 |
 |
| Publications |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
|
|
|||
 What We Do Police HMIC |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
i) The primary inspection of the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) Fingerprint Bureau was conducted by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland (HMCIC), Mr William Taylor QPM on 22 and 23 May 2000.
ii) The primary inspection of SCRO as a whole was scheduled to take place in December 2000. Following a request by the SCRO Executive Committee that HMIC re-visit the disputed fingerprint identification in the case of HMA v Shirley McKie, the inspection of the Fingerprint Bureau was brought forward and pre-inspection work started in April 2000. The case of HMA v McKie is discussed in the Introduction to this report and, in more detail in Chapter 9. It was agreed that HMIC would examine the circumstances of this case in the context of the processes employed by the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau and by fingerprint experts in force bureaux across Scotland. In addition HMIC would arrange a further examination of the disputed identification.
iii) This inspection should be viewed against a background of continuous change in the "fingerprint world" generally and in particular the specific changes already planned for SCRO.
iv) The inspection involved an examination of the acquisition, examination and presentation of fingerprint evidence and a review of the training skills and quality assurance aspects of the processes in operation within the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau. The methodology applied in the course of the inspection is explained in more detail in Chapter 1. Two experts, one from Holland and a second from Norway, examined the disputed mark and came to the unequivocal view that it had not been made by Shirley McKie.
v) The last Primary Inspection of SCRO by HMIC took place in 1998. In addition, initiated by the (then) SCRO Controlling Committee, a number of reviews of the fingerprint service in Scotland have taken place. A report was produced in March 1998 following a review conducted by the Scottish Fingerprint Service Working Group under the chairmanship of the Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary, Mr John Hamilton QPM. This was followed by a two-stage review, undertaken by independent management consultants, concluding in June 1999. Details of these reviews and their findings are outlined in the Introduction to this report.
vi) In addition to this focus on the structure and internal management of SCRO, developments have been taking place in respect of the move within the UK towards a non-numeric fingerprint standard. Implementation of this change is at a more advanced stage in England and Wales where it was anticipated that the change would be implemented by April 2000. This has now been postponed until October 2000 but arrangements are in place for the change to take effect. There is general agreement that fingerprint evidence in Scotland will also move to a non-numeric standard. Fingerprint experts at SCRO have been working towards implementation although much more preparation is required, including work within the wider criminal justice arena, before such a change can take place effectively. This is discussed in Chapter 1 of this report and again in more detail, in Chapters 6 and 7.
vii) Since the time of the last inspection significant change has been made to the committee structure that provides oversight of SCRO. Senior management personnel had also changed. A chief superintendent and superintendent head the organisation, with the titles Director and Deputy Director respectively. Full details of the structure and management of the organisation are contained in Chapter 2 of this report.
viii) Generally, it was found that the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau was working hard to make progress in terms of performance, quality of service and its own internal management. A report prepared some months ago by the head of the SCRO bureau identifies many of the issues extant at the time of the inspection. It also set out proposals that are in line with many of the recommendations made in this inspection report. While readily acknowledging the work done by SCRO management to address shortcomings, HMIC considers an adequate response has been hindered by the need to focus on day to day demands to the detriment of more fundamental short and medium term improvements. Inadequate resource to ensure development of the Bureau has exacerbated the position.
ix) The full recommendations arising from this inspection are set out at pages 5 to 7 of this report. The inspection found examples of positive change within the management of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau and commitment by staff to continuous improvement in the level of service provided. However progress has not been made in an acceptable timescale. This is due, in part, to the limited resources and absence of the dedicated tasking necessary to gain and then sustain the improvements widely recognised as necessary. A lack of direction and ownership are also factors. The recommendations and suggestions made in this report are designed to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau but importantly HMIC believes this is only achievable if the more strategic recommendations are accepted and acted upon.
x) Improvement is required in the processes and systems in place within the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau and force bureaux to ensure that an effective and independent fingerprint service is provided for the whole of the Scottish criminal justice system.
xi) The focus areas for improvement can be summarised as:
xii) Aspects of the fingerprint system where change is required but which are beyond the direct responsibility of SCRO Fingerprint Bureau management include oversight arrangements, re-structuring of Common Police Services, increased resourcing and the introduction of the non-numeric standard.
xiii) The strategic reviews undertaken on behalf of the (now) Executive Committee are broadly endorsed by the HMIC inspection and address many of the key issues. Reports produced by management within the SCRO Bureau also identify areas where change and progress are necessary. It is the HMIC position that these reviews have offered a way forward, which has not been taken up with the clarity of purpose and focus on improvement which the reviews merited.
xiv) The move to new premises due to take place in September 2000 provides SCRO with an excellent opportunity to re-assert its corporate identity and to develop the other key areas listed above. The work of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPOS) Presidential Review Team (APRT) will now assist in these developments. This dedicated tasking is wholly in line with the emerging findings released by HMIC on 22 June 2000 and seen as vital to securing the improvements necessary in the short, medium and long term.
xv) HMIC concluded that, at present, the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau is unable to provide a fully efficient and effective service with its present level of staffing, resources, processes and structures. HMIC will review the progress made in respect of the recommendations and suggestions made in this report in December 2000.
xvi) HMIC recognises that the recommendations and suggestions in this report go beyond the remit of SCRO Executive Committee and, if accepted, impact on all Police Forces, the Scottish Executive and other areas of the criminal justice system. It would be helpful if a single reference point had the responsibility to consider the issues in the first instance and as the APRT has been established HMIC, mindful of the responsibility of the stakeholders, suggests that this team is uniquely placed to undertake that role.
< Previous | Contents | Next >
The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.
For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.
