Dear Editor,
I read with interest a piece on June 15, 2021, in your newspaper with respect to the Guyana Bar Association’s position on the taking of DNA samples by cops. Here in Ontario, Canada, a DNA order can be made by a judge, and it gives cops the right to take a sample of bodily substances, e.g., blood. The sample creates a DNA profile. This gets stored in a databank. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police controls the databank. It has been used to assist with many police investigations. A judge makes a DNA order if an accused is found guilty of a primary designated offence, e.g. robbery. However, submissions made by Crown Attorneys and Defence Lawyers are taken into consideration in deciding whether a DNA order or not, is appropriate, and it can apply to secondary offences as well.
For example, Justice Micheline Rawlins of the Ontario Superior Court ordered DNA samples stating that “people who become serial killers begin with small animals” for an Ontario man who got convicted of animal abuse and sent him to jail for 2 years. The judge was the first black woman appointed to the Ontario Court of Justice, she had joined the Ontario bar in 1982, and was prolific in her legal career. While some civil liberties’ groups advocated against this, the fact of the matter is that in Ontario, fingerprinting had been around for well over 40 years, and DNA sampling is just an extension, in this era. The black community here in Ontario is a close knit one and every indication is that it sides with the judge’s judgement. In the Guyana case, I would suggest the Guyana Bar Associa-tion take the issue to the next step, and then onto a finality, as the law should not be applied in a vacuum. The issue should be fully ventilated, so the citizenry can be prepared if asked to submit themselves to DNA sampling.
Sincerely,
M. Shabeer Zafar
