Identification by Concensus

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Testimony before the Justice 1 Committee describing a “conference” among SCRO fingerprint experts when somebody couldn’t verify an identification:

Alex Neil: Would there typically be four experts?

Hugh Ferry: Yes—probably four or five.

Alex Neil: If one of the experts disagreed before or at the conference but the conference nevertheless agreed to go forward with the majority view, would the Crown or the defence in the case be informed that one or more experts had disagreed?

Hugh Ferry: I doubt that very much.

Alex Neil: The Crown and the defence would not be informed.

Hugh Ferry: They have been informed since the disclosure rules were introduced—which are fairly recent, as you know. However, before we had—

Alex Neil: When were those rules introduced? Did they apply when you were at the SCRO?

Hugh Ferry: Yes.

Alex Neil: At the time of the Shirley McKie case, would the defence normally—

Hugh Ferry: That is why we were checking the print.

Alex Neil: At the time of the Shirley McKie case, if one or more experts had dissented, would the Crown or the defence normally have been notified of that?

Hugh Ferry: That would have been the case only if the senior investigating officer was aware of the dispute. It should be remembered that the SCRO does not present the case; we present evidence to the SIO.

Alex Neil: I want to be clear about that, because it is very important. If there were four fingerprint experts and one said, "I disagree with that," or, "I'm not sure about that," the procedure was that the matter would go to a conference. Is that correct?

Hugh Ferry: Yes. Are you talking about what happened in the SCRO?

Alex Neil: Yes. In that situation, a conference would always be held, and even if after that one or more officers still disagreed, as long as the senior officer said that it was so-and-so's print, the SCRO would submit it to Strathclyde police—or whatever police force—as that person's print.

Hugh Ferry: That is my understanding.

Alex Neil: If that was the case, would the police be informed that the view was not unanimous?

Hugh Ferry: I doubt it.

Alex Neil: So nobody would be informed other than the people who were inside the SCRO.

Hugh Ferry: Correct—people in the fingerprint section.

Alex Neil: Would the dissent be minuted in the SCRO?

Hugh Ferry: I doubt it.

Alex Neil: Would the conference be minuted?

Hugh Ferry: I doubt it.

Alex Neil: There would be nothing at all.

Hugh Ferry: I doubt that anything would be produced.

Alex Neil: If that is the case, to the best of your knowledge in the Shirley McKie case, did any officers take a different view from the first officer who looked at the print?

Hugh Ferry: I was not made aware that any officer dissented from the view that it was Shirley McKie's fingerprint.

The Convener: I am sorry to cut across you, Mr Ferry—perhaps I am having difficulty in following the discussion, although I am trying—but I thought that you said earlier that if dissent was expressed at the case conference, that would be enough for a mark not to go forward.

Hugh Ferry: No—I am sorry. I misled you there—that was my mistake. I picked you up wrong. I thought—I do not know what I thought, to be honest, but I obviously misheard you. As far as I was aware, if dissent was expressed and fewer than three experts were in agreement, I want to make the point clear—

Mr McFee: I asked a specific question about what would happen if one expert disagreed; you told me that if one disagreed, it was not an identification. Are you now saying that that is not the case?

Hugh Ferry: No—I am saying that it is possible that other experts could examine a mark and have a consensus. I am trying to make a distinction.

Mr McFee: So you just keep going until you get a consensus.

Hugh Ferry: That is possible.