Comparison of Section 35(1) of the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill and Section 4 of the Identification Act Revised Statute of Canada

In continuance of research around the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill that has been drafted the Department of Biotechnology, this blog entry reviews best practices for the communication of DNA profiles from the DNA Bank Manager to law enforcement and the police, compares the section 35(1) of the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill and section 4 of the Identification Act Revised Statute of Canada, and recommends a revision of the present provision in the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.

Indian Provision

35 (1) “On receipt of a DNA profile for entry in the DNA Data Bank, the DNA Bank Manager shall cause it to be compared with the DNA profiles in the DNA Data Bank in order to determine whether it is already contained in the DNA Data Bank and shall communicate, for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution in a criminal offence, the following information to a court, tribunal, law enforcement agency or DNA laboratory in India which the DNA Data Bank Manager considers is concerned with it, appropriate, namely –

(a) As to whether the DNA profile received is already contained in the Data Bank; and

(b) Any information, other than the DNA profile received, is contained in the Data Bank in relation to the DNA profile received.

(2) The information as to whether a person’s DNA profile is contained in the offenders’ index may be communicated to an official who is authorized to receive the same as prescribed.”

Canadian Provision vs. Indian Provision

According to the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 35(1) was adopted from the DNA Identification Act Revised Statute of Canada section 4. The provision found in the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill is different in three ways:

1. The Canadian statute limits the communication of whether a DNA profile is contained in the Data Bank or not to law enforcement agencies or other DNA laboratories, where as the provision in the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill allows the communication to law enforcement agencies, other DNA data banks, and courts and tribunals.
2. The Canadian statute limits the comparison of any DNA profile to that as entered in the convicted offenders index or the crime scene index with those DNA profiles that are already contained in the databank, where as the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill allows for any received profile to be compared with the other profiles in the DNA Data Bank.
3. The Canadian statute defines four types of information that may be communicated to law enforcement or another DNA databank including:

1. (a) if the DNA profile is not already contained in the data bank, the fact that it is not;
2. (b) if the DNA profile is already contained in the data bank, the information contained in the data bank in relation to that DNA profile;
3. (c) if the DNA profile is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, similar to one that is already contained in the data bank, the similar DNA profile; and
4. (d) if a law enforcement agency or laboratory advises the Commissioner that their comparison of a DNA profile communicated under paragraph (c) with one that is connected to the commission of a criminal offence has not excluded the former as a possible match, the information contained in the data bank in relation to that profile.

While the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill provides for communication of only (a) and (b) by the DNA Data Bank Manager.

Concerns with 35(1) and Best Practices

The Centre for Internet and Society finds 35(1) problematic because a  DNA profile is never a complete match, and is instead a scientific and statistical based probability. There are a number of steps that go into the analysis of a DNA profile. According to the US National Institute of Justice, these include: “1) the isolation of the DNA from an evidence sample containing DNA of unknown origin, and generally at a later time, the isolation of DNA from a sample (e.g., blood) from a known individual; 2) the processing of the DNA so that test results may be obtained; 3) the determination of the DNA test results (or types), from specific regions of the DNA; and 4) the comparison and interpretation of the test results from the unknown and known samples to determine whether the known individual is not the source of the DNA or is included as a possible source of the DNA.”

Though it is common for DNA Banks to communicate responses such as “match”,  “no match”, or “partial match” or “inclusion”, “exclusion”, or “inconclusive” to inquiries received from law enforcement and other DNA Banks, this is not the case for communications to courts and tribunals. For example in England and Wales guidelines for presenting DNA evidence in court were laid out in the rule Rv. Dohemy and Adams (1997) 1 Cr. App. R. 396. Along with comprehensive guidelines on how experts should conduct themselves in court to prevent bias, the guidelines require the following information to be presented when DNA material is used as evidence in a case:

• “The scientist should adduce the evidence of the DNA comparisons between the crime stain and the defendant’s sample together with the calculations of the Random Match Probability.
• Whenever DNA evidence is adduced the Crown should serve on the defence details as to how the calculations have been carried out which are sufficient to enable the defence to scrutinize the basis of the calculations.
• The Forensic Science Service should make available to a defence expert, if requested, the databases upon which the calculations have been made.
• The expert will, on the basis of empirical statistical data, five the jury the random occurrence rations - the frequency with which the matching DNA characteristics are likely to be found in the population at large.
• Provided that the expert has the necessary data, it may then be appropriate for him to indicate how many people with the matching characteristics are likely to be found in the United Kingdom...”

Recommendations

Given the influential weight that DNA evidence can have in a case, it is critical that the evidence is accurately presented to the court and other key stakeholders. The  Centre for Internet and Society recommends that the Bill should distinguish the DNA Bank Manager’s response to law enforcement and other DNA Laboratory’s and the DNA Bank Manger’s response to courts and tribunals as below:

• Response to Law enforcement agency and DNA Laboratory: The DNA Bank Manger should respond to a request from law enforcement or a DNA laboratory with either: "match" or "partial match" .
• Response to Court and tribunal: When DNA evidence is used in a court of law, the Bill should provide that the presentation should include:

1. The random match probability: The probability that the profile is in the sample from the individual tested if the individual tested has been selected at random.
2. The frequency with which the matching DNA characteristics are likely to be found in the population at large.
3. The probability of contamination.

The Bill should also provide for the database upon which the calculations were based to be made available when requested.  In addition, the Bill should provide for rules to be made prescribing the procedure for presentation.

[]. http://nij.gov/topics/forensics/evidence/dna/basics/Pages/analyzing.aspx

[2]. http://www.medicalgenomics.co.uk/pdf/Barrister_vol32-2007.pdf