McKie 'should not have been put on trial'

Thu 22 Jun 2006

By LOUISE GRAY, The Scotsman

SHIRLEY McKie was falsely accused of leaving her fingerprint at a murder scene because of professional negligence on the part of fingerprint officers and should never have been taken to court, a previously secret Executive report has revealed.

Ms McKie was charged with perjury for entering a murder scene in 1997 because of the misidentification of the fingerprint.

She was later cleared but was forced to give up her job.

As well as causing enormous stress to Ms McKie and her family over the last nine years, the case led to nationwide questioning of the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO).

 
Yesterday, in the most damning report into the scandal yet, a forensics expert employed by the Executive to look into the case said it was negligence that led to the misidentification of the fingerprint.

John MacLeod went on to say the case should never have come to court.

The report was commissioned by the Executive to look into whether professional negligence led to the misidentification of the print after Ms McKie took the SCRO to court.

However, it was not until 20 months later that ministers decided to settle by compensating Ms McKie with £750,000.

The report has been kept secret up until now for legal reasons, but Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, decided to release it to assist a parliamentary inquiry into the SCRO.

Pauline McNeill, the convener of the committee, said of the move: "This is a significant development in our inquiry as it allows the committee to consider the basis on which ministers decided to settle the civil action brought by Shirley McKie."

Although Mr MacLeod did not directly accuse the fingerprint experts of professional negligence, he defined such negligence as a mistake which arises where reasonable care is not taken by a professional person.

After considering fingerprint Y7, which was found at the house of murder victim Marion Ross, he concludes fingerprint officers were too quick to identify it as Ms McKie's.

He concluded: "It is my opinion that the differences between the characteristics in the mark Y7 and those in Shirley McKie's left thumb can be clearly seen and that reasonable care could not have been taken during the comparison that wrongly made this identification."

Mr MacLeod goes on to say the court case accusing Ms McKie of perjury was not justified given the weakness of the mark.

"In my opinion, given the quality of the mark, even if it had been made by Shirley McKie, and I do not believe that it was, it should not have been taken to court."

In a second report in 2005, Mr MacLeod was asked to comment further on the evidence given by the SCRO that the print was left by Ms Mckie.

Again he came to the same conclusion: "I am satisfied that the finger mark disclosed in the photograph identified by the reference Y7 was not made by Shirley McKie."

Mr MacLeod is one of a number of fingerprint experts who have concluded that the mark was not Ms McKie's.

Stewart Stevenson, another member of the committee, said the family have suffered because of the delay in paying out compensation to Ms McKie in the wake of the report.

"This report makes it 100 per cent clear that the Executive should have acted to compensate Shirley McKie much sooner than they did," he said. "They must now explain why they failed to do so."

Last night the McKie family were not available to comment. Ms McKie has been badly affected by the case. After the inquiry she plans to go Australia to escape the pressure of the case.

The Executive said the report confirmed they had come to the right conclusion - that an honest mistake had been made without malice.

A Unison spokesman said: "It cannot be professional negligence when other experts made the same identification, including the first expert instructed by the McKies themselves."

A spokesman said the long delay was not unusual in complicated court cases.

He said: "The report is an important piece of work, but as the Justice Committee has already heard, there are many other contributions and these need to be assessed in the round. Ministers did just that and remain convinced that the decision to settle this case was the right one."