PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Successful DNA profiling from a person's bodily fluids or tissue has become a critical tool in many criminal investigations -- allowing for near certainty in including or excluding a suspect. Ontario's forensic science centre is considered one of the foremost such facilities in North America. Under the Criminal Code, voluntarily provided samples and the resulting DNA analysis "shall be destroyed" and access to the analysis "permanently removed" once testing has ruled out a match to material from a crime scene. The proposed plaintiff, Micky Granger, described as a migrant worker, gave police a bodily sample as part of their investigation into a violent crime in Bayham, Ont., in 2013, the suit says. The centre allegedly failed to destroy the analysis of his DNA after he was excluded as a suspect, according to his claim. "The defendant's retention of DNA results, produced by innocent individuals to assist in a police investigation, would offend the reasonable person's sense of privacy," his claim asserts "The defendant's actions were unlawful and highly offensive, causing distress and anguish to the plaintiff and class members."
STORY: "Forensics centre 'unlawfully' keeping DNA data of innocent people, suit alleges," by Canadian Press reporter Colin Perkel, published by CP24 on September 18, 2018. (Thanks to Forensic Magazine for drawing this story to our attention);
GIST: "A proposed class action lawsuit alleges Ontario's renowned
forensic sciences centre has been illegally retaining sensitive genetic
data from people who voluntarily submitted bodily samples as part of a
criminal investigation and were then excluded as suspects. In his unproven statement of claim against the province, the proposed
representative plaintiff argues the centre's failure to destroy the DNA
records violated his privacy and provisions of the Criminal Code.The proposed action seeks $30 million in general damages and another $2 million in punitive damages. According to a statement of claim filed in Superior Court, members of
the proposed class voluntarily submitted DNA samples via police to the
Centre of Forensic Sciences starting in June 2000 to help in criminal
probes. None was convicted as a result, the statement asserts. While the actual samples were destroyed, results of the analysis were
not and have been made available to individuals at the centre, the claim
alleges. "Class members had the reasonable expectation that should their DNA
profile not match the DNA profile from a criminal investigation, (their)
DNA results and records would be destroyed, rendering the results
permanently inaccessible to any individual," the claim alleges. "The DNA results and records created by the (centre) were retained
indefinitely or not destroyed within a reasonable time period,
notwithstanding the fact that the class members were convicted of no
criminal offence." The centre did not respond to a request to discuss the issue. Ontario's
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, which oversees
the centre, referred questions about the lawsuit to the Ministry of the
Attorney General, which confirmed receiving the statement of claim. "Ontario will defend the action. As this matter is subject to
litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further," ministry
spokesman Brian Gray said. Successful DNA profiling from a person's bodily fluids or tissue has
become a critical tool in many criminal investigations -- allowing for
near certainty in including or excluding a suspect. Ontario's forensic
science centre is considered one of the foremost such facilities in
North America. Under the Criminal Code, voluntarily provided samples and the resulting
DNA analysis "shall be destroyed" and access to the analysis
"permanently removed" once testing has ruled out a match to material
from a crime scene. The proposed plaintiff, Micky Granger, described as a migrant worker,
gave police a bodily sample as part of their investigation into a
violent crime in Bayham, Ont., in 2013, the suit says. The centre
allegedly failed to destroy the analysis of his DNA after he was
excluded as a suspect, according to his claim. "The defendant's retention of DNA results, produced by innocent
individuals to assist in a police investigation, would offend the
reasonable person's sense of privacy," his claim asserts "The
defendant's actions were unlawful and highly offensive, causing distress
and anguish to the plaintiff and class members." In 2016, the Independent Police Review Director, which oversees police
in Ontario, criticized provincial police for their 2013 investigation
into a complaint from a woman in Elgin County that a "black migrant
worker" had sexually attacked her. According to the director, police
requested samples from virtually every local migrant worker of colour
even if they did not match the description the woman had given of the
suspect. Further details about Granger and how he knew his data had allegedly
been kept were not immediately available. Nor was it clear why the
centre might have kept the profiles and who might have had access to
them."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.cp24.com/news/forensics-centre-unlawfully-keeping-dna-data-of-innocent-people-suit-alleges-1.4099060
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.cp24.com/news/forensics-centre-unlawfully-keeping-dna-data-of-innocent-people-suit-alleges-1.4099060
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this
case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on
developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than
twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the
harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into
pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.
The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related
to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/ charlessmith.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination
process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot. com/2011/05/charles-smith- blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of
interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;