"The basic principle of civil liberties is you should be free to go about your business and not interfered with by the state unless you do something improper,
"Once the state gets more and more information about you there's the fear that they can misuse that information."
Mr Henaghan said while DNA samples used for Teresa Cormack's case in finding her killer was fair use, advancements in technology created human rights issues.
Citing the academic research of Dr Nessa Lynch of Victoria University, Mr Henaghan said present legislation, the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, needed to be more specific in terms of how DNA samples are retained and civil liberties upheld.
"There seemed to be not much control and accountability in terms of protecting our civil liberties."
While current legislation sought to balance the interests and opinions of both sides, Mr Henaghan said "The infringement on my liberties is able to be argued more strongly than the possibility that you might catch someone committing a crime."
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR) forensic programme manager Dr Jill Vintiner said the ESR destroyed DNA samples within the timeframes provided by the legislation.
"This means the legislation ensures the DNA samples cannot be stored permanently and that it can only be used for the purpose for which it was taken and under the consent that was given," she said.
However the legislation does state destruction is not required of any DNA profile that may lawfully be retained in a DNA profile databank and extension of period for which sample may be retained can be applied for.
More discussion is needed, Mr Henaghan said, as to how the inescapable tension between human rights and the interests of criminal justice is to be dealth with as DNA technology continues to evolve.