More than 1,500 DNA samples were either compromised or lost by police forces in England and Wales last year after what were often basic errors in evidence taking, a watchdog has found.
In nearly two-thirds of cases between January 2021 and March 2022 – or 953 samples – DNA taken from people of interest could not be analysed because officers failed to seal swab bags correctly, a process that is crucial to protect the genetic material. The figure marks a 23% increase on the 773 cases reported in 2021.
Writing in his annual report, Prof Fraser Sampson, the biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner, said it was “very frustrating for all involved that the forensic science cycle continues to fall down at what must be the simplest stage”.
Speaking to the Guardian, Sampson said it was “extraordinary” that all of the science involved in DNA analysis, from Crick and Watson to Alec Jeffreys, the father of DNA fingerprinting, could be defeated by the least technical step in the process: the closing of a plastic bag.
According to the report, a further 575 samples were rendered unusable either because of contamination, incomplete information on forms or sample tubes, or simply because they had gone missing. Two police forces, Surrey and Sussex, were not able to provide any figures on the number of samples they had lost.
The blunders arose as the number of DNA profiles added to the police national database soared by 57% from 217,609 in 2020 to 341,141 over the following 15 months. The rise is thought to be driven by the easing of lockdown restrictions and more concerted efforts to capture biometric information.
The report, which reviews the police use of security cameras, facial recognition technologies and biometric data such as DNA and fingerprints, goes on to call for “urgent” independent oversight of the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera network. The system is the largest non-military database in the UK and reads more than 75m number plates a day, but is almost completely unregulated, Sampson said.
The ANPR network was designed to catch speeding drivers, those in untaxed, uninsured or stolen vehicles, and to track the movement of criminals. But the report notes that the system can now do much more than originally planned, such as monitoring drivers and passengers, their habits, and who they meet with.
“Given its importance and size, it seems extraordinary to me that it has no specific legal underpinning,” Sampson said. “It leaves you asking how can something of this scale be run in this way, where there isn’t a body to go to with questions about its proportional use and intrusiveness. I’d encourage the government to look at this much more closely because it needs urgent attention to carry out properly and accountably.”
The report raises major concerns about the UK government, police forces and companies buying security cameras and artificial intelligence-driven facial recognition software from foreign suppliers implicated in systematic human rights abuses. One Chinese state-owned surveillance firm, Hikvision, has provided technology to help China identify and persecute Uyghur Muslims and to help Chinese police track protesters. The company, which also supplies the UK, has refused to meet with Sampson without the protection of a non-disclosure agreement, or to answer his questions on their history and practices.
“The more we can do with biometric surveillance, the more important it will be to show what we’re not doing with it, and if we don’t even know what our partners are doing with it, or have been doing with it, then we are not in a very good place when it comes to meeting that requirement,” Sampson said.
The recent explosion in surveillance technology, with the rise of drones, body-worn cameras, dashcams and smart doorbells, coupled with the arrival of powerful AI, means vast amounts of imagery can now be analysed at speed. But Sampson warns that regulation is not keeping pace. Parliament’s approval of a 164km drone highway is a case in point, he said. It could become operational within two years, raising major concerns over “mission creep” and the privacy of people captured by drone cameras. The government’s new data protection and digital information bill is set to abolish the surveillance camera code of practice, potentially weakening what little oversight exists.
“We urgently need to wake up to the opportunities presented, and the threats posed, by the explosion of capability in AI-driven biometric surveillance,” Sampson said. “If we fail, we risk missing out on the potential benefits it can offer and exposing ourselves to the potential dangers it poses.”
