A breakfast programme was broadcast on BBC on television in 2002, on which appeared Helena Kennedy, the well-known barrister, who, at the time, was also Chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFaEA). She was advocating that the law should be changed to make it a criminal offence for anyone to take someone else’s DNA, or at least only to be allowed to take the DNA with a court’s approval. Hence men who are suspicious that the children they are raising or have been claimed their own by the mother, and who want DNA tests, should be obliged to apply to court for permission. The reasons given were that such DNA tests could be distressing for the mother and children. Somehow the distress of the man, who is worried about the situation, and the possible distress to him in obtaining the test results, were not discussed at all. Hence a man facing such a deeply worrying situation, instead of obtaining help from others to resolve his problems, if he attempts to help himself, will find himself the subject of a criminal prosecution. The BBC presenters were very grateful for Kennedy coming on the programme and explaining her proposals. We question, what business is it of any individual barrister, or of the Chair of HFaEA, to give an opinion, and what right has she to try to impose such laws on us ? Who gave her permission to decide or even influence our laws ? Who does she represent ? Why did the BBC not allow an alternative opinion ?

Comment : most people think that barristers are people with a vocation to promote justice. What happened to this idea ?