« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
1 Background
1.1 On 8 January 1997, Marion Ross was found murdered in her home in Kilmarnock. Shirley McKie, also known as Shirley Cardwell, a Detective Constable with Strathclyde Police, was part of the murder investigation team. In the course of the murder investigation, Scottish Criminal Record Office ( SCRO) fingerprint officers identified a mark (given the reference code Y7) on the bathroom doorframe as matching Ms McKie's left thumbprint. This set in action a series of events over the next nine years.
1.2 At its meeting on 22 March 2006, Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament, following consideration of correspondence received from the Minister for Justice, agreed to hold an inquiry, with the following remit-
"To consider the efficient running of the Scottish Criminal Record Office and Scottish Fingerprint Service; the implications of the McKie case; the operation of SCRO and within that the fingerprint service and public confidence in the standards of fingerprint evidence in Scotland; to scrutinise the implementation of recommendations of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary primary inspection report of 2000 and to ensure that their service is efficient and effective; and to scrutinise the Action Plan announced by the Minister for Justice for improvements in fingerprint and forensic services in Scotland."
1.3 On 15 February 2007, Justice 1 Committee published its report: Inquiry into the Scottish Criminal Record Office and Scottish Fingerprint Service. It contained the following paragraphs:
700. The Committee concludes that a number of important HMIC recommendations were clearly discharged prematurely. Sir David's review would appear to call into question the diligence with which HMIC carried out its inspections following the HMIC Primary Inspection of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau in 2000.
701. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that HMIC should conduct an internal review of its inspections of SCRO subsequent to Mr Taylor's Primary Inspection of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau in 2000, in order to consider the lessons to be learned for future inspection procedures.
Literature Review
1.4 In May of 2000 HMIC, under Mr Bill Taylor, carried out a primary inspection of the Fingerprint Bureau of SCRO. The timing of the inspection reflected concern within the SCRO Executive following the case of HMA v McKie. The inspection was specific to the Fingerprint Bureau rather than waiting until December 2000, which was scheduled as timing for a full primary inspection of the entire SCRO.
1.5 This primary review of the Fingerprint Bureau noted that insufficient progress had been made by SCRO in respect of the previous review that had taken place in 1998. HMCIC went on to make 25 recommendations in respect of SCRO along with a further 20 suggestions.
1.6 In concluding his report, HMCIC commented that SCRO " was not managing the demands and processes in a fully effective and efficient fashion"3.
1.7 This assertion led to a drop in confidence and morale within the SCRO4. This was based upon the belief that " many of the issues identified by HMIC were outside the direct control of SCRO staff and a result of insufficient resources"5
1.8 The 25 recommendations made in the 2000 primary inspection report were considered in the full primary inspection of SCRO that followed in December 2000. This inspection concluded that five recommendations were found to be discharged with one further recommendation considered partially discharged. The remainder were classed work in progress.
1.9 The 2000 primary inspection of the entire SCRO made some 17 recommendations and a further 5 suggestions. These recommendations were reviewed in December 2001 as part of the second year review of the 2000 primary inspection.
1.10 The language used by HMCIC when considering the work done by SCRO is, to the uninformed reader, somewhat cumbersome. Recommendations are, throughout all reports, generally fairly vague and open to interpretation. For example
" HMIC recommends that the concept of "authorisation" needs further consideration"6
" HMIC recommends that the Director of SCRO's scheme of delegation be considered as part of the re positioning of SCRO within a new Common Police Services arrangement"7.
1.11 In both these instances, it is not clear to the reader what exactly HMCIC is seeking from SCRO - it is very difficult to quantify "consideration".
1.12 The presence of Suggestions can be a confusing notion. For a reader unaccustomed to the usual formation of HMIC inspection reports, it is unclear what relevance Suggestions hold. If they are important enough to merit inclusion in the report then they should surely be of such a weight that merits their content as Recommendations?
1.13 Upon review inspections in 2001 and 2003, HMCIC outlines the work done by SCRO in respect of recommendations previously made, whilst also making comment based on this work. A decision is then made whether to discharge the recommendation or otherwise.
1.14 Given the construction of recommendations and the potential for their interpretation it is perhaps unsurprising that discharge can be achieved quickly. For example, where HMCIC recommends that
"A centralised model for a national fingerprint service be considered" 8
1.15 It is clear from the SCRO response to that recommendation that consideration was given to this issue and that a particular model was being worked towards. Whilst HMCIC noted the "clear determination" 9 of the SCRO management to "drive further change and strengthen corporate identity" 10 it is the case that no discussion of the wider options is made. It is also evident that there is a lack of clear outcome when discharge is granted.
1.16 To the independent reader, these omissions are key elements. The reader is also left wondering as to who is the ultimate arbiter in deciding whether a recommendation should be discharged. As noted above, construction of recommendations and responses is often complex and confusion may arise. It would be interesting to explore who is responsible for reaching a final decision on discharge and what situation arises where parties have differing views.
1.17 In summary, there has clearly been a great level of work and good intention on the part of all parties involved in the various inspections and reviews undertaken in respect of SCRO since 2000. The outcome of these reviews is less obvious. Issues concerning input focused recommendations rather than outcome focused discharge are matters worthy of further consideration, as is ownership of responsibility for direction and arbitration.
« Previous | Contents | Next »