Introduction
21.1. This is the first of three chapters about the Glasgow fingerprint bureau at the time of the events of 1997-1999.
21.2. This chapter outlines the organisation and considers the training and development of fingerprint staff, arrangements for monitoring competence, workload and working conditions, and perceptions of the bureau.
The Scottish Criminal Record Office
21.3. The Glasgow fingerprint bureau was part of the Scottish Criminal Record Office.1 The Scottish Criminal Record Office had been established in 1960 and it was a common police service for all eight Scottish police forces.2
21.4. The Glasgow bureau was one of a number of fingerprint bureaux in Scotland.
21.5. The governing body that oversaw the Scottish Criminal Record Office was the SCRO Controlling Committee, which comprised the chief constables of the eight Scottish police forces and representatives from the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the Scottish Office. By convention it was chaired by the chief constable holding office as President of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS). Chief police officers (or deputies) from the eight forces, with representatives from SCRO and the Scottish Office, attended the SCRO Fingerprint Standing Committee which was chaired by a chief constable.
21.6. From 1999 these committees became the Executive Committee and the Management Committee. The first was chaired by the President of ACPOS and comprised the eight chief constables, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland and representatives from the Scottish Executive3 and COSLA,4 while the second was chaired by a representative of the Scottish Executive and comprised representatives from the eight police forces and COSLA and the Director and Deputy Director of SCRO.5
21.7. The primary functions of the Scottish Criminal Record Office were to provide a computerised criminal record system and fingerprint verification and identification facility for all eight Scottish police forces. In practice six of the eight police forces had their own fingerprint bureaux and the Scottish Criminal Record Office fingerprint bureau (i.e. what is generally referred to in this Report as 'SCRO') provided a service for Strathclyde Police and also Dumfries and Galloway.6 Occasionally other forces sent crime scene marks to the Glasgow bureau for comparison and/or search in its finger and palm print collections.7
21.8. The Director of the Scottish Criminal Record Office was a police chief superintendent and the Head of the Fingerprint Bureau was a chief inspector, not a fingerprint examiner.8 Strathclyde Police did not have management responsibility for the Scottish Criminal Record Office but in 1997-1999 it was located in Strathclyde Police headquarters and the Strathclyde Joint Police Board had responsibility for its support staff.9
21.9. The post of Assistant Chief Fingerprint Officer was created in 1996 and re-designated as Deputy Head of Bureau around 1998. This post was held by Mr Robert Mackenzie. There was no Chief Fingerprint Officer as the Head of the Bureau was a police officer.10 In 1997 SCRO had 34 fingerprint officers.11
Staff training and development
Trainee examiners
Training in the 1970s
21.10. Mr Mackenzie joined as a trainee in 1967. Two of those who identified the marks in this case, Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart, joined the organisation in 1970. Mr Dunbar joined in 1971 and Mr McKenna in 1977.
21.11. Their training was over seven years and was all delivered in-house with examinations set by the bureau. Learning was encouraged "very much as a hands-on experience". 12 At this time the Glasgow fingerprint bureau trained people for Scotland, other parts of Great Britain and elsewhere.13
21.12. The outline of the training programme can be taken from Mr MacPherson. During the first two years the training mostly involved manual searching in a collection of fingerprints of convicted persons. This 'main collection' had around 300,000 sets of fingerprints, and the job included examining and classifying incoming fingerprint forms and searching them against the collection. The work "allowed trainees to hone their skills in fingerprint pattern recognition." Trainees also carried out 'ten-print to ten-print' comparisons for example when a dead body required to be identified. After the first two years, a trainee moved on to scene of crime work, comparing finger and palm prints from the collection against marks left by perpetrators of crime.14 Examinations were held during the first five years and then an officer practised for a further two years before he could give evidence in court.15
21.13. The trainees at SCRO, unlike those in other bureaux in Scotland,16 specialised in fingerprint comparison work and were not involved in crime scene examinations but as part of that training they did learn how scene of crime officers found and recorded fingerprints, and how the surface on which a print was left could affect the way in which a fingerprint expert would analyse it.17 Mr Mackenzie referred to a three month period of secondment to the Identification Bureau for training in crime scene examination techniques.18
The 1980s
21.14. Mr Halliday became a trainee in 1979, Mr Bruce in 1982, Mr Foley in 1983, Ms McBride in 1984 and Mr Geddes and Mr Padden in 1988.
21.15. In the 1980s, the training period was reduced to five years19 but remained in-house. "Prior to 1993, SCRO fingerprint staff were all trained 'in-house' and did not receive any external training input."20
21.16. Two comparative examples may be given. Mr Grigg, a fingerprint training instructor since 1997 at the National Policing Improvement Agency (formerly the NTC), Durham, also trained in the 1980s. He joined Norfolk Constabulary as a trainee fingerprint expert in 1981 and qualified in 1986. His training involved training "on the job" and attendance at two courses at Hendon Police College21 as did that of Mr John McGregor, a fingerprint examiner in Aberdeen, who also trained in England at this time.22
Training in the 1990s
21.17. In September 1991 the Glasgow bureau was the first in the United Kingdom to introduce the Automatic Fingerprint Recognition system (AFR).23 Staff had to learn how AFR worked and develop processes for its operation. AFR superseded the searches in the manual collections. These were now done by computer so the training changed to compensate.24
21.18. Mr Halliday, who was the AFR Manager in 1997, said that before the advent of AFR searching the manual collection, while labour intensive, was very good experience for comparing groups of prints, recognising patterns and the development of searching and comparison skills. Mr Mackenzie thought that officers in place in 1991 had a better grounding in fingerprint comparison due to their experience dealing with volumes of manual comparison work during their training,25 and Mr Dunbar said that although at the time he trained the programme was not as structured as later formalised courses, trainees arguably gained more experience because the work was all manual.26
21.19. Delegations of experts from outside Scotland visited the Glasgow bureau to see how AFR worked27 and SCRO experts such as Mr Dunbar trained other British fingerprint experts in the system.28
21.20. In 1993 Mr Mackenzie was appointed as the first SCRO bureau trainer, and he was asked to ensure that SCRO was matching the programmes of the other main training facilities in the UK. SCRO had not sent people to Durham or Hendon "due mainly to the differences between court proceedings in Scotland and England." Staff members were now sent on courses at Durham to see what the differences were and SCRO management decided that the intermediate level course at Durham would be best suited to the needs of SCRO fingerprint officers' training.29 The 'intermediate course' was the equivalent of the bureau's training up to four years and also included mock trials, with an emphasis on court preparation and presentation. Mr Dunbar said that in the UK all the teaching was generally from the same documents.30
21.21. It was not until after 2000 that SCRO trainee fingerprint examiners were sent on all three courses at Durham.31 This was as a result of the HMICS September 2000 report.32
Training as at 1997
21.22. Mr Dunbar succeeded Mr Mackenzie in 1996. His post of Quality Assurance Officer also carried responsibility for training. The five year training programme included examinations at the end of the first, second and fourth years of training and a final examination, after which a trainee became a fingerprint officer. The emphasis remained on practical training. At the time the bureau was divided into teams that dealt with various geographic areas and after spending time in the ten-print and AFR sections, the remainder of trainees' training would be in the various teams, where they would be 'mentored' by a fingerprint officer. Obtaining expert status was significant in terms of qualification and salary.33
21.23. The team leader was responsible for trainees on the team, including allocating and monitoring their work and explaining the theory they were putting into practice, as well as ensuring that the workload was dealt with and the work carried out to the requisite quality.34
21.24. The training/quality assurance officer would oversee a trainee's training.35 A trainee's signature in relation to any crime scene mark did not count towards the four experts required to make an identification.36 Trainees would attend various necessary external courses such as courses on equal opportunities at Tulliallan.37
21.25. The trainee's final, 'expert', examination comprised all aspects of fingerprints and included the history of fingerprints, evidence, relevant legislation, Scots law, and biology in relation to how ridge units are formed. Officers had to prove their competence in this examination in order to qualify. The fingerprint identification element had a 100% pass mark. The examination also included a competency test of searching the AFR system and other aspects of a fingerprint officer's duties (such as the day-to-day running of the office, how one went about the procedures for identification of a mark and the preparation and presentation of evidence), and there was a mock trial. Mr Dunbar marked the expert examinations and they were checked by Mr Mackenzie. Not everyone satisfied every stage of competence at the first attempt.38
Training and development of qualified fingerprint examiners
21.26. Newly qualified fingerprint officers would continue to be monitored by the supervisor of the team in which they were placed and their progress reported back to the training department.39 As an officer progressed and developed, much of his learning would be 'on the job' with staff expected to learn from one another, and read about latest developments, for example using the SCRO library.40
21.27. 'Informal training' took place on a day-to-day basis. For example if there was a difficult or interesting mark the fingerprint officers would speak with other officers about it. Officers would also keep themselves up to date by discussing articles of interest and copies of such articles were passed around the office and kept in a folder.41
21.28. Fingerprint officers were given 'in-house' training when new developments occurred. When new technology was brought in staff had to complete specific courses, such as an in-house week-long introductory course held for everyone on AFR.42
21.29. Seminars were provided from time to time, for example Mr Mackenzie presented a two day course 'Demystifying Palms'.43 Occasionally external speakers would be invited to come and talk to the bureau. Arie Zeelenberg once came to speak, as did Stephen Meagher, Head of the FBI Latent Fingerprint Unit, and Dale Clegg from Australia.44 Mr Stewart said that as individual experts and as a bureau they were always trying to improve their knowledge and ability. As well as receiving visits from experts, Glasgow experts visited other bureaux and the bureau was used to setting up trials for possible changes.45
21.30. It appears that as at 1997 a formal continuing professional development (CPD) process was not in place. Mr Stewart's recollection was that around 1998 a more formal CPD process was introduced, with training becoming more structured and including away days, generally at Tulliallan.46 HMICS in its September 2000 report found that little provision was made for refresher training for fingerprint experts.47
External training attended post qualification
21.31. Some SCRO personnel attended external courses. Mr Dunbar attended courses and obtained various external qualifications in connection with his responsibilities for quality assurance and training including the Bureau trainers' course at Durham (1996) and a Vocational Assessor course (1999).48
21.32. Two SCRO officers attended a course on ridgeology given by David Ashbaugh in late 1999 at the NTC in Durham and then disseminated information from this to other SCRO officers. Mr Mackenzie visited the FBI in Washington for a week, arranged by Stephen Meagher, to look at their training methods and the work they had done on third level detail.49
21.33. Mr McKenna, who in 1997 was a team leader, was given additional training as he took on more managerial responsibility. For example he attended courses by the Institute of Leaders and Managers and undertook training on process mapping and business continuity and change.50 He attended an external Scottish Fingerprint Conference at Tulliallan, but not external fingerprint conferences such as the Fingerprint Society Conference.51
21.34. It appears that the opportunity for staff generally to attend external seminars and conferences was limited.52 Ms McBride said that she did not go on many external courses. Normally there were not enough funds to send staff on all of the external courses requested. A few people would go to fingerprint conferences and some staff would pay to attend themselves.53 By the mid 1990s the cost of one person attending would be met by the organisation and the practice was for staff to split the funding among those attending, with the balance being met by the individuals. Those who could not go "missed out", Mr Stewart thought, because conferences were invaluable not only for the formal presentations but also for the informal discussions that took place among working experts.54
The monitoring of examiner competence
21.35. By 1995 the Director of SCRO and the head of the bureau wanted to set up competency testing for fingerprint bureau expert staff. This came "on the back of" the Evett and Williams report in the 1980s which suggested regular competency testing, blind tests and dip sampling of cases. 'Dip sampling' (the random checking of work) was introduced, followed by competency testing.
21.36. SCRO was aware of only one commercial company marketing competency test products in the forensic field at this time, and Mr Mackenzie was instructed to utilise material available at SCRO. Before each series of competency tests was introduced, staff at Durham were asked to assess that they were a fair test of examiners' skills. No other fingerprint bureau in England and Wales at this time was undertaking competency testing like this until a pilot scheme was eventually rolled out in bureaux in the north west of England a couple of years later. Testing material which had been used in the Glasgow bureau was passed on to other fingerprint bureaux in Scotland for the purpose of testing their staff. Around the time of the Shirley McKie case the last set of in-house competency tests was prepared. Competency tests were confidential; no one other than the actual person being tested knew the results of his or her own tests.55
21.37. These tests involved preparation of eight cases based on solved cases with a range of identifications, marks insufficient for comparison and negative results. There were no time limits. Staff were encouraged not to discuss the content of any tests. During the in-house testing there was never a misidentification made by a member of SCRO staff within the bureau, although on occasions an officer might incorrectly classify a mark as insufficient for comparison. If staff did not satisfy a level of competency at the first test then there would be an opportunity to sit a second test.56
21.38. As well as competency testing, all experts in SCRO had their work second checked by their peers, which Mr Stewart described as "a greater test of competence than any other test" and in addition any identified marks were checked by three other experts after the initial identification was made.57
Workload and working conditions
21.39. This Report is not considering in detail the workload or working conditions of the Glasgow bureau, which have been addressed by other reviews. The bureau was at the relevant time located in the headquarters of Strathclyde Police. It moved to new purpose-built premises in 2000 which were considered to be an improvement,58 and to have helped foster an independent corporate identity for SCRO.59
21.40. The Glasgow bureau was busy. It was said to be overworked and understaffed.60 Electronic capture of arrestees' fingerprints using 'live scan' devices was introduced in April 1997.61 As these were available electronically on a 24 hour basis, the bureau changed from an 8am to 8pm working day to a 24 hour, seven day a week facility, with a knock on effect on case work, staffing and training. Additional staff had to be recruited and trained to address substantial backlogs of scene of crime mark caseloads which built up as a result.62 The bureau carried a number of staff vacancies.63
Perceptions of the bureau
21.41. The SCRO examiners told the Inquiry of the high reputation of the bureau and of individual examiners. Mr Mackenzie said that the bureau was a market leader in the UK in respect of fingerprint training, testing and quality assurance and was at the time the only bureau to have regular testing of staff.64 Mr Padden said that "we had been told by others in the past that we were the best fingerprint bureau in the world" and that "The experts that were involved in the [Asbury/McKie] case¿are hugely respected. In particular Hugh MacPherson had a reputation of being the top guy in the bureau, based on the quality of his work."65
21.42. Ms McBride said "The general view in SCRO was that our experts were very well trained ¿the view was that the standard of our bureau was second to none which was supported by the comments of other bureaux staff from England and elsewhere. The Evett and Williams study suggested that this was the case. Other fingerprint bureaux would adopt our processes."66
21.43. Mr Stewart said that in his experience other bureaux would declare marks fragmentary and insufficient that SCRO could compare.67 The examiners in the bureau specialised in fingerprint comparison as their full-time remit68 and Mr MacPherson cited this specialisation as a reason for their ability to make identifications where others could not.69
21.44. The belief that SCRO examiners, or at least the more experienced among them, could identify marks that other bureaux would discard as fragmentary and inconclusive is discussed in Chapter 28.
21.45. SCRO was held in high regard by others outside the bureau. Mr Grigg considered SCRO to be a "professional and very competent" bureau.70 He did not have direct dealings with SCRO at the relevant time but had trained some of their staff and had met Alan Dunbar for whom he had "high regard". He had no reason to think anything other than highly of SCRO.71
21.46. There were other views.
21.47. Mr Sheppard, who was Head of NTC Fingerprint Training from 1996 to 2005,72 said that he had formed the impression that SCRO did not have a culture that encouraged experts to work independently and draw their own conclusions. This was derived from two experiences. Firstly, a two day visit to SCRO in 1990 to look at the AFR system when he formed the impression that "SCRO was an excessively hierarchical organisation and that independence of thought was not encouraged." Secondly, there was his experience with students (i.e. trainee fingerprint examiners) from SCRO attending the NTC who, when shown difficult marks, would often say that they would not draw their own conclusions but would pass the mark on to a more experienced officer, from which he inferred "there was a great deal of peer pressure and that it was alien to challenge the conclusions of others."73
21.48. The evidence of Mr Richard Luckraft, who worked in the Glasgow bureau from January 2000 to March 2001, is discussed in chapters 23 and 28.
21.49. The HMICS September 2000 report discloses that SCRO was the biggest fingerprint bureau in Scotland and the fourth largest in the UK. The report advised that historically the bureau had been held in high regard by other experts, though it did appear to have "an 'internalised' culture".74 This was a comment on the emphasis on in-house training, the failure until relatively recently to recruit externally trained qualified officers and the fact that senior posts were not always advertised externally and the report made recommendations about the need for a more "open and transparent culture" within the organisation as a whole.75
1. Later (2001) the bureau became part of the Scottish Fingerprint Service (SFS) and in April 2007 SFS became part of the Scottish Police Services Authority
2. Para 1.3 of Scottish Criminal Record Office - 2000 Primary Inspection, a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, published 24 May 2001, URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/hmic/docs/scro-00.asp; and FI_0050 para 2 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sir William Rae
3. It succeeded the Scottish Office upon devolution in 1999
4. Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
5. SG_0375 para 2.7
6. SG_0375 para 1.1.4
7. FI_0055 para 12 Inquiry Statement of Mr MacPherson
8. In 1997 Chief Superintendent Hugh Ferry was the Director of SCRO and Chief Inspector William O'Neill was Head of the Fingerprint Bureau. Detective Chief Superintendent Harry Bell joined SCRO as Director in November 1998. Mr O'Neill was succeeded in March 1998 by Chief Inspector Christopher Griffiths.
9. SG_0375 para 2.5
10. FI_0046 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
11. SG_0375 para 4.2
12. FI_0036 para 7 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
13. FI_0036 para 3 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
14. FI_0055 paras 4-7 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
15. FI_0055 paras 2 and 9 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0053 para 4 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
16. FI_0055 para 7 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
17. FI_0036 para 4 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
18. FI_0046 para 7 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
19. e.g. FI_0055 para 28 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0046 para 85 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
20. SG_0375 para 7.2.1
21. FI_0081 para 4 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Grigg. Hendon is the Metropolitan Police's training facility.
22. FI_0112 paras 1-4 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McGregor
23. FI_0055 para 22 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson, FI_0036 paras 17-18 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart and FI_0053 para 5 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar. See chapter 2 paras 23-25
24. FI_0011 para 14 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Halliday and FI_0046 paras 33-34 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
25. FI_0046 para 38 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
26. FI_0053 para 3 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
27. FI_0055 para 24 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0046 paras 35-36 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
28. FI_0053 para 5 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar, FI_0046 paras 35-36 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie and FI_0036 para 18 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
29. FI_0046 paras 13-15 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
30. FI_0053 paras 22-25 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
31. FI_0046 para 21 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
32. FI_0046 para 22 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
33. FI_0053 paras 19-38 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
34. FI_0036 para 11 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
35. FI_0055 para 23 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
36. FI_0053 para 28 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar and FI_0046 para 48 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
37. FI_0053 para 37 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
38. FI_0053 paras 29-36 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
39. FI_0053 para 39 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
40. FI_0036 para 19ff Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
41. FI_0040 paras 8-9 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Ms McBride
42. FI_0046 para 33 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
43. FI_0054 para 9 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna and FI_0040 para 8 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Ms McBride
44. FI_0039 para 11 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride, FI_0046 para 20 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie. The FBI presentation was on work he had done in relation to third level detail and ridgeology.
45. FI_0036 para 25 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
46. FI_0036 para 27 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
47. SG_0375 para 7.5.1
48. FI_0053 para 13 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
49. Mr Mackenzie 30 September pages 25-26
50. FI_0054 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
51. FI_0054 para 12 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
52. See e.g. FI_0054 para 12 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
53. FI_0039 para 12 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
54. FI_0036 paras 21-22 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
55. FI_0046 paras 15-19 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
56. FI_0053 paras 45-47 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
57. FI_0036 para 15 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
58. Mr Luckraft 20 October page 41
59. Mr Bell 3 July pages 67-68 and FI_0043 para 3 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Bell
60. FI_0054 para 56 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
61. SG_0375 para 5.4.2
62. FI_0046 paras 29-34 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
63. SG_0375 para 4.1
64. FI_0046 para 197 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
65. FI_0008 para 14 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Padden
66. FI_0039 para 13 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
67. FI_0036 para 63 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
68. Most of the fingerprint bureaux in Scotland had dual role officers who carried out scene of crime examination as well as fingerprint comparison.
69. FI_0055 paras 32-33 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
70. FI_0081 para 9 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Grigg
71. FI_0081 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Grigg
72. FI_0082 para 3 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Sheppard
73. FI_0082 paras 71-72 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Sheppard and Mr Sheppard 8 July pages 174-5
74. SG_0375 para 8.14.1
75. SG_0375 para 8.14.2