Committee
Justice 1 Committee, 04 May 2006
04 May 2006 · S2 · Justice 1 Committee
Item of business
Scottish Criminal Record Office
Good afternoon. I open the Justice 1 Committee's 14th meeting in 2006, which has been specially convened to allow the committee to agree several matters in relation to our Scottish Criminal Record Office inquiry. We have full attendance for the meeting.I welcome Catriona Hardman and Rob Marr from the Scottish Parliament's directorate of legal services. Thank you for coming to the meeting. Members are aware that some legal issues may arise, for which we will need to have advice on hand.In the short time that is available, I want us to agree an initial set of witnesses, so that we can try to manage them into the various slots that I will ask the committee to agree. I will read out a list of potential witnesses that the committee has discussed and ask whether members have additions or anything to say.It is important that we constantly refer back to our remit. We receive so much evidence that we can forget what the primary focus is. It is worth considering the framework when calling witnesses. At some point, I would like us to debate that further, but I will make a first attempt now. It is important to focus on the processes that the Scottish Criminal Record Office had in 1997. In particular, we need to understand what happened in the McKie identification. We need to understand whether that identification differed from the normal processes that the SCRO used in 1997; what training was in place in 1997; and how the system in Scotland compared to systems in other countries at the time. We must examine the present processes and compare them to processes in other countries to find out whether we are out of step or in step. Finally, we must consider whether the processes for the future, such as the use of the non-numeric standard, will be in step with other countries and whether they take the right approach. That is probably the issue on which we will want to make recommendations. I have made a first attempt to focus on what the inquiry framework should be, but I will allow members to debate the matter.I emphasise that the list of potential witnesses is not exhaustive and that, time permitting, members may want to change their minds or add witnesses as the inquiry unfolds. I will read out the list and then ask members to comment. First on the list are the four SCRO fingerprint experts who were involved in the McKie case. Next, we have Shirley McKie—we need to hear from her or her representatives and whomever she feels is necessary to assist her. We should hear from the independent fingerprint expert Peter Swann. Mr Swann is represented legally by David Russell, who should be allowed to assist, although our primary interest would be in Peter Swann. The list also contains Jim Wallace MSP, the former Minister for Justice; Colin Boyd QC, the Lord Advocate, who cannot speak about the decisions involving the prosecution but who may speak to other issues; Cathy Jamieson MSP, the Minister for Justice; William Taylor, who commissioned the 2000 inspection report on the SCRO; James Mackay, former deputy chief constable of Tayside police, and his assistant, Scott Robertson, former detective chief superintendent; and William Gilchrist, who was the regional procurator fiscal at the time of the fingerprint issue.It is important to call experts from the training centre in Durham—we just need to agree which should be called. We also need to call practitioners from the other bureaux in the service, not just those from the Glasgow bureau. We might want to hear from the head of the SCRO at the time, who I think was Mr Ferry, although we need that to be clarified. We need to hear from the fingerprint experts John MacLeod, Pat Wertheim and Allan Bayle. At some point, we should hear from the Law Society of Scotland and/or the criminal bar association of the Faculty of Advocates, because they are the main users of the service. Derek Ogg and Maggie Scott from the Faculty of Advocates have been vocal on the issue of a public inquiry, so we should consider calling them. John Scott, who is a member of the Law Society and the Glasgow Bar Association, has written to us, so we might want to call him to get a legal practitioner's point of view on the current system.Arie Zeelenberg has offered to make a presentation on the identification of the fingerprint, which we should consider. If we take up the offer, it would be important to have an exchange between him and other fingerprint experts who have a different point of view, although it is for the committee to agree that in principle and then design the shape of such a presentation. Members may want Arie Zeelenberg to make the main presentation, but with the SCRO officers present. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to have the officers from Glasgow and the other bureaux who carried out the blind testing to comment on the initial presentation. That might also be the appropriate point at which to call Pat Wertheim and Allan Bayle. That is a first attempt at a list of witnesses, which is quite large.We have a suggested timetable and dates. I am sure that we will agree initially to attempt to hear as much of the evidence as possible before the summer recess, but we are flexible on the timetable.I propose to go round the table and ask members to add to the list or to make comments, so that we can come to an agreement at the end of the meeting.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Pauline McNeill):
Lab
Good afternoon. I open the Justice 1 Committee's 14th meeting in 2006, which has been specially convened to allow the committee to agree several matters in r...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
I agree that this is a useful and comprehensive initial list. However, at this stage we cannot discount the fact that, when we hear evidence from the people ...
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab):
Lab
We have already received written submissions, and it will be important to hear from those who have submitted evidence in order to pick up issues that have be...
Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab):
Lab
I, too, am content with what seems to be a comprehensive list of potential witnesses. However, I am sure that, as we go round the table, other individuals wi...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
This is a comprehensive and balanced list. Like Marlyn Glen, I would very much like to hear from Shirley McKie and any legal representative that, because she...
Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
We should put on record the fact that we are not here to retry cases that have been tried elsewhere or to try to overturn court verdicts. We are all agreed t...
The Convener:
Lab
I have suggested him as a possible witness. You can agree or disagree with that.
Mr McFee:
SNP
That is fine. I agree with that.I have some concern about one area, given that we have a fair indication of how people will approach it. I am quite content t...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
I thought that we might add two names: William Rae, who was president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and who was given a copy of the...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
One of the great conveniences of Tuesdays is that there is no procedural impediment to our continuing to meet until 14.30 on the Wednesday. Indeed, I have fo...
The Convener:
Lab
It always falls to Stewart Stevenson to point out that we could meet through the night; he is factually correct.
Mr McFee:
SNP
Convener, can you confirm that you read out John Scott's name?
The Convener:
Lab
Yes—he wrote to us. Because we are testing different aspects of the criminal justice system for the people who use it to see whether they can have confidence...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
I am sorry that I have to leave for another meeting shortly, but I am pleased to have been able to come along.I should start by placing on the record my conc...
The Convener:
Lab
Thank you. Is the related case that you mentioned in connection with Malcolm Graham the David Asbury case?
Des McNulty:
Lab
It is.
The Convener:
Lab
I am sure that we are allowed to mention that.
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab):
Lab
I echo some of the points that Des McNulty made. The convener's suggestion of a presentation is excellent. The experts should be allowed to discuss their con...
Mr McFee:
SNP
And others do not?
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
Some people's opinions may be less set. We use the term "independent expert" a lot. Clearly, some people have made their views known publicly, in a way that ...
The Convener:
Lab
Can you clarify who they are?
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
I do not have their titles on me. They are both independent experts who have given evidence in cases in the same way as some of the people on the list have d...
The Convener:
Lab
Today is the deadline. I guess that there might be a few submissions to come in, but we have not received submissions from those two individuals so far. It w...
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
The final people whom I want to mention are four other employees, or ex-employees, of the SCRO who have been involved in the case—although not as directly as...
The Convener:
Lab
Are Robert McKenzie and Alan Dunbar part of the SCRO team?
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
Yes.
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
It is a good idea to organise the Arie Zeelenberg presentation as you have suggested, convener.I have two or three comments to make on the witnesses. First, ...
The Convener:
Lab
I should make it clear that we are talking about David Russell, not Mike Russell.
Alex Neil:
SNP
I was referring to David Russell. I have never heard Mike Russell make wild allegations about anything.
Mrs Mulligan:
Lab
You have not listened to him.