The above is taken from the Appeal findings dated 4 May 2011.62. There is plainly a need for the points that have arisen in this case to be the subject of wider examination. We have been told that an enquiry by the Rt Hon Sir Anthony Campbell into the case of HM Advocate v McKie known as the Scottish Fingerprint Enquiry has heard extensive evidence in relation to fingerprint evidence in Scotland. It is not for us to comment more than we have done at paragraph 61 in relation to the practices that have come to our attention in this appeal. In our view, however, there is a real need for the ACPO, the Forensic Science Regulator and the recently established Fingerprint Quality Standards Specialist Group to examine as expeditiously as possible the issues we have identified, to assess the position and to ensure that there are common quality standards enforced through a robust and accountable system.
This case is raising some serious, serious issues. The main one, like the McKie case is that a fingerprint cannot remain disputed. Even SCRO admitted this.
Some questions and I really would appreciate some clarity.
(1) What exactly happened between May 2011 and the Trial on October 2012, a gap of some 17 months?
(2) What exactly did ACPO, the Forensic Science Regulator and the Fingerprint Quality Standards Specialist Group do in light of this Appeal finding?
(3) Given the Appeal finding reported this needed to be done as a matter of urgency (4 May 2011) when did this happen, and when did it conclude if it has?
(4) Where are the reports/findings of those bodies as a result of this Appeal Finding?
(5) Why did the Crown allow the fingerprint evidence to be used in the trial, given somewhere down the line the print in question will need to be reviewed and a definitive position given on it? If it comes back the print is indeed a misidentification, the case will be clearly appealed based on that evidence alone, with the possibility of the conviction being quashed for a second time. I believe there was other compelling evidence so why introduce evidence that ultimately could damage any conviction?
(6) What is the current official position of the fingerprint in the Smith Case? Disputed?
(7) Since the Trial who has been brought in to resolve the issue?