Bid to gag expert in McKie case

Published on Sunday 23 April 2006 00:16

MINISTERS are attempting to gag a star witness at the parliamentary inquiry into the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

John MacLeod, a fingerprint expert who wrote a secret report for the Scottish Executive on the case, is to be called before MSPs when they begin their inquiry this week.

But Executive officials, who have already refused to release his report to the inquiry, have warned MacLeod "will not be in a position" to give verbal evidence either.

They are holding him to a confidentiality agreement he signed with ministers prior to delivering his report.

Legal experts said last night it was most likely the Executive would go to court to seek an interdict preventing MacLeod giving evidence. If MacLeod was able to go ahead and give evidence, ministers could still sue for breach of confidence.

The decision by ministers to keep MacLeod to his agreement, rather than letting him speak to a parliamentary committee, sets the stage for a major stand-off between the Scottish Parliament and the Executive.

MSPs are powerless to force MacLeod to talk, but now say they may go to the Court of Session in order to get his report and testimony released to the public.

The expert signed his agreement with ministers prior to handing over his report in 2004. The contents of that report - so far only seen by ministers and Executive officials - are seen as crucial to getting to the truth of the matter as they will show exactly what ministers were told about the affair, long before it was settled.

The scandal hit the headlines in February when Shirley McKie, the former policewoman falsely accused of leaving her fingerprint at a crime scene, was given a 750,000 settlement by the Scottish Executive just minutes before her court case against them was about to be heard.

First Minister Jack McConnell subsequently claimed that experts who had identified McKie's print were guilty only of an "honest mistake". However, one leaked report by former Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside police Jim Mackay, has already alleged "criminality" and "cover-up" in the matter.

MacLeod's testimony could at last reveal precisely what ministers were told about the affair.

The expert has so far kept his silence, despite being under massive pressure to discuss his findings in recent weeks. It is understood he is "determined" to put his side of the story across and is keen to offer evidence at the Parliamentary inquiry, led by the Justice 1 Committee.

A majority of members of the seven-member panel have said they want to call MacLeod to give evidence. However, a Scottish Executive spokesman said yesterday: "Should they call MacLeod, he would not be in a position to discuss the contents of his report due to reasons of confidentiality."

Asked what sanction they would apply if he did disclose the contents of his report, a spokesman said he did not wish to "speculate on any hypotheticals".

SNP MSP Bruce McFee said: "It is quite incredible the lengths they are going to hide the truth from the people of this country. If the Executive decide that rather than co-operating with this inquiry, they are going to go to war, then war it is."

Lib Dem MSP Mike Pringle added: "I am very disappointed that John MacLeod won't be able to talk about his own report and I find it very very regrettable.

"We need to take this very seriously but if the Executive is going to say that these people are not allowed to talk and the Executive is telling us that we can't ask them questions on this report, then frankly, you have to start asking what is the point?"

Tory member Margaret Mitchell said that MSPs should consider going to the courts to force publication.

"This comes down to a question of ownership. He [MacLeod] is the author but the Executive have ownership. We could petition the Court of Session to get the documents released. This might be the next step. The catch is, however, that this would be a decision for the Corporate Body. How much influence does the Executive have over that?"