Fingerprint Evidence
Item 5 concerns fingerprint evidence and, in particular, a letter that I received from Alex Neil. Members have received copies of the letter, which raises a substantive issue of which I was unaware.
Mr Neil has raised three issues: the extent to which the recommendations arising from the McKie case have been implemented; the implications for the justice system of the introduction of a non-numeric fingerprint evidence approach by the Scottish Criminal Record Office in conjunction with the Crown Office; and any other implications of the introduction of the new fingerprint evidence system.
I do not know the technical details of the new system, when it is proposed for or what the background is, but a serious issue has been raised and it is appropriate that we find out more about it. If the committee is agreeable, we could write to the Lord Advocate to seek his views. Based on his response, the committee could make a decision on whether it wanted the Lord Advocate to give oral evidence. Would that be agreeable as a first step to approaching the subject?
I am happy to go along with that, but if it were up to me, I might suggest a different course of action. Like you, convener, I do not know or understand the technicalities of the new system. Would it be possible to ask the Scottish Parliament information centre for a briefing note on the background and the issues? I know that the Shirley McKie case forms the background, but I do not know the main recommendations that have arisen from that case, for example, and I do not know much about the other issues.
I know that the Lord Advocate, or perhaps the Minister for Justice, is responsible for the issue at ministerial level. However, I am not sure that they are best placed to answer some of the questions that we might have in the first place. I suggest that our first port of call should be the SCRO. We could ask for its view on the issues and then, depending on its response, decide whether there are policy issues that we want to raise with the minister or the Lord Advocate, or whoever is responsible.
That suggestion is noted.
I have no objection to the committee's acting in response to the issues that Alex Neil has raised, but we must take up those issues with the people who have responsibility for them. I understand that the SCRO is accountable to Cathy Jamieson, who is the Minister for Justice, and that she is responsible for ensuring that the recommendations from the report that was published after the Shirley McKie case have been implemented. Perhaps it would be better if we wrote to the minister.
I have no objection to our writing to the Lord Advocate, but I understand that he will comment only on how the matter in question affects the prosecution of cases, which is what he is responsible for. He would not comment on the implementation of the recommendations, how they have worked, how effective they have been or whether they have been evaluated, as those matters are the responsibility of the Justice Department. On that basis, I suggest that it would be better to write to Cathy Jamieson to seek her views.
I do not think that we need to have a big disagreement. I do not know any more about the matter than the information that has been given to us, but there are two issues, which might be related. One is whether the recommendations arising from the McKie case have been implemented, which is a policy implementation issue. The Minister for Justice is probably the best person to speak about such matters.
The second issue relates to the introduction of the new non-numeric fingerprint evidence system, which sounds like a highly technical issue about which it would probably be better for us to speak to the experts in the first instance. Perhaps this is not a perfect analogy, but when the Health and Community Care Committee took evidence about hepatitis C in the previous session, it went to the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service in the first instance, although the minister was accountable for that service, to get expert technical evidence. Such an approach would probably be appropriate in this case. I have no objection to the committee's writing to the Minister for Justice rather than to the Lord Advocate—it is probably right to do so—but the SCRO is probably best placed to answer either in writing or through oral evidence any technical questions that we have.
That is probably a sensible approach, but I have one fear about it. Should we tie up another evidence-taking session or could we deal with the matter in writing?
The discussion has been helpful and good points have been made. The issue is very technical. I was thinking of obtaining forensic professional advice, as I do not understand the significance of the matter. Such an approach would be sensible. We have a pretty busy timetable in the next few months and it would be sensible to deal with as much of the matter through correspondence as we reasonably can.
There seems to be absolutely no objection to writing to the Minister for Justice, the Lord Advocate and the SCRO in the first instance. I understand that the Minister for Justice is responsible for the operation of the SCRO. The Lord Advocate has a role to play, as he is accountable for the success or failure of the prosecution of cases in the criminal justice system in our courts. Of course, the critical factor in such prosecutions is fingerprint evidence.
We could write to the Minister for Justice, the Lord Advocate and the SCRO for technical background information. The committee could then consider responses and decide what other action—if any—it wanted to take. Do members agree with that initial course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
I should make it clear that Alex Neil expressed a desire to be present this afternoon for consideration of this agenda item, but was prevented from attending.
Agenda item 6 will be considered in private. We will allow the public galleries to clear.
Meeting continued in private until 16:21.