A woman is raped by an unknown man. She visits an abuse reception center where they take samples which are sent to the hospital for analysis. The woman reports the case, but it is dismissed under the police code “unknown perpetrator”. But a few weeks later, the police receive a letter from Kripos. They have had a hit in the DNA register. The man’s DNA profile was registered for another criminal act. It matched biological traces found on the woman’s body. When did he get a face and a name. The rape case is reopened by the police and the man is later convicted of rape against the woman. This is an example from a case that news is aware of. But what happens if rape suspects are not registered in the police’s DNA register? Same perpetrator Last week, news was able to uncover the contents of a Kripos report that had not previously been made public. The report covers all rape cases from 2019 that were reported within 48 hours. It summarizes how the police worked to collect biological traces as evidence in these cases, and that in many cases they did not do so. In the same report, the police investigated whether DNA profiles secured at the crime scene or the suspect are stored in Kripos’ central DNA register. The report news has obtained access to shows that in almost one in four cases the rape suspect’s DNA was not entered into the police register. If these perpetrators have been reported previously or will be reported in the future, it will therefore not be possible to see the reports in context through a search in the DNA register. This can reduce the possibility of solving several cases involving the same perpetrator. This is despite the fact that the same report shows that many people are reported for sexual offenses several times. More than one in four people reported for rape in the report’s sample had also previously been reported for sexual offences. Now the Police Directorate is self-criticising. – It is serious that there are so many who are not admitted. Everyone should have been here. We are not satisfied until we are at 100 per cent in obtaining DNA samples, says department director in the Norwegian Police Directorate (POD), Bjørn Vandvik. – Shocking André Oktay Dahl is chairman of Dixi, a service for rape victims. He believes it is shocking that the information seemed to come as a surprise to the Norwegian Police Directorate (POD), which is responsible for the subject and head of the Norwegian police. They had not read the Kripos report before news made contact in April. – What do you actually know about practice here? I hope that this is something that gets to the bottom of it. The Directorate of Police clearly states that it should not be like this. Then I want to know what they intend to do with this, says Dahl. Photo: Patrick Da Silva Sæther / news He points out that rape has been a major social problem for many years, and something that many politicians from various parties have been involved in. – Take it for granted that the Storting meets Dahl hopes action will now be taken to see where the problem lies. He refers to the news case where members of the justice committee also had critical questions about the content of the report, and wanted an explanation. – Now politicians in opposition, in positions, the minister and the Directorate of Police must ensure that a system is put in place where DNA samples to be entered in the police register are entered. I take it for granted that the Storting ensures a proper review with all police districts about why it has not been done, says Dahl. Not doing its job – What signal does the report send to rape victims? – A terribly bad signal. Anyone who has experienced rape will think that the society set up to protect them has not done its job. Dahl says he understands that the police and the judiciary cannot fix everything, but that this is about respect for those who have been victims of rape. – It is not a trifle. I think rape must be considered on the same level as terrorism or being in a war zone because that is what it does to the body of those who are exposed to it. Then society should treat it accordingly. When it comes to anti-terror preparedness, we try to be the best, but when it comes to rape cases, we are not, says the chairman. – Do you think this may have led to rapists going free? – There is a danger of that, says Dahl. – Getting away with it Attorney Hege Salomon has represented many rape victims in recent years. She thinks the DNA figures in the Kripos report are startling. – This can lead to someone escaping. It is very unfortunate and could have an impact on the clarification of other cases and future reviews of the person concerned, she says. She herself has experienced that cases have been reopened precisely because of DNA matches from the police register. Legal aid attorney Hege Salomon reacts to the DNA findings in the report. Photo: news According to the lawyer, this mainly applies to cases where there was previously an unknown perpetrator or the accused refused sexual intercourse with her client. – I have had several cases dismissed under the code “unknown perpetrator” which were reopened several years later because the person in question had committed a new criminal offense and had his DNA registered, says Salomon. In some cases it happens after a few weeks, other times after several years. – Not we who are responsible The police’s DNA register is divided into an identity register, an investigation register and a trace register (See fact box). This is how the police’s DNA register works: The Norwegian DNA register was established in 1998. The DNA register is divided into an identity register, an investigation register and a trace register. The identity register contains DNA profiles of people who have been sentenced to unconditional imprisonment, detention or community punishment. People who have been fined or suspended for offenses such as drugs and violence can also be registered. It is also possible to register voluntarily. Profiles in the identity register must be deleted no later than five years after the death of the registered person or if the person concerned is acquitted in a reinstatement case. The investigation register was established in 2008 and contains DNA profiles from people who are under investigation for a criminal offense that may result in prison, detention or community punishment. The requirement for storing a person’s DNA profile in the investigative register is that there is reasonable reason to suspect an offence, i.e. more than 50 per cent probability that the person is guilty. Profiles in the investigative register shall only be stored temporarily. If the person is convicted, the profile is transferred to the identity register. In the event of an acquittal or if the case is dismissed, the profile must be deleted. The trace register contains DNA profiles from biological traces found on the victim or crime scene, as well as information about the profile’s connection to an unsolved criminal case. Profiles in the track register can be kept until the case is dismissed. DNA samples can be obtained voluntarily. The police can also obtain DNA using coercion. Then they need a ruling from the court or a decision from the prosecuting authorities. The purpose of the DNA register is to make it easier to compare, among other things, DNA profiles and traces from the three registers. With the help of the DNA register, for example, DNA from an unknown perpetrator in a rape case can be matched with DNA from another case where the same perpetrator has been convicted of similar or other criminal offences. Source: Biotechnology Council/news It is Kripos that has processing and follow-up responsibility for the DNA register. – This means that we are not responsible for what is submitted. That responsibility lies with the various police districts and special bodies, says Heidi Frydenberg. She is head of the section for DNA and missing persons in Kripos. Frydenberg says Kripos does not want to comment on the DNA findings in the report. – It is difficult. I can’t say anything about the chiefs of police’s priorities or resource situation, she says. – We have nothing left. She is clear that the problem is not with them, and that Kripos is careful to register all DNA profiles as soon as they receive them. – We have no remains of unidentified tracks, says Frydenberg. She explains that Kripos follows up the police districts by sending them target figures that give an overview of which DNA profiles they have outstanding, as well as assisting with advice and other information. – Do the police districts usually ask for advice on DNA registration in rape cases? – No. The public prosecutor’s office knows who to decide to register and generally has good routines on who to take samples from. May mean that you do not get a match The section leader confirms that there is a small group of people registered in the DNA register for whom you get repeated DNA matches. Photo: Patrick da Silva Sæther/news / news – What significance can the fact that DNA profiles are not registered have for you? – This may mean that you do not get hits or that it will not be possible to see reviews in context. – Don’t you think this is an important task for them to prioritize? – Absolutely. The DNA register can provide quick answers and can be viewed in conjunction with other evidence in the case. Various reasons According to Frydenberg, there can be various reasons why DNA profiles are missing from the register. – It may be that a sample has not been taken following a decision from the prosecution, or that the person to be sampled is wanted. Many do not turn up for sampling. It may also happen that a profile was not entered into the DNA register before the person was convicted. – Shouldn’t the DNA profiles be entered as soon as someone is charged? – They should. Kripos points out that the Kripos report is part of their knowledge support for the districts. – But all relevant environments in the police districts have not received the report? – The report has been distributed in the police. The police can certainly improve the routines when it comes to distributing to the right recipients. Members of the justice committee have also previously reacted that neither they nor the public had access to the report before news made them aware of it. – We will follow up on this. Director of the police department in the Directorate of Police, Bjørn Vandvik, has been presented with the criticism that comes out in this case. He says it is serious that almost one in four reported cases was not entered into the police’s DNA register, as the Kripos report shows. Department director in the Norwegian Police Directorate, Bjørn Vandvik. Photo: Artur do Carmo POD, together with the Attorney General, who has the overall responsibility for criminal proceedings, will follow up in more detail what is the reason for this. – The report and the topic will be taken up in our next meeting, says Vandvik. He points out that there are clear guidelines for how samples should be collected and entered in the various police registers. – In the absence of DNA registration, which the report refers to, the police districts must follow up to ensure good quality in the investigation. We will follow this up from our side vis-à-vis the police districts through the apparatus we have together with the Attorney General. This is a serious crime which is very burdensome for those who are victims in such cases. Shares the concern Vandvik says POD shares the concern that comes to light, and is aware that failure in such registration can have an impact on the clarification of other cases and future reviews. Therefore, they are not satisfied until they are at 100 per cent collection of DNA samples in cases to be registered. – It is not fortunate that the knowledge Kripos has acquired has not been included in the professional development earlier. Will assess findings First state prosecutor at the Attorney General’s Office, Guri Lenth, writes in an e-mail that when a person has been reported for rape, it should be assessed whether the conditions for registration of DNA in the investigation register are present. – And if they are, the person concerned should be registered as a starting point. A basic condition for registration is that the person in question is suspected “with reasonable grounds”, i.e. that there is a preponderance of probability that the person in question is guilty. Lenth points out that it does not appear in the Kripos report whether this condition was met for those who were not registered. Nor if there were other reasons why they were not entered in the register. One cannot therefore immediately state that they could or should have been registered in the investigative register, believes the first state attorney – That the figure is as high as a quarter may, however, indicate that there was, and is, potential to register more people in this register. The Attorney-General will, together with the Norwegian Police Directorate, assess how the findings in the report are to be followed up.
ttn-69
DNA from almost one in four rape suspects was not entered into the police register – news Dokumentar
