Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 - NSW Ombudsman - NSW ...

the carrying out of these forensic procedures to be a part of its overall functions and health service staff will not be
expected to perform the functions.” 324
The Australian Dental Association advised that it is not aware of any problems relating to the Act and that it was
satisfied the interests of dentists have been taken into consideration. 325
4.4. Who is responsible for the DNA database
The Act provides for a “responsible person” to be responsible for the care, control and management of the DNA
database system. The key responsibilities of this person are:
• To determine who may access information stored on the DNA database. Only people who have been
authorised by the responsible person may access this information. 326
• To ensure forensic material is destroyed, as required by the Act. 327 It is an offence to cause any identifying
information about a person obtained from forensic material taken from the person under the Act to be retained
on the database at any time after the Act requires it to be destroyed. This includes being reckless as to the
recording or retention of information after the required destruction date. 328
Although these responsibilities are crucial to the operation and security of the DNA database, the legislation does not
specify who the “responsible person” is. Our investigation of services provided by DAL demonstrated that this may
be directly impacting on compliance with relevant legal obligations. DAL sought legal advice on this issue, and was
advised that it is not clear who the “responsible person” is. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commissioner of Police
and Chief Executive Officers of Western Sydney Area Health Service and ICPMR/DAL signed a minute of authorisation
in January 2005, authorising appropriate senior scientists to access information on the database. 329 We understand
DAL has requested that this issue be clarified by a working group run by the Criminal Law Review Division of the
Attorney General’s Department. 330 In our view, this is a matter that requires speedy resolution and absolute clarity.
Recommendation 09
The Attorney General clarify who is the “responsible person” for the purposes of the Crimes (Forensic
Procedures) Act 2000.
In its response to our draft report, the Attorney General’s Department advised it is “currently instructing in the
preparation of a Bill that will allow the responsible person for the DNA database to be more readily identified.” 331
NSW Police supports the recommendation. 332
Endnotes
264 NSW Government press release, “Premier Carr details $26 million forensic policing plan”, 19 March 2005.
265 Or is qualified under the regulations: Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 s 3.
266 Police Association of NSW submission, March 2005.
267 NSW Police advice received 22 June 2005.
268 Audit tool used by the NSW Police Audit Group, accessed on the NSW Police intranet in May 2005.
269 NSW Police response to Ombudsman draft report, 2 June 2006.
270 NSW Police response to Ombudsman draft report, 2 June 2006.
271 38 commands said it was easy and 35 said it was difficult, three commands did not answer the question.
272 Ombudsman audit of local area commands, confidential interview with police officer, 27 September 2004.
273 Ombudsman audit of local area commands, confidential interview with police officer, 27 September 2004.
274 Police Association of NSW submission, March 2005.
275 Ombudsman audit of local area commands, confidential interview with local area commander, 6 September 2004.
276 Confidential LAC survey response.
54
NSW Ombudsman
DNA sampling and other forensic procedures conducted on suspects and volunteers under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000