Finding the balance: forensic DNA profiling in New Zealand

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511778193.015

14 - Finding the balance: forensic DNA profiling in New Zealand

from Section 2 - National contexts of forensic DNA technologies and key issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2012

Johanna S. Veth and

Gerald Midgley

Edited by

Richard Hindmarsh and

Barbara Prainsack

Show author details

Richard Hindmarsh: Affiliation:
Griffith University, Queensland
Barbara Prainsack: Affiliation:
King's College London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Since the mid 1980s, DNA identification techniques have become a routine element of criminal investigations and court proceedings. New Zealand was an early adopter of forensic DNA technologies, developing a close relationship with the Forensic Science Service in the UK where the techniques were pioneered. Forensic DNA laboratories were established in New Zealand in 1988, and DNA profiling immediately proved to be an invaluable tool for solving crime. As a geographically small and isolated nation with a modest population size of less than four million, and with a single legal jurisdiction, New Zealand perhaps was an ideal environment in which to successfully introduce DNA profiling technologies.

The use of DNA testing was recognised as an important and valuable investigative tool and by the early 1990s it was frequently incorporated into serious crime investigations. Yet, there was rising discomfort regarding police powers to obtain samples from suspects in the absence of any legislation. That discomfort was reflected in key judicial decisions, which considered whether or not police actions in obtaining biological samples infringed on the donor's rights. Subsequently, in 1995, New Zealand became the second nation after the UK to legislate for the establishment of a national DNA databank (Harbison et al. 1999).

Type: Chapter
Information: Genetic Suspects
Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing
, pp. 288 - 308

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778193.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

,Anon.(1990). Man jailed for life in DNA murder trial. The Dominion, 7 April, 6.Google Scholar

,Anon.(1995a). Police reject lawyers' criticism of DNA bill. The Dominion, 21 February, 2.Google Scholar

,Anon.(1995b). Hand-wringers wrong on DNA. The Dominion, 23 October, 10.Google Scholar

,Anon.(2002). Advances in DNA testing bring Cormack Case to Court. NZCityhttp://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=24864 (accessed 1 March 2010).

Baker, V., Gregory, W., Midgley, G.et al. (2006). The Ethics of Forensic DNA Technology: Summary Report. Wellington, New Zealand: Institute of Environmental Science and Research.Google Scholar

Brown, J.-M. (2002). Napier: the town that lost its innocence. New Zealand Herald, 2 March www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1090414 (accessed 23 July 2009).

Caygill, L. (2009). Police keen on DNA testing. Oamaru Mail, 12 February, 3.Google Scholar

Cook, A., Fairweather, J., Satterfield, T.et al. (2004). New Zealand Public Acceptance of Biotechnology. Christchurch, New Zealand: Lincoln University.Google Scholar

Cordiner, S., Harbison, S., Vintiner, S.et al. (2003). A brief history of forensic DNA testing in New Zealand. New Zealand Science Review, 60, 39–42.Google Scholar

Curtis, C. (2009). Public perceptions and expectations of the forensic use of DNA: results of a pilot survey. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 29, 313–324.CrossRef Google Scholar

Finlayson, C. (2009). Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Attorney-General.Google Scholar

Gill, P., Jeffreys, A. and Werrett, D. (1985). Forensic application of DNA fingerprints. Nature, 316, 76–79.Google Scholar

Gillett, G. and Mckergow, F. (2007). Genes, ownership, and indigenous reality. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 2003–2104.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gower, P. (2009). DNA seizure law triggers rights alert. New Zealand Herald, 11 February, 6.Google Scholar

Harbison, S., Fallow, M. and Bushell, D. (2008). An analysis of the success rate of 908 trace DNA samples submitted to the Crime Sample Database Unit in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 49–53.CrossRef Google Scholar

Harbison, S., Hamilton, J. and Walsh, S. (1999). The New Zealand DNA databank. In First International Conference on Forensic Human Identification in the Millennium. London: Forensic Science Service.Google Scholar

Innes, M. (2003). ‘Signal crimes’: detective work, mass media and constructing collective memory. In Criminal Visions: Media Representations of Crime and Justice, ed. Mason, P.. Cullompton, UK: Willan, pp. 51–69.Google Scholar

Jeffreys, A., Wilson, V. and Thien, S. (1985). Hypervariable minisatellite regions in human DNA. Nature, 314, 67–73.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lacey, M. (1995). Forced DNA tests. [Letter to the editor.] The Dominion, 21 August, 6.Google Scholar

,Lawtalk (2009). DNA bill may breach BORA. LawTalk Magazine, 2 March, 14.Google Scholar

Lowe, P. and Barber, J. (1989). DNA test legislation leaves Jeffries cold. The Dominion Sunday Times, 15 October, 5.Google Scholar

Matthews, L. (1994). Strands of hair could unlock mysteries. Sunday Star Times, 11 September, 7.Google Scholar

Morris, A. and Cullen, J. (2004). A Review of the Submissions to the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Bill 1994 and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill 2002. Wellington, New Zealand: Crime and Justice Research Centre, Victoria University.Google Scholar

,New Zealand Press Association (2009a). Push for mandatory DNA testing in criminal investigations. www.3news.co.nz/News/PoliticalNews/Push-for-mandatory- DNA-testing-in-criminal-investigations/tabid/419/articleID/90496/cat/67/Default.aspx (accessed 10 February 2009).

,New Zealand Press Association (2009b). DNA bill likely to trigger fiery debate. Marlborough Express, 11 February, 2.Google Scholar

,New Zealand Press Association (2009c). Forced DNA testing can help innocent. Timaru Herald, 11 February, 4.Google Scholar

Optican, S. (2007). ‘Front End/Back End'Adjudication (Rights Versus Remedies) Under s 21 of the Bill of Rights (Search and Seizure). In The New Zealand Legal Method Conference Series: Rights and Freedoms in New Zealand: The Bill of Rights Act Comes of Age, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Pratt, J. (2008). When penal populism stops: legitimacy, scandal and the power to punish in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41, 364–383.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ratcliffe, J. (2005). The effectiveness of police intelligence management: a New Zealand case study. Police Practice and Research, 6, 435–451.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sarney, E. (1992). Our forensic heroes. New Zealand Herald, 13 May, 3.Google Scholar

Satterfield, T. and Roberts, M. (2008). Incommensurate risks and the regulator's dilemma: considering culture in the governance of genetically modified organisms. New Genetics and Society, 27, 210–216.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schwartz, H. (1998). The short and happy life and tragic death of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. New Zealand Law Review, Part II, 259–312.Google Scholar

Pengelly v. R (1991). 7 CRNZ 333 (CA).

R v. Montella (1992). 1 NZLR 63 (HC).

R v. Pengelly (1990). 5 CRNZ 674 (HC).