By Dean Austen
An Auckland lawyer says a High Court ruling allowing the admission of blood samples taken at birth could end up being widely used in criminal cases.
In the High Court last week, DNA analysis from a blood sample taken from a baby who had since died was used to
prove the identity of the child's father.
Lawyers for the baby's mother tried unsuccessfully to stop the DNA evidence being admitted, arguing that to do so would violate privacy codes, breach the Bill of Rights and set "a dangerous precedent."
Co-counsel for the baby's mother, Frances Joychild, said last night that the judgment had serious implications about what blood could be used for.
"I think this judgment has shown we need to review this whole situation. There needs to be a lot of public debate about whether people want a DNA blood bank kept of every New Zealander."
Heel-prick blood samples have been taken at birth from all babies since 1969, to check for health disorders and ensure prompt treatment if any abnormalities are discovered.
A legal exemption in the Privacy Act allows for blood from the database to be released for court proceedings.
This, Frances Joychild admits, can be useful, such as the samples of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope's DNA extracted from their blood and used in the search for evidence. "That's all very well, but there will be other situations, where people, for one reason or another, do not want their DNA known, and it may be brought into one case for an innocent purpose, but then it can be used somewhere else. The ramifications can just go on and on."
In his judgment, Justice Morris said the baby's mother was unaware any of it was being stored. "Indeed, the possibility of it being used for DNA testing or any other purpose had never crossed her mind," conceded Justice Morris.
"In other words, she did not consent to the child's blood being stored or being used for the purposes to which it was eventually used."
