both a foreign conviction and an English or Welsh conviction, then their DNA and fingerprints are correctly retained because of the latter). We do not hold information on the number of records erroneously retained. Changes being made to fix this problem are described in answer to questions 2 and 6 above.

An estimated 80,000 individuals were added to the national fingerprint database by English and Welsh police forces between 31 October 2013 and 30 June 2014. The 30 persons’ fingerprints erroneously deleted represent 0.0375% of the number added