 |
 |
| Publications |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
|
|
|||
 What We Do Police HMIC |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
9.1 A brief outline of the circumstances of this criminal case was provided in the introduction to this report (section 1.2) specifically indicating the way in which HMIC addressed the review of this case for inspection purposes.
9.2 The case began with the fingerprints of a serving police officer (Shirley McKie) being checked for elimination purposes, against a crime scene mark found at the scene of a murder, on the basis that the officer had accessed the scene. When the crime scene mark was eliminated as the officer's left thumbprint, the officer was notified but emphatically denied having been inside the house. The elimination identification was checked and confirmed by four fingerprint experts.
9.3 At the subsequent murder trial, fingerprint experts from SCRO gave evidence that one of the marks found at the scene had been eliminated as that of Shirley McKie. The officer, in her evidence, stated that she had not been inside the house beyond the front porch and could not therefore have left her fingerprint where it was said to have been found. An independent fingerprint expert was called by the defence and confirmed the findings of the SCRO experts.
9.4 Following the murder trial there was an investigation on the basis that the officer may have given perjured evidence. The officer was later arrested and charged with perjury based on her denial that she was inside the house while the fingerprint evidence gave conclusive probative evidence. At her trial, three fingerprint experts from SCRO gave evidence that the crime scene mark in question had been made by the officer. Two defence experts then gave evidence which challenged the SCRO findings. The defence experts, both from America, said that, in their opinion, the mark had not been made by the officer.
9.5 The officer was acquitted. The reasons for the jury's verdict can never be fully ascertained. Whether the disputed fingerprint evidence was the sole reason for the not guilty verdict will never be known. The unequivocal result of the trial was that Shirley McKie was found not guilty of the crime with which she was charged.
9.6 However, the fact remained that two fingerprint experts had disputed the identification made by the SCRO experts. While it is not unknown for fingerprint experts to disagree, disagreements tend only to relate to the number of points identified within a mark. The normally thorough process of identification is such that it is rare for identifications to be disputed in court and allegations of a complete mistake levelled. Following the trial, consultation took place between senior management at SCRO and key stakeholders. Assurances were provided by SCRO that, notwithstanding the challenge to their evidence, the SCRO fingerprint experts remained confident about the identification and stood by their findings. In January 2000, the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police took steps to have the case of Shirley McKie discussed at a meeting of the ACPOS Council, attended by all Scottish chief constables, and this took place in February 2000.
9.7 In March 2000, HMIC was invited to have a role in a review of the disputed identification and, following discussions with SCRO Executive Committee, the Crown and the Scottish Executive, it was agreed that the primary inspection of SCRO planned for December 2000 would be brought forward but only in respect of the Fingerprint Bureau. The McKie case would be examined with a number of others (24) with a view to informing HMIC about the efficacy of the processes involved in making an elimination or identification and the subsequent presentation of evidence in court. In addition HMIC would arrange and oversee a further examination of the disputed identification by experts not previously involved with the case.
9.8 Two established and senior experts, both with considerable experience of the international fingerprint scene, undertook an examination of the disputed material under controlled conditions. Independently they came to the view that the latent mark at the scene of the crime was not made by Shirley McKie's left thumb print, as asserted by the SCRO experts. They also concluded that the mark was not made by any of Shirley McKie's other nine digits. They were unequivocal in their findings and then produced a joint report with a detailed argument for HMIC of how they approached the comparison and the reasons for their conclusions.
9.9 The experts were not asked to explain why in their view SCRO experts were mistaken and it would not have been possible for them to offer such a view without access to the whole of the case material and direct discussions with the experts involved. They were asked to assist HMIC in the inspection process and not to undertake an enquiry.
9.10 HMIC is extremely grateful for the diligent and purposeful way in which the experts approached the task and for the clear and unambiguous way in which they presented their findings.
9.11 Following receipt of the evidence from the independent experts HMIC moved quickly to make the conclusions known to all the key parties, including Shirley McKie.
< 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.
