 |
 |
| Publications |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
|
|
|||
 What We Do Police HMIC |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
1.1 General
1.1.1 This inspection should be seen in a context of current change and challenge, not only for the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO), but also for the future of fingerprint evidence as a key part of the wider criminal justice system. It is important to acknowledge the role of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau, not only as a provider of services in relation to fingerprints for the eight Scottish Forces but as the guardian and manager of a national fingerprint service for the benefit of the Scottish criminal justice system.
1.1.2 SCRO is a common police service serving the whole of the Scottish criminal justice system including the eight Scottish police forces, the Crown and the Courts. Although currently located within Strathclyde Police headquarters, SCRO is due to be relocated in September 2000 to its own premises at Pacific Quay in Glasgow. The organisation has a total of 116 staff comprising 98 support staff and 18 police officers. All support staff are employees of Strathclyde Joint Police Board. This position is a convenient and necessary approach under the present common police service structure. The police officers are seconded from forces and their individual chief constables retain responsibility for their actions as regards legal liability and discipline.
1.1.3 The senior management of SCRO includes a director and deputy director, both police officers, with oversight provided by a committee structure. The lead committee (the Executive Committee) includes the eight Scottish chief constables. A further committee (the Management Committee) deals with the routine and tactical oversight issues. The Fingerprint Bureau head is a chief inspector. At the time of the inspection the bureau had 61 staff, of whom 29 are fingerprint experts. This latter group includes the deputy head of bureau, the quality assurance/training officer and an acting principal fingerprint officer as training officer. These latter persons also have specialist or supervisory responsibilities.
1.1.4 The primary function of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau is to provide a fingerprint verification and identification facility for the eight Scottish police forces. In practice this includes providing all fingerprint services for two of the eight forces (Strathclyde Police and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary). The services to the other six forces, which operate their own fingerprint bureaux, are now largely based on the management of the computerised fingerprint processing system, Livescan, and the Automatic Fingerprint Recognition (AFR) system now in place across the country. SCRO is the guardian of the fingerprint collection for Scotland, both computerised and paper-based, and thus serves the entire Scottish criminal justice system.
1.1.5 This national and strategic role of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau gives a wider dimension to this inspection. The inspection examined the key systems and processes in use, not only within the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau but also those within force fingerprint bureaux. This was necessary to illustrate how fingerprint services are delivered across Scotland and to explain the role played by SCRO within the national structure. There is a correlation between the structure and activity of force bureaux and that of SCRO, in that the former has a direct impact on the latter. The work of force fingerprint bureaux is described in paragraph 3.15.6.
1.1.6 Due to the strategic nature of some of the issues raised in this report, a number of the observations and recommendations extend beyond the responsibility of SCRO itself. While some recommendations relate to the day to day operation of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau, others focus on the future delivery of fingerprint services to the Scottish criminal justice system at a strategic and national level. Due to the singular role and management structure of SCRO, the responsibility to address and resolve such issues lies, not only with the Director of SCRO, but with the eight Scottish chief constables and the Scottish Executive who, acting together, are responsible for the funding and management of the organisation. HMIC acknowledges the assistance received from all these parties in the course of this inspection and in particular, notes work that has been commissioned in recent years in many of the areas discussed. This report identifies and stresses the need for an acceleration of the drive to take SCRO forward, mainly in areas already identified by the stakeholders.
1.1.7 HMIC found an awareness of the need for change at SCRO in relation to structures and processes. This awareness has informed the series of reviews, now consolidated by this report. These reviews have resulted in a number of recommendations regarding the future structure and delivery of fingerprint services in Scotland. HMIC repeats some of these recommendations and makes a number of others. The recommendations range from working practices within the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau to matters relating to evidential standards requiring Crown Office support. Each of the recommendations is made with a view to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau. The need to sustain the quality and credibility of fingerprint evidence is paramount and this consideration features prominently throughout this report.
1.1.8 The uniqueness of fingerprints has been known for many centuries. The police have used fingerprints as a means of personal identification for over a century both in the maintenance of criminal records and as a method of crime detection. As a means of detecting crime, comparisons are made between finger impressions (marks or latents) found at scenes of crime, against fingerprint records of convicted persons. This method was developed in the middle to late 19th century and its use as a means of crime detection, became routine in the first half of the 20th century. Since then fingerprints have provided a particular weight of evidence that has contributed to the conviction of many criminals, in cases ranging from relatively minor offences to the most serious crimes, including murder. It is a well-established, highly respected and much valued discipline.
1.1.9 The fingerprint experts who make such identifications are trained and experienced individuals and HMIC acknowledges the dedication and commitment encountered in the course of this inspection. The work of the fingerprint expert demands a high level of skill and integrity and the application of a forensic approach. Their contribution to the criminal justice system as a whole is significant. This inspection is not about individuals. It is an inspection of a fingerprint bureau and the processes surrounding the acquisition, examination and presentation of the evidence where the staff of that bureau are involved on a daily basis. The approach taken to the inspection is set out in paragraph 1.4 below.
1.1.10 The inspection has included examination of a number of cases, selected from all Scottish forces, to provide an illustration of the processes followed both by fingerprint experts and scenes of crime officers across Scotland. The role performed by SCRO in such cases is explained in Chapter 5 of this report.
1.2.1 Included in the cases examined by HMIC was that of HMA v McKie. This case involved a Strathclyde Police officer accused of perjury after she denied, on oath in court, having been present at a crime scene where a finger mark (latent) found on a doorframe had been identified as originating from her left thumb.
1.2.2 Three fingerprint experts from SCRO gave evidence at her trial that, in their opinion, the officer's left thumbprint was identical to the mark found on the doorframe.
1.2.3 The jury found the officer not guilty after hearing the evidence, which included two defence fingerprint experts from America who opined that the mark found at the crime scene had not been made by her. The reasoning behind a jury verdict can never be known, nor in this case can the significance they attached to the disputed fingerprint evidence be established. However, the difference in expert opinion inevitably led to questions about the reliability of the fingerprint evidence presented by SCRO.
1.2.4 The case is a controversial one and has received considerable publicity. It is important to stress that the purpose of the HMIC examination of this case has not been to carry out an internal disciplinary inquiry, a criminal investigation or civil claim inquiry. That is not the function of HMIC. Within the police service and the Scottish legal system there are well-established processes to pursue such issues. HMIC examined the McKie case as one of the 24 cases examined to help inform the inspection about the efficacy of processes and procedures at SCRO. As part of that process HMIC organised a further examination of the disputed identification.
1.2.5 To assist HMIC with aspects of the inspection three independent fingerprint experts, from different jurisdictions, were consulted and this included a detailed discussion on systems and procedures.
1.2.6 Two of the experts, independently, conducted a comparison of the latent mark found at the crime scene and the fingerprints taken from Shirley McKie for elimination purposes. The two experts who made the comparison were clear in their opinion that there was sufficient detail in the mark found at the crime scene to make an identification. Both experts are unequivocally of the opinion that the mark was not made by Shirley McKie. It is their view that decision could have been reached at an early point in the comparison process.
1.2.7 The two experts who re-visited the disputed identification are from the Netherlands, who have a numeric fingerprint standard, and Norway, who have a non-numeric standard. The third expert, who assisted with processes, is from England, who will move to a non-numeric standard later this year. (Paragraph 1.3 refers).
1.2.8 As a result of this opinion, HMIC held an early meeting with the key stakeholders for SCRO to discuss the way forward. A meeting took place on 21 June 2000 between HMIC, members of the SCRO Executive Committee, the SCRO Deputy Director and representatives from the Scottish Executive, ACPOS and Crown Office, HMIC presented the emerging findings of the inspection. The result of the re-examination was made known to the McKie family at the earliest practicable opportunity. On 22 June 200 HMIC's emerging findings were reported to the Scottish Parliament in a statement by the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice
1.2.9 In response to these findings, ACPOS announced the setting up of the ACPOS Presidential Review Team (APRT) under the chairmanship of the incoming president of ACPOS, Mr William Rae, Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. The review will be wide ranging and is intended to accelerate developments in the areas highlighted by HMIC as emerging findings, including personnel and training issues, competency, structure, resources, processes and quality control.
1.2.10 The recommendations made in this report provide an opportunity for SCRO and the wider fingerprint services in Scotland to move forward. Positive changes were already taking place but the pace of that change now needs to quicken substantially.
1.3 Numeric/Non-numeric standard
1.3.1 In 1933 it became a general rule in fingerprint evidence that identity would not be accepted in court unless 16 identical ridge characteristics were available for comparison. Although there was some flexibility in the application of this rule, by the 1950s it had become the general standard. Since then, as a matter of practice in the United Kingdom, evidence of identity for court purposes requires that a fingerprint expert must report a minimum of 16 characteristics in a mark in order to express the opinion that it has been made by a particular person. This approach became known as the "16 point standard." In other jurisdictions across the world this "numeric standard" has varied, almost always in the lower direction (e.g. 6, 8, 10 or 12).
1.3.2 As fingerprint evidence is based on the opinion of an expert (in the knowledge that no two persons have ever been found with identical fingerprints) there is little real intellectual or scientific case for the standard being set at a specific number of characteristics. It is a matter of accepted practice. A number of jurisdictions have moved away from a "numeric standard" and rely upon the expert explaining why he or she believes a mark to have been made by a particular person. This latter approach is commonly known as operating a "non-numeric" standard. England and Wales intend to move towards a "non-numeric" standard in October 2000. The planning and preparation for this change began in 1995 and that timescale is indicative of the extent of the work involved. Scotland kept abreast of developments with a view to moving to the non-numeric standard but the extent of preparedness has been at a much lower level and much remains to be done before the change can be implemented. (see also paragraph 6.8).
1.3.3 HMIC intends that this report will assist the progress already being made towards implementation of the non-numeric standard in Scotland, while recognising the different but complementary role of the police service, the Crown Office and the courts. It is important that the change takes place in a planned and methodical manner. There are training implications, not only for fingerprint experts, but also for everyone associated with the acquisition, examination and presentation of fingerprint evidence in the widest sense. This includes police officers, prosecutors, defence agents and the judiciary. The move towards a non-numeric standard is seen by HMIC as positive and necessary but all parties must be prepared for its introduction. This report highlights action that HMIC considers a necessary prerequisite for its successful introduction.
1.4 Approach to the Inspection
1.4.1 This inspection included 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.
1.4.2 To assist in the assessment of these processes, procedures within all Scottish forces were examined, as well as those within the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau. This provided a broad base of evidence.
1.4.3 As part of the inspection 24 cases were examined to help understand the processes and documentation involved. These were cases from all eight forces in Scotland and the Scottish Crime Squad.
1.5 Methodology
1.5.1 The methodology used in this inspection by HMIC included directing a questionnaire at SCRO Fingerprint Bureau, all Scottish forces and the Scottish Crime Squad. This assisted compilation of the Figures contained in this report. A further questionnaire was utilised in the face to face interviews, which took place during pre-inspection with staff in SCRO, each of the eight Scottish forces and the Scottish Crime Squad. Persons who were seen included managers, scenes of crime officers, fingerprint experts, other fingerprint staff in forces and a range of fingerprint staff at SCRO. The views of a number of individuals were canvassed including Crown Office, Sheriffs Principal, members of the SCRO Executive Committee, the Scottish Executive and the defence fingerprint experts involved in the McKie case. The Primary Inspection visit to SCRO by HMCIC took place on 22/23 May 2000. Thereafter further consultation took place with the three senior independent fingerprint experts.
1.6 SCRO Response to Recent Recommendations
1.6.1 The following provides a synopsis of some of the background to this inspection and provides a summary of the responses, which SCRO has made to recommendations made in the course of previous reviews and inspections:
1.6.2 Scottish Fingerprint Service Working Group Recommendations
1.6.2.1 The Scottish Fingerprint Service Working Group was established in May 1997 under the chairmanship of Mr John Hamilton QPM, Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary to investigate management issues which were presenting difficulties at SCRO at that time. The Group's terms of reference were:
"to examine, among other things, the potential impact of Automatic Fingerprint Recognition (AFR), Livescan and other technical developments on Fingerprint Services in Scotland, and to make appropriate recommendations for the future."
1.6.2.2 The Group reported in March 1998 (hereafter referred to as the Hamilton Report). The recommendations made in that report were:
that a basic model of evaluation be developed for use throughout the fingerprint service in Scotland based upon the collection and use of agreed management information (paragraph 5.3)
that consideration be given to making a financial award to SCRO staff in the current year with parity being the aim in the succeeding year (paragraph 7.28)
that consideration be given to the establishment of a national salary and conditions structure for fingerprint experts (paragraph 7.28)
that a change to the present system be actively pursued in the interests of efficiency, effectiveness, economy and best value (paragraph 8.9)
that a re-organisation of the fingerprint service be undertaken based upon an agreed level of devolution of control appropriate to the efficient, effective and economic delivery of fingerprint services (paragraph 8.27)
that subject to consideration and approval of an option for change, the preparation of an implementation strategy forms the next stage of development. Central to such a strategy must be the re-launch and marketing of a new National Fingerprint Service for Scotland (paragraph 10.9)
1.6.2.3 The last of these recommendations, the preparation of an implementation strategy, was undertaken by independent management consultants who completed a first stage review by December 1998 and a second stage report in June 1999.
1.6.2.4 Stage One of the consultants' report concluded that
1.6.2.5 It was identified that the inability to cope with the workload at that time had been brought about by the increased workload following the introduction of Livescan (see paragraph 5.4) in April 1997 at a time when staff levels were falling. It was also found that implementation of the latest technology, aside from budgetary constraints, had taken place without full consideration being given to staffing implications in terms of work patterns and volume. New shift patterns were introduced for staff and the submission of tenprints from forces increased dramatically. In order to cope more and more staff were diverted from crime scene mark work.
1.6.2.6 The consultants identified a number of priority actions. These included:
1.6.2.7 Concurrent with the implementation of the above actions, the consultants then progressed to Stage Two of their assignment with a view to developing a preferred model for the future operation of the fingerprint service in Scotland.
1.6.2.8 In June 1999 the consultants' final report concluded, inter alia, "A more modern structure of accountable management is required to enable SCRO Fingerprint Bureau to develop and respond to the needs of those it serves." The report gives a reasoned argument for the incorporation of all fingerprint services in Scotland within SCRO under new management arrangements.
1.6.2.9 In addition to the conclusion that the Hamilton Report's recommendation of a new national fingerprint service for Scotland be implemented, the consultants highlighted the need for other action. Some of this latter action has been taken. This includes the appointment of a court liaison officer and amendment to shift systems. Aspects which had still to be fully addressed at the time of this inspection included:
Improved level of service and quality control required in respect of AFR
Need to consider dual role of fingerprint expert/scene of crime officer in order that fingerprint experts are seen as full time professional "experts" in court
Need for full-time Quality Assurance Officer and full-time Training Officer
Introduction of an office management information system incorporating automated case tracking
1.6.3 Response to Previous HMIC Recommendations
1.6.3.1 A primary inspection of SCRO was last conducted in 1995 followed by a review inspection in 1998. The 1995 inspection found that all the recommendations of the inspection in 1993 had been addressed. This work included, in respect of salary grading, an investigation undertaken by the then Fingerprint Standing Committee, which determined that differentials between roles were, at that time, appropriate. In response to a 1993 recommendation that quality of service criteria for AFR response times be reviewed, service level agreements had been drawn up and were to be subject to periodic review. With regard to the recommendation that a formal sickness and absence management policy for police and civilian staff be adopted, this too had been implemented.
1.6.3.2 The 1995 HMIC Primary Inspection Report on SCRO made only one recommendation in respect of the Fingerprint Bureau:
1.6.3.3 The 1998 Review Inspection found that this matter had been addressed with forces and that steps had been taken to prevent undue delay. This issue had been largely overtaken by the introduction of Livescan terminals whereby most (71%) tenprints of arrested persons are transmitted electronically to SCRO.
1.6.3.4 The 1998 HMIC Review Inspection of SCRO took the form of a "visit"
preceded by a questionnaire requesting detailed responses to a wide range of
questions relating to all aspects of the organisation. The questionnaire focused
on issues raised at or since the time of the last inspection in 1995. In accordance
with the procedures in place then, the 1998 report was not a published report*
and made no recommendations. However, it refers to the "critical" position being
experienced by SCRO at that time as a result of increasing workloads and serious
resourcing issues. The report acknowledged that the working group under the
chairmanship of Fife Chief Constable Mr John Hamilton, referred to above had
been formed and that the outcomes of the report were awaited.
(* Note: Following a review of inspection processes by HMIC in 1999 all reports,
Primary and Review are now published.)
1.6.3.5 HMIC is of the view that the inspection and review reports identified key issues and suggested appropriate solutions and later in this report recommends that the Hamilton Report and the two reports by consultants now need to be taken forward. (Recommendation 3, paragraph 2.15.11).
1.7 The Eight Force Standard
1.7.1 The "Eight Force Fingerprint Standard" is not yet fully developed. It was intended to be a set of common standards for fingerprint procedures in Scotland, agreed by SCRO and the eight Scottish forces. The concept emerged as an interim measure following consideration and rejection of the Hamilton Report recommendation of a national fingerprint service for Scotland. The recommendation had been that "re-organisation of the fingerprint service be undertaken based upon an agreed level of devolution of control appropriate to the efficient, effective and economic delivery of fingerprint services." (Paragraph 8.27, Hamilton Report). The report then offered a number of options for change ranging from a fully centralised model to various models of devolved control.
1.7.2 While the recommendation for a national fingerprint service was not implemented, the options were not dismissed entirely and standardisation of procedures was seen as part of the staged implementation of aspects of the consultants' report, which had supported the Hamilton Report recommendation. The first meeting of the "Eight Force Standard Group" took place in November 1999. "Workshops" were established to discuss national issues affecting the fingerprint service in Scotland including the move towards a non-numeric fingerprint standard and the need for a training forum to examine and progress training needs in Scotland.
1.7.3 A strategic report prepared in 1999 by the current head of the fingerprint bureau further identifies the need for investigations by sub-groups into specific areas. These included evidence presentation, proficiency testing, quality procedures, accreditation of bureau trainers, common working practices for documentation, disclosure of evidence, standardised joint reports and links with the Registration Council for Forensic Practitioners. This report is clear confirmation of the HMIC finding that SCRO Fingerprint Bureau staff are aware of much of the action that is required to progress the service. The second and last meeting of the "Eight Force Standard Group" took place in December 1999.
1.7.4 HMIC now envisages that, in responding to this report, the APRT will take all these issues forward.
< 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.
