The UK NDNAD is run by the Home Office, after transferring from the custodianship of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) on 1 October 2012.
The UK's NDNAD is the foremost and largest forensic DNA database of its kind in the world – containing nearly 10% of the population, compared to 0.5% in the USA.
One-off speculative intelligence searches can be initiated by scientists in instances where a crime-stain DNA profile does not meet the required standard for loading to the NDNAD.
The latest innovative intelligence approach brought forward by the Forensic Science Service, is in the use of familial searching.
Critics argued that the decision to keep large numbers of innocent people on the database did not appear to have increased the likelihood of solving a crime using DNA.
Samples collected by the Isle of Man Constabulary's Scientific Support Department from crime scenes are sent to the UK for testing against the database.
[4] Before that, a test case was filed by two claimants from Sheffield, Mr. S. and Michael Marper, both of whom had fingerprint records and DNA profiles held in the database.
S and Marper were supported by the Liberty and Privacy International, non-profit pressure groups who were permitted to make amicus brief submissions to the court.
[18] On 18 May 2011 the UK supreme court also ruled, by a majority, that the ACPO DNA retention guidelines at the time were unlawful because they were incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR.
This act allowed the police to retain fingerprint and DNA data on NDNAD indefinitely for most people convicted of a recordable crime.
The use of the database for genetic research without consent has also been controversial, as has the storage of DNA samples and sensitive information by the commercial companies which analyse them for the police.
[22] Others have argued that there should be time limits on how long DNA profiles can be retained on the Database, except for people convicted of serious violent or sexual offences.
Damian Green, former Tory home affairs spokesman, issued a press release in January 2006 stating: "We do have concerns about the Government including on the database the DNA and fingerprints of completely innocent people....
"[26] Mr Green had his own DNA profile on the database for a time having been arrested and subsequently released without charge on 27 November 2008.
A YouGov poll published on 4 December 2006, indicated that 48% of those interviewed disapproved of keeping DNA records of those who have not been charged with any crime, or who have been acquitted, with 37% in favour.
[27] In early 2007, five civil servants were suspended and sued in the High Court by the Forensic Science Service after being accused of industrial espionage and for allegedly copying confidential information and using it to establish a rival firm.
[32] In November 2006, similar concerns were raised by the Sunday Telegraph which claimed that three in four young black men were on the DNA database.
[33] This figure was confirmed by the British Government's own Human Genetics Commission 2009 report on the topic, titled Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?
Balancing individual rights and the public interest in the governance and use of the National DNA Database, which said that "the profiles of over three quarters of young black men between the ages of 18 and 35 are recorded.
"[34] One explanation for the racial disparities is racial bias towards certain demographics, as evidenced by the reaction of the then chair of the home affairs select committee, Keith Vaz MP, in August 2009 who said that "Such disparity in the treatment of different ethnic groups is bound to lead to a disintegration of community relations and a lack of trust in the police force.
"[36] In addition, the NPIA says that the ¨National¨ DNA Database continues to provide police with the most effective tool for the prevention and detection of crime since the development of fingerprint analysis over 100 years ago.
Supporters included Lord Justice Sedley and some police officers,[40] and Tony Blair said in 2006 that he could see no reason why the DNA of everyone should not ultimately be kept on record.
[42] Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said in 2007 that a database for every man, woman and child in the country was "a chilling proposal, ripe for indignity, error and abuse".