Fury as 'notorious' fingerprint team in McKie case offered deals to quit

"I have enormous sympathy for the SCRO officers. Some of them are very experienced and have given very good service in the past, but my job is to ensure that criminal trials are conducted properly and that we have a criminal-justice system in which people have confidence. - COLIN BOYD, LORD ADVOCATE

Story in full THE fingerprint experts at the centre of the Shirley McKie affair have been offered a deal to leave their jobs in the wake of the notorious case, it emerged last night.

The news came as Scotland's most senior law officer, Colin Boyd, the Lord Advocate, told MSPs it was unlikely that any of the fingerprint officers who wrongly identified a print as Ms McKie's would be called as experts in court again.

He said the case had become so notorious they would risk compromising another trial if they were to give evidence.

The approach was made by David Mulhern, who is overseeing an action plan to modernise the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO).

Unison said that six officers had been offered early retirement, redundancy or redeployment within the police, but the union branded the move as "harassment".

Fiona McBride, one of the officers involved, said they refused to become "scapegoats" and would fight to remain in the service.

Ms McKie, a former detective, was accused of perjury after her fingerprint was misidentified at a murder scene in 1997. She was later cleared and paid 750,000 in compensation.

The case led to more than 20 investigations including the latest parliamentary inquiry into the SCRO, the body which identifies fingerprints in Scotland.

The fingerprint experts involved in the case vehemently stood by their findings throughout and last week Jim Wallace, the justice minister at the time of the case, apologised for the stress caused to them.

However, in the last hearing of evidence of the parliamentary inquiry yesterday, the Lord Advocate said it was unlikely the four officers who originally identified the fingerprint as Ms McKie's would give evidence in court again.

He said: "I have enormous sympathy for the SCRO officers. Some of them are very experienced and have given very good service in the past, but my job is to ensure that criminal trials are conducted properly and that we have a criminal-justice system in which people have confidence.

"My concern is that if any of the officers were to be called as witnesses, their position, frankly, is now so - and I don't mean it pejoratively - notorious."

He added: "It's well known what the officers' position is.

"The trial involving them might very well become a trial of them, rather than of the person accused.

"That is something that I would want to avoid."

He also told MSPs that the advocate-depute who conducted the perjury case against Ms McKie believed there was other evidence against her, but this never came out at trial.

Anne Russell, Unison's regional officer, said it was "outrageous" that the offer should be made in the middle of a parliamentary inquiry.

She added: "It is even more outrageous that these threats are being made by an individual who is not even their employer.

"If David Mulhern thinks that this Draconian approach is the way he intends to manage staff in any new service, then staff will be thinking twice, if not three times, before they transfer.

"Individuals should not be able to play fast and loose with employment law and with parliament's activities in this way.

"Unless these threats are withdrawn, Unison will be talking to our lawyers, to the staff affected and to the staff as a whole to decide our next steps in backing our members' rights."

Ken McIntosh, the Labour backbencher representing the experts, said: "They have had three inquiries into their behaviour and have been cleared by all of them. It would be absolutely disgraceful if this sort of ultimatum has been put to them now, in the middle of a parliamentary inquiry as well."

Mr Mulhern refused to explain his offer.

He said: "As you will respect, any discussions between an employer and employee regarding their terms and conditions are a private and confidential matter with the individual concerned. Taking this into account, we have no further comment on this particular matter."

Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, who also gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry yesterday, defended the decision to settle with Ms McKie out of court.

She revealed that the 750,000 the former detective was awarded was less than the 1.2 million plus interest that Ms McKie had been seeking.

She added: "I came to the decision on what was the best way forward and I stand by it."

Asked by the convener of the inquiry, Pauline McNeill, if the Executive had settled out of court because they might have believed there was malice involved, Ms Jamieson told the committee the settlement was made on the basis that there had been a misidentification of the print, but that no malice was involved in that.