Shirley McKie case: ‘Fingerprints are opinion not fact’ rules probe

FINGERPRINT evidence should be treated as opinion-based rather than fact in Scottish courts, a comprehensive inquiry into the long-running Shirley McKie case has ruled.

In a report that is likely to have wide repercussions for the criminal justice system, the Fingerprint Inquiry found that forensic examiners are “ill-equipped” to reason their conclusions, as they are used to regarding them as “a matter of certainty”.

The inquiry into the controversial case of Ms McKie, a former police officer falsely accused of leaving her prints at a murder scene, concluded that Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) examiners made two incidences of “human error,” and that there was “nothing sinister” about the erroneous results.

It also ruled there was “no conspiracy” against Ms McKie by her former employers, Strathclyde Police.

In the wake of yesterday’s report, Tom Nelson, director of forensic services at the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA), apologised to the McKie family.

Ms McKie’s father, Iain, who has campaigned on her behalf, welcomed the “first time someone has said sorry”, but suggested there may be mistakes in other cases which have been “lying undiscovered”.

Justice secretary Kenny McAskill said the McKie case had “cast a shadow of uncertainty and suspicion” over the criminal justice system,.

And leading legal figures said the inquiry could have “massive implications” for forensic science as a whole.

The £4.75m inquiry, chaired by Sir Anthony Campbell, a former judge at the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, was set up to examine what steps were taken to identify and verify the prints involved in the case against Ms McKie, who was accused of perjury for insisting that a fingerprint found at the Kilmarnock home of murder victim Marion Ross did not belong to her.

The former officer, from Troon in Ayrshire, was later cleared of lying under oath and in February 2006 was given £750,000 in an out-of-court settlement with the then Scottish Executive. David Asbury was convicted but later acquitted of the murder of Ms Ross. Her murder remains unsolved.

Sir Anthony set out 86 recommendations “for future action” and in his key findings, said there was “no evidence” that Ms McKie had entered Ms Ross’s house in January 1997.

A fingerprint mark at the scene, he explained, had been “misidentified by SCRO fingerprint examiners due to human error,” although there was “nothing sinister” about this.

He said there had been “no impropriety” by the fingerprint examiners who misidentified the print as “these were opinions genuinely held by them”.

Nonetheless, Sir Anthony – who heard evidence from 64 witnesses in 250 hours of hearings spanning 57 days – said the misidentification of two prints relating to Ms McKie and Ms Ross “expose weaknesses in the methodology of fingerprint comparison and in particular where it involves complex marks”.

“Fingerprint evidence should be recognised as opinion evidence, not fact, and those involved in the criminal justice system need to assess it as such on its merits,” he said.

Ms McKie, 49, was not present at the delivery of the report in Glasgow’s Radisson Blu hotel, but her father said he had spoken to her and described her reaction as “overwhelmed and speechless”. Mr McKie said: “You don’t expect these type of people to apologise. The system seems incapable of it.”

He added: “Scotland gave the world fingerprint identification but today discovered that the SCRO almost destroyed it as a science by wrongly identifying two fingerprints through institutional incompetence and a culture of arrogance.”

Mr McKie, a former superintendent with Strathclyde Police, said the report would help “draw a line under the affair”.

However, he added: “It will all have been for nothing if its publication does not lead to a full and proper investigation into [Marion Ross’s] death.

“What faith do we have that other mistakes have not been made and lie undiscovered? What faith can we have that no other miscarriages of justice have occurred?”

Prominent human rights lawyer John Scott QC welcomed the recommendation to have three qualified examiners study complex fingerprint marks independently, and said the impact of the inquiry would have wider repercussions for other evidence based on forensic science.

“There are wider implications for other evidence like DNA and facial mapping, which are increasingly being presented to the courts as proper science,” he said. “It’s very doubtful that many of them have the same sort of quality assurance measures in place as are being proposed for fingerprinting.

“There are massive implications for the whole system and it makes me think we need to look again at how we deal with scientific evidence and try to work out a better system for checking it and testing it before it’s allowed anywhere near a jury.”

Mr Nelson said: “We have said we would accept all recommendations of the inquiry, which we will do. I believe today is a watershed and gives us an opportunity to move forward in Scotland. I felt it was important to apologise for mistakes of the past, and I did that do Iain personally and publicly.”

He added the SPSA was drawing up an action plan with the aim of making the necessary improvements in time for fingerprint services to be integrated into the new Scottish Police Service in 2013-4.