Expert blasts Scotland's crime scene evidence

Published on Sunday 7 May 2006 00:58

A LEADING English forensics expert has made a devastating attack on the quality of crime scene examination in Scotland, declaring he has "no confidence" in the evidence lawyers are using to convict criminals.

Allan Bayle, a former fingerprint investigator with the Metropolitan Police and adviser to the Association of Chief Police Officers, is to make his startling claims to the Scottish Parliament's inquiry into the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) - the organisation that wrongly identified former policewoman Shirley McKie as having left her print at a murder scene.

Bayle has been a constant critic of the SCRO, accusing it of gross negligence in the McKie case. But his latest attack is far more wide-ranging, placing fresh doubts over all crime scene work in Scotland, nine years after the McKie affair began.

Scotland on Sunday has also obtained the submissions from the four fingerprint experts at the heart of the case, in which they launch a bitter attack against ministers, law chiefs and their own organisation, the SCRO, insisting they were right to link the print to McKie.

Bayle's attack is made in an unpublished submission to the MSPs, obtained by Scotland on Sunday. He writes: "Crime scene examination in Scotland is of a very poor standard and needs to be brought up to date, especially in respect of note taking."

Asked for his views on the SCRO's work currently taking place, he added: "I have no confidence in its effectiveness or efficiency. I have been checking SCRO's work for the past five years for Scottish defence lawyers, and have been dismayed at some of the standards. Despite claims of change, experts are still providing unsatisfactory court evidence."

Bayle's claims are to be put before MSPs later this summer as they begin to trawl through the fallout from the McKie case. The former policewoman won 750,000 in damages earlier this year after ministers claimed an "honest mistake" had been made in her case.

However, this newspaper then revealed that a report by the former Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside Police, Jim Mackay, had alleged "criminality" and a "cover-up" over the case.

Bayle's evidence casts doubts over claims by ministers that weaknesses in Scotland's forensic system, exposed by the McKie case, have now been resolved. Previous reports that recommended changes to the SCRO "have not been fully implemented", he claims. "There needs to be a re-analysis as a matter of urgency."

The outcry over the case has thrown a pall over Scotland's justice system. In another submission to the inquiry, Solicitor-Advocate John Scott has revealed how the shadow of the McKie fiasco is now hanging over High Court trials.

He said: "I have already sat through an afternoon's evidence in a High Court trial where fingerprint evidence from the SCRO was subjected to the McKie cross-examination. It started with the question, 'Have you heard of Shirley McKie?', and then proceeded to attempt to undermine the evidence in that case by association."

The supposed improvements in the SCRO are even challenged by the fingerprint experts working there. In his submission, one of the group of four at the centre of the McKie case, Charles Stewart - who insists his analysis of the former policewoman's print was right - admits that "as experts within the bureau, we have had concerns about our management for years".

Stewart said senior management at the centre had traditionally been police officers "with no fingerprint experience". He added that a new action plan designed to boost the service was "flawed".

Stewart also levels a furious attack against ministers and senior prosecutors over their handling of the case. He writes: "Great concern must be expressed over the Crown's behaviour in this affair. At best, a high level of gross incompetence has been shown."

He adds: "The Scottish ministers appear to have settled with the McKies for some unclear reason, probably for their own self-preservation, or more likely the protection of the Lord Advocate and the Crown, and, to a lesser extent, of the reputation of Strathclyde Police."

Three other fingerprint experts linked to the case also break their silence in the submissions to defend their claim that the print was McKie's.

Robert Mackenzie, the deputy head of the Scottish Fingerprint Service's Glasgow office, insists: "In this instance, it is my belief that there have already been three miscarriages of justice in relation to the cases of David Asbury and Shirley McKie, due to actions of individuals and organisations outwith the Scottish Criminal Records Office."

Hugh Macpherson, the principal fingerprint officer who originally matched the print to McKie, adds: "The four suspended experts have been put through a 13-month police/fiscal/Crown investigation and an external ad hoc disciplinary enquiry and have been exonerated. We are the most reviewed and examined fingerprint experts there have ever been."

Another officer who examined the print, Alister Geddes adds: "I have no doubt that the scene of crime mark is identical to the left thumb of Shirley McKie."