CLPEX Chat Board

I recently heard the viewpoint that the ruling in the Fiona McBride dismissal case in June this year (link below) meant that the Shirley McKie 'identification' was therefore correct. Given the key findings of the Fingerprint Inquiry Scotland back in 2011, I was very surprised that someone had interpreted the ruling in this way. This got me thinking; how far reaching is this viewpoint? Is it a one-off opinion held by an individual or is it a more commonly held view by those employed in police Fingerprint Bureaux?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-36538179

The inference I would make from that article is that because the policies regarding fingerprint identifications were found inadequate and had to be rewritten, it was the policy in place in 1997 that resulted in the erroneous fingerprint identifications in the Marion Ross murder. Because the inadequate policies were to blame, the individuals cannot be held responsible as long as they were following policy. Because there was no evidence to show that Ms McBride had violated any policy in place at the time, she cannot be disciplined for resulting errors or their consequences.

Hello Pat, thanks for your take on the ruling I have only read the newspaper article, very interesting situation, the SCRO system in place during 1997 had faulty policy that if not contravened by making a false identification, as in Fiona's case a false verification, then the individual expert was deemed not accountable. The evidence she presented to a court under oath appears to also fall within this ruling. Very interesting if that is a correct understanding of what this judgment means as every identification she made then becomes questionable since the policy would equally apply as being at fault. Good luck to all those who fell foul of the SCRO during that faulty policy period. Cheers from oz. les