THE entire UK population and every visitor to the country should be on the national DNA database, a top judge has said.

Lord Justice Sedley told BBC News: "Where we are at the moment is indefensible.

"We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police, then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven't, it isn't... that's broadly the picture."

Sir Stephen Sedley said disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get on to the database where there is ethnic profiling going on.

He added: "It also means that a great many people who are walking the streets, and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free".

There are currently four million profiles held on the national DNA database.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "I think we are broadly sympathetic to the thrust of what he has said. There is no Government plans to go to a compulsory database now or in the foreseeable future.

"There is a logic to what Sir Stephen is saying. I have said that myself in the past, that there is a real logic and cohesion to the point that says 'Well, put everybody on'.

Civil liberties

"But I think he probably does under-estimate the practicalities, logistics and huge civil liberties and ethics issue around that."

Sir Stephen, one of England's most experienced Appeal Court judges, said expanding the database to cover the whole population had "very serious but manageable implications".

He said everybody's DNA should be on file "for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention".

The UK's 12-year-old DNA database is the largest of any country, growing by 30,000 samples a month, which are taken from suspects or crime scenes.

According to the Home Office website, 5.2% of the UK population is on the database, compared with 0.5% in the US.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights organisation Liberty, said: "The DNA debate reveals just how casual some people have become about the value of personal privacy.

"A database of those convicted of sexual and violent crime is a perfectly sensible crimefighting measure.

"A database of every man, woman and child in the country is a chilling proposal, ripe for indignity, error and abuse."

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "The DNA database has revolutionised the way the police can protect the public through identifying offenders and securing more convictions. It provides the police on average with around 3,500 matches each month."

She said there are no Government plans to introduce a universal compulsory, or voluntary, national DNA database, but that the Home Office is currently undertaking a review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace) 1984, which sets out the powers to take and retain biometric data.

Proposals

She said: "Final proposals are due to be published in spring 2008 and will take account of the views received during the consultation as well as those of Lord Chief Justice Sedley.

"The aim of the review is to ensure proportionality and fairness by maintaining the important balance between the investigative needs of the police and the protection of the individual."

Sir Stephen, one of England's most experienced Appeal Court judges, said expanding the database to cover the whole population had "very serious but manageable implications".

He said everybody's DNA should be on file "for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention".

The UK's 12-year-old DNA database is the largest of any country, growing by 30,000 samples a month, which are taken from suspects or crime scenes.

According to the Home Office website, 5.2% of the UK population is on the database, compared with 0.5% in the US.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights organisation Liberty, said: "The DNA debate reveals just how casual some people have become about the value of personal privacy.

"A database of those convicted of sexual and violent crime is a perfectly sensible crimefighting measure.

"A database of every man, woman and child in the country is a chilling proposal, ripe for indignity, error and abuse."

What do you think? Have your say