- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 23 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Colin Boyd on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to investigate the reports in the press that Federal Bureau of Investigation officials requested that David Grieve not give evidence in defence of Shirley McKie at the trial in which she was acquitted of having committed perjury in 1999 and what the reasons are for its position on the matter.
Answer
There is no basis for me orany other Scottish Minister to instruct an investigation into these reports. The comments in the press attributed to Mr Grievesuggest that he believed there to be a link between the Shirley McKie andLockerbie prosecutions. There is no such link. SCRO were not involved in thefingerprint evidence in the Lockerbie case. Accordingly no investigation intothis matter is required.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 06 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it will introduce to reduce the number of violent offences at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont which was reported in the Sunday Herald on 29 January 2006 as having the highest incidence of violence of all prisons.
Answer
I have asked Tony Cameron,Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is asfollows:
The Governor initiated anexercise in 2005 to examine trends and behaviours among young offenders and tofind ways to prevent or minimise the levels of violence within the prison.Various steps have been taken since then including:
·a zero Tolerance to violence statement;
·the reinvigoration of the current SPS bullyingstrategy;
·a new intervention programme targeting those involvedin violence; and
the generation of a“continuous improvement” ethos into incident overviews whereby episodes ofviolence are reviewed with feedback to those involved.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23157 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, whether it will list those individuals who have reviewed the material which is the subject of the dispute between the Aberdeen Fingerprint Bureau and the Scottish Criminal Record Office in the last nine years and what the results of these reviews were.
Answer
As I indicated in reply toS2W-23157 answered on 8 March 2006, over the last 9 years the disputed fingerprint markhas been examined by a number of experts who have reached different conclusionson the ownership of the mark. The Scottish Executive does not hold a record ofall those experts or of their conclusions.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23157 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, whether any of these reviews have been undertaken by peers inside the (a) Aberdeen, (b) Dundee, (c) Edinburgh or (d) Glasgow Fingerprint Bureau.
Answer
It is a matter of publicrecord that some experts in the Aberdeen and Edinburgh fingerprint bureaux have taken a different view onthe identification of this print to their colleagues in the Glasgowbureau.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 14 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23750 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, why it does not state what the purpose has been of any discussions regarding the matter of US agencies using Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights allegedly involved in the process of “extraordinary rendition” other than “routine discussions primarily in relation to the answering of parliamentary questions and other enquiries”.
Answer
I refer the member to the questionS2W-23750 answered on 8 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions areavailable on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be foundat:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23669 by Cathy Jamieson on 13 March 2006, whether, as part of the settlement, Ms McKie accepted that the misidentification had been made in good faith and was not malicious.
Answer
I refer the member to thequestion S2W-23664 answered on 20 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentaryquestions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be foundat:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 13 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it was aware of the current Lord Advocate’s party political affiliation when he was appointed Solicitor General in 1999 and, if so, what account was taken of it.
Answer
The Scotland Act 1998 provides at Section 48(1) for the appointment of theLord Advocate and the Solicitor General, with the approval ofParliament. Party political affiliation is not identified in the Act as afactor relevant to appointment.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is legal for officers of the Scottish Criminal Record Office to sign documents on behalf of colleagues and, if so, under what circumstances, what procedures govern when and where this can be done, what checks (a) existed in January 1997 and (b) currently exist for ensuring that such proxy signatures are authorised by the person on whose behalf the signature is being used, whether it is illegal to sign such a document without authorisation and, if so, who has to provide authorisation, whether, if the document relates to a fingerprint, the person signing on behalf of another officer has to check independently the fingerprint identification, how many times such signatures have been used in the SCRO in each month since January 1997 and what audit arrangements (i) existed in January and February 1997 and (ii) currently exist for ensuring that signatures are not provided fraudulently.
Answer
This would depend on thedocument concerned. It is accepted practice for some documents to be signed onthe author’s behalf if that person is not available to sign the documentpersonally. It is made clear when this is the case by indicating that thedocument is being signed on the author’s behalf. There is no such practice inrelation to the identification of fingerprints.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 27 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive how many cases there have been where fingerprint evidence prepared or presented by the Scottish Criminal Record Office has been withheld or withdrawn in each of the last 10 years.
Answer
Fingerprint evidence isprepared at the request of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service(COPFS). The decision about the use of this evidence is a matter for COPFS. the Scottish Criminal Record Office know of two cases in the last 10 years wherethe reliability of the identification was such that the evidence was not usedin court.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Nicol Stephen on 31 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what internal discussions it has had about the contents of file SEP 10/556, held by the National Archives of Scotland and opened on 8 September 2005 for public view.
Answer
The contents of file SEP 10/556were reviewed by officials but there were no further substantive discussions.
