DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is contained in the nucleus of our body cells and is described as the ‘blueprint of life’. Each person's DNA is unique (no two people have the same DNA, except for identical twins).
2.
Refer to Report: Model Forensic Procedures Bill and the Proposed National DNA Database, Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, May 1999 (the Report).
3.
The Report, above, p 65.
4.
Confirmed to the author in a conversation with a medical specialist in the field (Menzies Centre for Population Health Research). A buccal swab normally involves the wiping of a foam pad against the inner wall of the mouth to collect skin cells. Some jurisdictions make provision for the taking of a buccal swab or saliva specimen by the subject, under supervision.
5.
To the author's knowledge, the preferred forensic procedure with Tasmanian prisoners and juvenile detainees has been buccal swabs and, if necessary, the taking of hair samples. It is also noted that the DNA sampling of those populations was completed in May 2001 and that, according to the Tasmanian Attorney-General (House of Assembly, 31 May 2001), Tasmania is the only state in Australia where force has not been used to achieve compliance in that sampling process: <www.parliament.tas.gov.au:8000/ISYSquery/IRL1191.tmp/1/doc>.
6.
The Report, ref 2, above, p.11.
7.
The Report, ref 2, above, p.15.
8.
Instrumental in securing bipartisan support for this provision was the Attorney-General's response to an opposition question, in which he advised the House of Assembly that, whilst the Model Code used 18 years of age as the age limit for treatment as an adult, on advice from the Minister for Police who had seen ‘a checklist’, ‘most’ jurisdictions use 15. In fact, none do. See Hansard, House of Assembly, Tasmania, 29 November 2000: <www.parliament.tas.gov.au:8000/ISYSquery/IRL1186.tmp/2/doc>.
9.
Tasmanian Commissioner for Children's Monthly Report, January 2001.
10.
The Report, ref 2, above, pp.3–4. Reference to a DNA database mainly concerns the establishment of CrimTrac, a national police information system established by the Commonwealth Government, as well as to corresponding state-based police registers. Refer to <www.crimtrac.gov.au/dna.htm>.
11.
Although Victoria only provides that a parent or guardian may represent the child in lieu of a lawyer, with the court's agreement.
12.
There is provision that a young suspect may request a doctor to be present for the taking of a blood specimen. There is no such provision for saliva or buccal swab specimens. (Blood specimens cannot be taken from young suspects in the Northern Territory.)
13.
The Victorian legislation does not provide for that power of veto by the suspect.
14.
The small number of bodies invited to comment on the Bill were generally provided barely two weeks to do so.
15.
In response to a specific question in the Tasmanian Parliament, the government declined to give an undertaking that the then imminent Bill would comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which is not to say that it didn't seek to do so). See comments by the Premier in the House of Assembly, 23 November 2000: <www.parliament.tas.gov.au:8000/ISYSquery/IRL118E.tmp/2/doc>. With general reference to the Australian context, attention has been drawn to the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Human Genome with respect to the adoption in Australia of DNA technology in the area of forensic profiling and law enforcement. See KellieDeborah L, ‘Justice in the Age of Technology: DNA and the Criminal Trial’, (2001) 4Alternative Law Journal174.
