Police offer cigarettes for DNA, says lawyer

An Auckland criminal lawyer says some of his younger clients have been offered cigarettes while being held in custody in return for giving their DNA profiles for inclusion in the national database.

The claim was one of several received by the Herald yesterday after a woman alleged her teenage son was coerced into providing a DNA sample to get out of a $400 traffic fine.

Auckland lawyer Graeme Newell said the inducements had been going on for years. While some of his clients waited inside cells for their bail application to be heard, police officers had asked them whether they would be willing to volunteer their DNA.

"I've had people 17 years of age offered cigarettes in return for their DNA sample. I've had clients tell me that," Mr Newell said.

"Police have discretion on whether to release a suspect on bail or keep them in custody until their next appearance date. While the offender is waiting for that decision to be made the police invite the young person to give their DNA sample."

The method was not prevalent but neither was it unusual, he said.

Only criminals convicted of serious offences are forced by law to be included on the national database.

People convicted of minor charges had the right to refuse to be registered on the DNA databank.

The definition of what a "voluntary" sample meant was a grey area, Mr Newell said. Being held in custody was inherently coercive.

Natalie Cook of Auckland said her son had faced the same ordeal as Richard Barnes, the Remuera teenager whose mother Brenda went public this week.

Her son was the owner of a non-registered car that was parked in a driveway. A police officer had pulled over nearby and offered to let the teenager off a fine in return for a DNA swab.

Hamilton man Mike Simmonds said his son had also been asked for a sample after being pulled over for what he said was a "minor transgression".

"He was only 16, and I was told that it [the sample] was to expand their database and we would have to go through channels to get it taken off their database. We got the runaround."

Responding to Mr Newell's claims, police national headquarters spokesman Jon Neilson said that unless there was proof of such inducements no investigation could take place.

He would not comment on possible reviews to police procedure if the claims proved to be true.

"At this point we don't have any detail. It's too general. There are dangers in getting in to the hypothetical."

He said if Ms Cook or Mr Simmonds made an official complaint it would be investigated.

Yesterday the district's professional standards unit was conducting an internal investigation of the Barnes case.

Mrs Barnes was invited in by an inspector to discuss what had occurred.

"I was told Richard's DNA sample had not made it into the databank because there was no signed consent form," she said.

The inspector had told her the officer's version of events was that he had asked for the sample and that Richard had agreed to it.

Richard however stood by his interpretation that there had been a trade-off for a fine waiver discussed.

Mrs Barnes had been told by the inspector that police were "not in the business of gathering DNA samples". The preference was to go for quality samples, not quantity, Mrs Barnes was told.

That meant it was only the suspects of serious crime whose DNA profiles were wanted.

Green Party youth affairs spokeswoman Metiria Turei said it was totally unacceptable to have anyone handing over a DNA profile without being made aware of the small print.

She called for a review of those under 20 on the national databank.