Fiona McBride to finally admit errors??

[Taggart]

McKie fingerprint expert in new legal bid

A Fingerprint expert who was unfairly dismissed over the Shirley McKie scandal is launching another bid to get her old job back.

Fiona McBride is appealing against a decision which ruled she should not be reinstated by the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) because there could be "disastrous consequences". Her case will be heard in the Court of Session next month.

Ms McBride was one of six specialists at the former Scottish Criminal Records Office who identified a print taken from a murder scene in 1997 as belonging to policewoman Shirley McKie. When Ms McKie denied in court the print was hers, and that she had not been in the home of victim Marion Ross, she was tried for perjury.

However, she was acquitted after an independent American fingerprint expert said the Scots specialists had misidentified the print. The verdict caused panic in the justice system, as it raised questions about the reliability of other fingerprint evidence.

Ms McKie was awarded £750,000 in damages in 2006, and David Asbury, who was jailed for Ms Ross's murder, had his conviction quashed.

Since then, an inquiry ruled the blunder was the result of human error.

Ms McBride and the other fingerprint officers involved were suspended and, in 2007, the SPSA sacked her.

However, in January 2009, an employment tribunal found she had been unfairly dismissed and ordered her reinstatement. It also awarded her £31,768.

The SPSA accepted the unfair dismissal ruling, but appealed against reinstatement. A hearing was held before Lady Smith who highlighted the problems reinstatement would cause the SPSA. Lady Smith said: "The clear picture is that returning the claimant [McBride] to work ... would not work. [McBride and the SPSA] parted company against a background of considerable conflict. Far from being practicable, the impression presented was one of the reinstatement ... being liable to have disastrous consequences."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home ... d.19227561

Interesting times ahead as I understand McBride will now finally have to publicly admit her errors for her case to have any chance of succeeding. I wonder if she will also now apologise to the McKie's and Asbury for the years of hell her gross incompetence has caused them.

She has no chance of convincing any Judge if she fails to accept the findings of the Inquiry.

Of course down to the sheer incompetence of the SPSA she has a chance to win this appeal. The reason being is both Foley and Geddes, who also made the same 'errors' remain in post untouched. I have it on very good authority they have not even been challenged by the SPSA and have therefore received no retraining. Foley remains as a Court Expert, preparing cases and giving expert testimony as and when needed.

Given the SPSA has taken absolutely no action against these two individuals, then McBride must have a case for discrimination? Also she must call both Foley and Geddes as witnesess at her appeal to prove this. Of course if they both appear and give evidence publicly for the first time regarding the findings of the Fingerprint Inquiry it may also see them open to dismissal if they fail to adhere to the Official SPSA position.

I am assuming the SPSA are using Public Funding to fight this case?

You couldn't make this up!!

[PCC]

All I can say is OMG!

[Pat]

Hello Taggart

Good to know you're still keeping your thumb on the pulse of things. It is hard to imagine a person with the nerve to come back and sue under these circumstances, but Fiona was never short on nerve. She does find herself in some interesting mental, ethical, and psychological contortions in this one, doesn't she? But I would warn you, Taggart, do not underestimate her ability to slither out of a tight spot and make off with the prize she seeks. She is a tough one, our Fiona. Perhaps she has earned some extra consideration merely for the entertainment value of her machinations. You have to admit she is entertaining!

The good and honest people who tried to keep the investigation of Marion Ross's murder going on the right path are the ones who suffered the most. The fomenters of the conspiracy to manufacture evidence against David Asbury and punish Shirley McKie for speaking up all seemed to walk away with rewards bestowed on them by SCRO. But the Inquiry found "honest mistake," so there it must lay. In a way, that simplifies Fiona's claim considerably.

Funny, but for well over a dozen years now, every time I think this thing has come to an end, it finds new life in the actions of one of the SCRO clan. Please keep us informed, Taggart.

[Big Wullie]

Honest mistake or not Pat she will still have to admit a mistake none the less.

Would you give someone a job who stated publicly:

That she could not turn a juror into an expert in 20 minutes.

Would you employ someone who did not want to point to her characteristics she found similar.

I remember Fiona was the one telling Geddes the answers when he was in the witness box, lets see how she fairs in the high court.

Please do keep us updated Taggart because this is one hearing I must attend.

[Pat]

Hello Wullie

Fiona's hearing should be worth attending for its entertainment value alone. I shall be looking forward to your report. Do we know when and where it will be held?

Pat

[Big Wullie]

Hi Pat

According to the article linked by Taggart she will be at court next month.

Her case will be heard in the Court of Session next month.

I will need to keep an eye on the court rolls.

Of course if I attend I will report it here.

Best Wishes.

[Big Wullie]

Fiona McBride Loses Appeal

http://www.scotsman.com/news/shirley-mc ... -1-2759277


Fingerprint expert Fiona McBride has lost her appeal

By JOHN ROBERTSON
Published on Friday 25 January 2013 11:40

A fingerprint expert who was sacked in the wake of the notorious Shirley McKie case has been told by appeal judges that she will not be reinstated to the job.




Fiona McBride, 46, and three colleagues were held to have been mistaken in identifying a print found at the scene of a murder as coming from Ms McKie, then a detective constable with Strathclyde Police.

She was dismissed by the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) but an employment tribunal ruled that it was an unfair dismissal and ordered that Ms McBride be reinstated.

The authority challenged the decision to give her back her job and an employment appeal tribunal decided in its favour, stating that reinstatement would be “perverse”.

Ms McBride went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh to try to have the reinstatement order restored. She has always insisted that she made a correct identification of the print, and saw a return to the job as vindication of her position.

However, Lady Dorrian, sitting with Lady Paton and Lord McGhie, have rejected her plea.

The judges sent the case back to the tribunal for it to set the level of compensation to be paid to Ms McBride for having been unfairly dismissed.

The print was found inside the home of Marion Ross in Kilmarnock during the investigation of her murder in 1997. At the trial of David Asbury, Ms McKie maintained she had never been inside the house, although the print was identified by Ms McBride and her colleagues as coming from her.

Asbury was convicted and jailed for life, and Ms McKie was put on trial for perjury. She was acquitted. Later, Asbury’s conviction was quashed on appeal and he was freed.

Ms McKie sued the Scottish Executive and in 2006 she received £750,000 in an out-of-court settlement. A public inquiry determined that there had been a “misidentification” of the print, and the fingerprint service was reformed under the newly-created SPSA.

Ms McBride had been working on restricted duties - she was not allowed to sign joint reports or give evidence in court - and she was dismissed on 1 May, 2007.

The tribunal accepted that the SPSA had decided the status quo could not be maintained, and that there was a substantial reason to justify dismissal. However, it deemed the dismissal unfair because of a lack of consultation and consideration of alternative employment.

In the Court of Session, lawyers for Ms McBride argued that the employment appeal tribunal had been wrong to view reinstatement as perverse. The SPSA said Ms McBride continued to maintain that she was right and everyone else was wrong. She wanted a return to full duties and, inherent in that, was the idea of vindication.

Lady Dorrian said the tribunal had intended that Ms McBride should be employed as a fingerprint officer but still on restricted duties. However, reinstatement was unconditional.

“The tribunal could have achieved their stated objective by making an order for re-engagement, but that option was closed to them since (Ms McBride) did not want an order for re-engagement. She was quite clear throughout that she wanted to achieve a return to all the duties of a fingerprint expert. The only motions made on her behalf were for reinstatement or, failing that, compensation,” she added.

“In considering that they could make an order which reinstated her on terms which were different from those of her contract, the tribunal misunderstood and misapplied the law, and their decision on this matter cannot stand.”

The SPSA wanted the case to go to a differently-constituted tribunal, but the judges said it should be heard again by the same members.

“We are confident that, like any judge or judicial body, this tribunal will approach its renewed task, free of preconceptions and with an open mind,” said Lady Dorrian.

The authority challenged the decision to give her back her job and an employment appeal tribunal decided in its favour, stating that reinstatement would be “perverse”.

How tenable does this make the position of others still working within SPSA while still denying any mistakes ?

Appeal Judgement:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013CSIH4.html

[Tazman]

How tenable does this make the position of others still working within SPSA while still denying any mistakes ?

I've got a question for you, Big Wullie. When you refer to the "others still working within the SPSA," are any of them female? Or did they fire the woman and keep the men?

If that's the case, doesn't Scotland recognize gender discrimination?

[Big Wullie]

Gender Discrimination.

Whatever next ?

This is really clutching at straws now is it not ?

Having said that our Fiona has exhausted every other avenue now so why not pull the Gender thing ?

It would never have anything to do with her actions or her ability to turn jurors into experts then.

[PCC]

Big Wully, what I got from Tazman's post was the inequity...ALL should face the same fate. Perhaps a gender bias suit would force the issue?

I am continually amazed at this whole fiasco. How can ANY of the involved SCRO have ANY credibility? How can the latent evidence still be debated? How is this NOT LAID TO REST?! Seriously (not), WHAT IS IN THE SCOTLAND WATER?

[PCC]

I just had an ugly thought...in keeping with the frustrating inequity of this entire case, I fear that Fiona's stipend will dwarf that of the compensation Shirley received for her destroyed chosen career. I certainly hope I am wrong in my fears.

[Tazman]

I fear that Fiona's stipend will dwarf that of the compensation Shirley received for her destroyed chosen career.

Don't forget the other three who took their retirements at full pension. Unless they die prematurely in some accident, they will most certainly collect more than Miss McKie did.

And your are right on the other count, too. What great fun it would be if Sweet Fiona would sue for gender discrimination and keep the circus going for a few more years. After all, the Scottish taxpayers have footed the bill for a dozen years for this fiasco. What's a few more years of entertainment?

Here's the point: The Scottish taxpayers elected the morons who appointed the bureaucrats who hired the scoundrels who caused this mess. Therefor, the taxpayers have nobody to blame but themselves. So I say, let 'em foot the bill for a few more years' entertainment.

[Big Wullie]

Corrupt Fingerprint Expert Fiona McBride to find out on 15th June if appeal to UK SAupreme Court is a success:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0235.html

Justices

Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
Hearing start date

03 Mar 2016
Hearing finish date

03 Mar 2016
Judgment hand down date

15 Jun 2016

[Big Wullie]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... VuG5orG.97

FIONA McBride, 51, was one of four forensics experts who identified a thumbprint at the home of murder victim Ross as Detective Constable McKie's and was sacked in 2007.

THE forensics expert at the centre of the notorious Shirley McKie case has said she still wants her old job back.

Fiona McBride could receive a compensation payout of up to £400,000 if a legal bid for reinstatement this week is successful.

The 51-year-old is taking her nine-year fight to clear her name to the Supreme Court in London, who act as the highest court for Scotland’s civil appeals.

McBride, who was one of the country’s leading fingerprint experts, was sacked in 2007 by the Scottish Police Services Authority from her then £35,000-a-year post.

Now she wants the Supreme Court to order her reinstatement back into her old job almost a ­decade after she was sacked.

If successful, McBride could be due up to nine years’ back salary of about £350,000, including pay rises, overtime and interest, as well as legal fees of about £50,000.

She will travel from her home in Clydebank next week to give ­evidence at Thursday’s hearing before four judges.

McBride was one of four experts who identified a thumbprint left in the home of murder ­victim Marion Ross in 1997 as Detective Constable ­McKie’s.

At the resulting trial of ­workman David Asbury, McKie denied being in the house and was charged with perjury in 1998.

She was cleared a year later after two independent experts said the thumbprint was not hers.

The then Scottish Executive paid the former policewoman £750,000 compensation in 2006.

She also received a further ­apology from the SPSA in 2011, after a public inquiry confirmed the fingerprint was not hers.

McBride – who maintains there was no mistake in her original fingerprint identification – lost her job in May 2007.

In 2009, an ­employment tribunal ruled she should be reinstated after ­finding her dismissal was unfair.

The SPSA took the case to an ­employment appeal tribunal, who ruled in their favour.

McBride then took her fight to the Court of Session in Edinburgh in 2013 but three judges also ruled against reinstatement.

She is now asking the Supreme Court to restore the 2009 tribunal’s original judgment.

McBride joined the fingerprint service in Glasgow in 1984 – based at the old Strathclyde Police HQ in Glasgow – and qualified as an expert after five years’ training.

She has since worked in jobs to support herself and her daughter including care assistant, call centre worker and receptionist.

McBride said: “I was exonerated in 2009 by an industrial tribunal who ordered my reinstatement.

“All I want is my old job back. This is not about money or ­compensation but justice. I was trained to a gold standard and it is the job that I love doing. It was what I was good at.”

McBride, who was an expert ­witness in criminal trials, was also suspended from work between 2000 and 2002 while police chiefs probed her alleged mistake.

Asbury was jailed for life in 1998 but his conviction was quashed on appeal in 2002 and he was freed.

Peter O’Donnell, of Thompson’s solicitors, says McBride would be entitled to nine years of back pay if she wins, plus her legal expenses.

He added: “It is unusual in an unfair dismissal case for someone to want their job back ­particularly after so long. Usually people are looking for some compensation.

“If she wins her case then the former employer is not legally obliged to re-employ her.

“However, he would then become liable for a further penalty of up to 52 weeks’ pay.”

The Scottish Police Authority, who replaced the SPSA in 2013, declined to comment on the case.

A spokeswoman said only: “We are aware of the hearing.”

Shirley Mckie emigrated to ­Australia in 2006 but has recently returned to Ayrshire.

Her dad Iain said: “As far as we are concerned the whole ­matter is at an end as Shirley was ­completely vindicated.

“What other people do with their time is a matter for them.”

[Big Wullie]

I think the court must take into account she still maintains she correctly identified Y7 as Shirley McKie's fingerprint.

Couldn't make it up.

There is not a hope in hell of UKSC reinstating her as a fingerprint expert.

Can anyone imagine a fingerprint case with McBride as a leading witness ?

The only question they would need to ask her would be this: Are you aware of the Fingerprint Enquiry findings

The next if any was required would need to be: Do you still stand by your identification of Y7

End of case lol