NEARLY three quarters of innocent people have been refused requests for their DNA to be deleted by Thames Valley Police.

Figures obtained by the Oxford Mail show that over the last year the force removed 10 genetic profiles (27 per cent) from the Government’s controversial DNA database for England and Wales following requests from innocent people.

On average forces in the country removed 22 per cent of profiles.

Some forces refused to delete any DNA, but Wiltshire Police removed 80 per cent after requests.

Civil liberties campaigners want the Government to enshrine national guidelines in law to end the “postcode lottery”.

Bill Melotti, former chairman of the Oxford branch of No2Id, said: “In my view, if someone has not been convicted of anything and they ask for their DNA to be removed I don’t see why it shouldn’t be.

“I don’t see the need to continually build up a database by stealth.

“This is a postcode lottery and whether you get your DNA removed depends on where you are arrested.

“The Government needs to draw up new guidelines to stop this. Currently innocent people’s DNA is only removed in exceptional circumstances. It should be that DNA is only kept in exceptional circumstances.”

Mr Melotti, a Vale of White Horse district councillor for Wantage, added: “We are moving into an era where everyone is considered a suspect and policing is reduced to trawling a DNA database.”

Between April 2008 and March last year Thames Valley Police received 37 requests from innocent people asking to have their DNA deleted, but just 10 were removed.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) currently instructs forces to remove DNA only in exceptional circumstances, such as if no offence was committed, the suspect was falsely accused or the arrest was wrongful or unlawful. The final decision is made by senior officers at each force.

Thames Valley Chief Constable Sara Thornton said: “The current provision for deletion when there are exceptional circumstances does not apply to the vast majority of cases.

“DNA enables us to detect so many offenders, but there is a balance to be stuck between crime detection and people’s privacy. There should be clarification on what the exceptional circumstances are and it should be based in statute to produce greater consistency among forces.”

In 2008, 17 senior judges at the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Government’s policy of keeping the DNA of innocent people indefinitely “could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”.

The Government now plans to limit the length of time an innocent person’s DNA can remain on the database to six years. The database holds DNA profiles of more than five million people, including 980,000 innocent people.

Home office spokesman Joanne Foster said: “We are working with ACPO to bring greater clarity. A set of proposals presenting a proportionate approach to DNA retention as well as the most effective way of ensuring the database continues to help tackle crime has been put before Parliament in the Crime and Security Bill for full debate.”

cwalker@oxfordmail.co.uk