Introduction
9.1. This chapter considers the general arrangements for preparation of reports and associated productions for court by the SCRO fingerprint examiners in 1997-1999 at the time of the Asbury and McKie trials and then considers the preparation of the specific productions for HMA v Asbury.
The preparation for trial: general processes
9.2. SCRO fingerprint examiners typically prepared the following fingerprint related productions for court:
(i) a joint report which reported their finding that a mark had been identified with reference to prints on a fingerprint form; and
(ii) a book of productions containing a photograph or lift of the identified mark and a "charted enlargement" of part of the mark and part of the print marked up to show sixteen points in sequence and agreement between the mark and print.
9.3. The relevant fingerprint form would also be lodged as a production.
9.4. The joint report, the book of productions and the fingerprint forms would be signed by the same four SCRO fingerprint examiners. Any one or more of them could be called to give evidence in court and speak to these productions. To take HMA v Asbury as an example, the examiners produced in respect of Y7:
(i) a joint report dated 10 April 1997;1
(ii) a book of productions referred to in the report (book marked "L"),2 that contained two photographs of Y7 and a charted enlargement.
The prosecution also produced the ten-print form for Ms McKie3 referred to in the joint report.
9.5. As will be discussed, some procedures followed by SCRO, particularly in relation to the production of charted enlargements, were unique to SCRO.
Process followed
9.6. If a case was coming to trial the fingerprint bureau would generally be asked by the procurator fiscal to prepare material for court4 but the police may sometimes have made the request.5
9.7. When the request was received a clerk would prepare a form6 which would be passed to the Head of Bureau. According to Mr Stewart, Mr Mackenzie would ordinarily allocate witnesses in a special case7 . In any event, someone in a management role would decide which examiners would be witnesses.8
9.8. Four examiners signed the report. Only two would be required as a matter of law, assuming that the fingerprint evidence had to be corroborated. The third and fourth signatories were included for the purposes of annual leave cover, so that two fingerprint examiners were available at any time to give evidence.9
9.9. Mr Stewart thought that the normal practice was to try to allocate cases to examiners who had previously examined the majority of the marks in the case, so that when it came to preparation for court there was no need for examiners to carry out a large volume of new examinations because they had not been party to the initial identifications.10 However, the examiners who were chosen to be witnesses were not always those who had been involved earlier in the investigation.11
9.10. Ms McBride said that one or both of the first two signatories to the report would draft the report and prepare the productions, including any enlargement.12 Mr Stewart said that the senior expert would allocate tasks among the potential witnesses.13
9.11. Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna said that a signatory had to be satisfied that the report and productions were accurate before signing. A signatory had to have compared the identified mark to the relevant prints.14 It follows that if a signatory had not already compared the relevant marks or prints he would have to do so.15 If the signatories had already carried out a comparison the approach of the examiners differed. Mr McKenna always carried out a full comparison at report stage, even if he had already compared the marks and prints.16 If Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart and Ms McBride had already compared the marks and prints they would not carry out a further comparison when preparing the court report.17
9.12. The position was different if a new set of fingerprints had been taken after the initial comparison was carried out, for example if elimination prints were used for the initial comparison and the person in question was thereafter arrested and a new set of fingerprints was taken. Mr Stewart, Mr McKenna, and Ms McBride would carry out a further comparison based on the new form.18 Mr MacPherson indicated that he would carry out checks against arrest prints in order to confirm that he could still identify to sixteen points.19
9.13. Examiners would refuse to sign a report if they did not agree with its conclusions. Ms McBride recalled an occasion in 2000 when she had refused to sign a report.20
9.14. Mr MacPherson explained that joint reports were introduced following the coming into force of section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.21 The joint report was "more or less a pro forma".22 Mr Mackenzie said that standard form joint reports had been agreed with the Crown in the 1980s23 and a style can be seen, for example, in Annex C to the Crown Office Expert Evidence Manual.24 The style used by SCRO (1) referred to a life-size image of the mark and the ten-print form for the individual whose mark was identified and (2) narrated that the identification was illustrated by enlargements that the officers had prepared showing "Sixteen ridge characteristics in sequence and agreement" (emphasis added).
9.15. Consistent with the 'best evidence' rule25 the prosecution was required to lodge the original of the ten-print form and also a first generation image of the mark. The life-size image of the mark that was included in the productions was not necessarily the particular photograph that the examiners had studied when the identification was first made but could be another photograph reproduced from the negatives. For example, in relation to Y7, the examiners worked with an image that came to have writing on it26 but the images included in the production book27 were unmarked images.
9.16. By 1998 at latest, the Glasgow bureau was unique, not only in Scotland but in the UK, in producing case specific enlargements.28 In solemn cases (that is cases going for jury trial) the Glasgow bureau automatically prepared case specific charted enlargements primarily because this is what the Glasgow procurator fiscals wanted.29 It was not only the Glasgow procurator fiscals that requested enlargements. They were requested in HMA v Asbury which was a Kilmarnock case involving the Kilmarnock procurator fiscal and Ms Climie of Crown Office in Edinburgh requested enlargements in terms of her letter dated 11 April 1997.30
9.17. Irrespective of the number of marks identified it was normal practice to prepare only one enlargement per accused in a case. This was because, as the terms of the joint report itself stated, the enlargement was intended to be no more than an illustration or visual aid to be used as required when presenting evidence in court.31 Though the examiners were using one of the marks in the case, it served as effectively a 'generic' example to enable examiners to demonstrate the method of identification32 and was not intended by them to be evidence of the comparison or identification.33
9.18. The ultimate decision regarding the particular mark to be used was for the prosecution34 but it could be left to the fingerprint examiner's judgment to select the mark that would provide a good illustration for court purposes.35 Mr MacPherson's policy was to pick the clearest marks for enlargement36 and Ms McBride gave evidence to the same effect.37
9.19. The 'enlargement' was literally an enlargement of a photographic image of the mark and the print from the ten-print form that were being matched. Sixteen points of similarity were pin-pointed in the mark and print. It was prepared on a joint basis. The experts may each have made their initial decisions based on different combinations of characteristics but for the purposes of preparing the production they would reach a consensus as to sixteen points to be used jointly.38 Mr Stewart, commenting on this, said: "Regrettably, any time you produced an illustration it was always a compromise between the four experts. We could all have looked at the mark and reached our conclusion based on different characteristics, so what was illustrated had to be a compromise."39 The use of a joint set of sixteen points was consistent with the purpose of the production being to do no more than illustrate the process and not to certify the means by which each examiner arrived at his or her own initial conclusion. That said, by signing the production each of the four examiners was accepting that he or she would be happy to stand up in court and speak to these sixteen points as points of identity, if asked.40
Charted enlargements
9.20. Prior to 1996 SCRO used photographic enlargements. In 1996 a charting PC was purchased41 and the SCRO officers were told not to use photographic enlargements and instead to use the charting machine.42 Its use was discontinued by 2000 in the aftermath of the McKie trial.43 The images that it produced were referred to as 'charted enlargements'.
9.21. There was a number of general complaints about the charting PC on the part of SCRO examiners. It was difficult to use and, in particular, it was difficult to hit the exact place in the image to which the examiner wished to point.44 It could only enlarge to certain sizes, which meant that it produced images of only part of the mark and part of the print (this being referred to as 'cropping' of the image). It had limited contrast and produced poor quality images, particularly of poor quality marks. It did not provide as sharp an image as a photographic enlargement.45 There was a further deterioration in quality when the enlargements were printed out.46 When the image was enlarged, it would pixelate.47
9.22. Mr Graham told the Inquiry48 that the SCRO enlargements that he saw from time to time in his work were "of shocking quality", and, for example, lines would mark features that were not present. Mr MacPherson disagreed with Mr Graham's remarks.49
9.23. The complaints that the SCRO examiners had about the charting machine must be seen in context. Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna said that a signatory had to be satisfied that the report and productions (including the charted enlargements) were accurate before signing.50 Mr MacPherson said that the court productions were as accurate as he could make them and he believed they were accurate.51 His view was that the quality of the representation of Y7 was acceptable for its purpose and he was satisfied that the chartings were accurate.52 He had to accept that some enlargements were not so accurate. On being shown Production 9953 (the book of photographs for QI2 Ross) he accepted that the plotting of point 16 on the charted enlargements had "not quite landed where it should have".54 He explained that this was the sort of difficulty that occurred with the charting PC55 but generally his position was that although points may have been a millimetre or so out this did not invalidate the identification.56 Mr Stewart's evidence was similarly pragmatic: the charting PC may not have been as accurate as a photograph but it did not cause him a problem.57
Commentary
9.24. Issues were raised at the trial in HMA v McKie about the quality of the SCRO charted enlargements, particularly with Mr Findlay's repeated references to "blobs",58 and these were picked up later in both the HMIC report59 and a specific report by Temporary Inspector Tatnell.60 The SCRO examiners told the Inquiry of the problems they experienced when using the charting PC but those problems are not relevant to the fundamental question whether the identifications that they made were correct. The identifications were made by reference to original source materials and not by studying the charted enlargements. The relevance of the charted enlargements, both at the trial in HMA v McKie and for the purposes of the Inquiry, was that they focussed the debate among the examiners on specific details. At the time when the productions were first prepared the signatories to the joint reports were satisfied as to their accuracy and prior to the trials of Mr Asbury and Ms McKie no one of them voiced any concern to the Crown about the use of the charted enlargements. In any event, the comparative exercise conducted by the Inquiry has shown that the quality of the charted enlargements is immaterial because the underlying disputes among the experts remained the same irrespective of the particular image being studied.
The fingerprint productions in HMA v Asbury
9.25. Having considered preparation in general I now turn to the material prepared for the trial HMA v Asbury.
9.26. In a letter dated 17 February addressed to the Chief Constable SCRO Fingerprint Section the procurator fiscal requested preparation of the fingerprint evidence for the case.61 The SCRO form "Preparation of Fingerprint Evidence"62 recorded that it was received on 18 February and on 20 February the SCRO witnesses allocated to be witnesses to the trial were Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart.63
9.27. The SCRO form had attached to it a list of the marks to be covered in evidence. Normally the fingerprint evidence would be confined to the identified marks but in this case "Basically, every mark that had been received in the office had to be accounted for in the productions."64
Allocation of witnesses
9.28. Mr Mackenzie explained that Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart were the two most senior fingerprint officers in the office and the names of Mr McKenna and Ms McBride would follow on because of the system, already referred to, for ensuring that there was always holiday cover available for witnesses.65 Ms McBride was Mr MacPherson's general substitute for evidence at trial and Mr McKenna was Mr Stewart's.66
9.29. Y7 may also have had a bearing on the choice of signatories. Ms McBride said that normal procedure was that those who did not see sixteen points were not included on the joint report.67 Mr Geddes had been involved in much of the work but had not identified Y7 to 16 points. Mr MacPherson said that the other three witnesses had been involved in identifying Y7, which was known to be disputed by Ms McKie, and bringing them in to QI2 meant that they could deal with the case in its entirety.68
Commentary
9.30. The allocation of witnesses to the case HMA v Asbury might be explained by the choice of Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart on 20 February. The consequence was that their substitutes, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna, would be the third and fourth witnesses.
9.31. It is not known if a conscious decision was taken not to use Mr Geddes as a witness in HMA v Asbury because he had not identified Y7 to sixteen points. Even if it had been a conscious decision there would have been nothing sinister in that because the practice operated by SCRO at the time was that an examiner who had failed to find 16 points but was not positively disputing the identification could be passed over if other examiners could verify to 16 points.
Preparation of productions
9.32. Mr MacPherson said that for the trial in HMA v Asbury he "certainly" prepared all of the productions.69 That was contradicted by Mr Stewart who claimed authorship of the joint reports on QI2 Ross and Y7 and the productions other than the charted enlargement for Y7.70 This is immaterial because the joint report was a pro forma and, in any event, each of the signatories had to be satisfied as to the accuracy of all of the productions before they signed.
QI2 Ross: report dated 17 March 1997
9.33. The following material was produced in relation to QI2 Ross:
(i) A report, Production 101,71 dated 17 March 1997. It was to the effect that QI2 was identified as having been made by Miss Ross based on a photograph of QI2 produced in book "B" and a fingerprint form in the name of Marion Ross.
(ii) Book B contained a photograph of QI2 and a charted enlargement marked to show sixteen points in sequence and agreement between QI2, and the right fore fingerprint of Miss Ross. This was Production 99 in HMA v Asbury.72
(iii) A fingerprint form in the name of Marion Ross, dated 10 January 1997 was Production 96 in HMA v Asbury.73
9.34. Mr MacPherson said that he prepared the joint report relating to QI2 and the charted enlargement.74 Mr Stewart agreed that Mr MacPherson prepared the charting but as stated above he claimed authorship of the report.75
9.35. Ms McBride and Mr McKenna had not been involved in the initial identification of this mark. Mr McKenna said that he must have first looked at QI2 when signing off the case envelope or signing the report, both of which were being worked on at about the same time.76 He would have used a glass and possibly a comparator.77 Ms McBride said she would have followed her normal method of comparison.78
XF, QI2 Asbury, QD2 and other Asbury marks: report dated 17 March 1997
9.36. All the marks identified as having been made by Mr Asbury were dealt with together:
(i) The joint report was Production 100,79 dated 17 March 1997.
(ii) A book of productions marked "A" was Production 98.80 This was a book containing photographs of marks XF, QD2, QI2 and others, and lifts of WB and WD. In accordance with normal practice only one charted enlargement was produced and it related to XF.
(iii) The joint report referred to a fingerprint form received by SCRO on 27 January. The transcript of evidence from the trial indicates that Production 98 contained prints taken on 22 January.81 The Inquiry did not recover the original production and has only photocopies of prints that bear to have been taken on 26 January 1997.82
9.37. The image of QD2 that was included in Production 98, though a first generation photograph and therefore in accordance with the 'best evidence' rule, was not the same as the image that the SCRO examiners had studied. This was to occasion some confusion later when marks were examined by Danish experts after the McKie trial.83
Y7: report dated 27 March 1997
9.38. A report dated 27 March 1997 about Y784 was prepared and signed by Mr MacPherson, Ms McBride, Mr Stewart and Mr McKenna. The report confirmed that Y7 was made by Ms McKie on the basis of a comparison of an elimination form received from Strathclyde Police on 7 February 1997 with a photograph of Y7 received from Strathclyde Police on 16 January 1997. The report made no reference to a book or charted enlargement unlike the other SCRO reports. It contained the following paragraph:
"From examination of the photographed impression itself and examination of the locus photograph of the impression Y7 in situ, it was ascertained that the top of the left thumb print, which was identified, was facing in an inward direction, relative to the bathroom."
9.39. The report dated 27 March 1997 was not a production in HMA v Asbury.85 The paragraph did not appear in the report that became Production 154 dated 10 April.86 Mr Stewart said this was not "standard" wording and he thought that the procurator fiscal must have asked for the paragraph.87 Mr McKenna also said it was not "standard text"; and neither he,88 nor Ms McBride knew why it had been included.89
9.40. Mr MacPherson shed some light on this paragraph. Whilst he could not recall who asked for the report, he remembered being asked for a view as to how the mark had been deposited on the door surround. He said that is why they prepared the report.90 That is consistent with the report by Mr Malcolm dated 1 April 1997, to which the SCRO report of 27 March 1997 was attached.91 It was included in the Precognition submitted to Crown Office92
Y7: report dated 10 April 1997
9.41. The productions that were lodged were:
(i) A report, Production 154, dated 10 April 1997 identifying Y7 as Ms McKie's mark based on an elimination form received at SCRO on 7 February 1997, a photograph of Y7 received on 16 January 1997 and a photograph of Y7 received on 18 February 1997.93
(ii) Production 152, a book marked "L" containing two photographs of Y7 and a charted enlargement showing sixteen points of similarity between a part of the left thumb of Ms McKie and a part of Y7.94
(iii) A fingerprint form in the name of Shirley Cardwell taken on 6 February and date stamped as having been received by SCRO on 7 February 1997 was Production 153.95
9.42. Neither Mr McKenna96 nor Ms McBride97 knew why a second report was prepared; Ms McBride assumed that the reports reflected instructions from the procurator fiscal.98 Mr Stewart also assumed that the report was instructed by the fiscal, but did not know why the "non standard" text in the 27 March report was omitted.99
9.43. Mr MacPherson recalled that they were asked to prepare a preliminary report detailing Y7 in situ, and that would be the 27 March 1997 report. The report of 10 April, on the other hand, was "just the normal report that would be used in the trial".100 Mr Malcolm had stated that the fingerprint officers were not prepared to include an opinion on the manner of deposition in their report.101 The non-inclusion in the later report of the non-standard paragraph in the report of 27 March would be consistent with that.
9.44. A second factor may also have influenced the production of the second report. The first report referred to a comparison relative to a single photograph of Y7 that was received from Strathclyde Police on 16 January 1997. The April report included a second photograph, one received by SCRO on 18 February 1997. SCRO had carried out a number of checks on Y7, including one using images taken on 18 February 1997.102 This links to instructions issued by Crown Office, though the letter comes after the second report.
9.45. In the letter dated 11 April 1997103 Ms Climie of Crown Office provided instructions to the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock as regards fingerprint evidence in the case HMA v Asbury. It gave a general instruction in relation to Y7 to lodge the image of Y7 along with the elimination fingerprint form of Ms McKie and "the comparison report". It also instructed that enlargements be prepared, if this had not already been done, "so that the comparison experts can demonstrate points of similarity". The letter went on to instruct a further report in the following terms:
"A second examination of Y7 was carried out on 12 February 1997 (presumably when the door frame was still in situ) and a second comparison carried out. Evidence regarding this should be included. The report at page 54 of the Precognition appears to be based on a comparison between the original photograph of Y7 and the elimination prints. A second report should be prepared based on the second photograph of Y7..."
9.46. Ms Climie would have been working from the Precognition and the report at manuscript numbered page 54 was the SCRO 27 March report. Her instruction referred to a "second comparison" having been carried out on 12 February, which reflects the misunderstanding that the police had that a second comparison had been carried out on that date.104 The further comparisons were not carried out until 17 and 18 February. Mr Stewart was one of those involved in the comparison exercise on 18 February105 and if, as he recalled,106 he put together the joint report and book of productions for Y7 that would explain how reference came to be made to the image of that date.
9.47. The 10 April 1997 report referred to the 18 February photograph of Y7 but both the March and the April reports were based on the first set of elimination prints taken on 6 February. This may be accounted for by a perception of image quality. During Ms McKie's trial Mr Stewart said that the further set of elimination prints taken on 18 February were not used because "the left thumb taken in this impression was very badly taken at the top of the form; it is over-inked and distorted."107
Other marks
9.48. Ms Climie's letter also instructed that:
"In respect of each eliminated print, a schedule should be prepared showing the name of the fingerprint expert who matched it to a named individual. You should ensure that the various fingerprint experts are on the list and that their contemporaneous records to enable them to speak to these matters are produced. This schedule should also detail the prints which remain uneliminated and where these came from.
All eliminated and uneliminated lifted/photographed prints (except those of the accused already produced) should be produced and lodged. This could be done in one large book (presumably the Cardwell print Y7 will be separately produced)."
9.49. Mr MacPherson told the Inquiry that SCRO had to produce all the impressions that had been identified, and, further, all those that were fragmentary and insufficient or outstanding. Every mark had to be accounted for. On the instructions of the procurator fiscal a separate charted enlargement had to be produced for each person identified as having made a mark.108 Mr MacPherson said that this instruction from the procurator fiscal meant that all of the enlargements had to be signed off by four examiners to the 16-point standard.109 Mr Mackenzie said that to his knowledge this was the first time that this happened.110 Mr Stewart also commented on the unusual nature of this work. He said that the number of non-standard requests from the procurator fiscal made the Asbury case unusual.111
9.50. The Inquiry recovered a number of additional reports which are consistent with Mr MacPherson's account. These include reports dated 11 and 16 April 1997, including a report on the print identified as that of the SOCO Mr Ferguson.112 There was also a report dated 21 April 1997 which listed marks that were insufficient for comparison purposes and others that had been compared with a negative result.113 An associated book of productions was prepared, "Book Q." This was Production 167114 in both trials and contained 64 pages of photographs and lifts.
Report on planting
9.51. Mr Stewart said that he and Mr MacPherson produced a report at some point into the possibility that Y7 had been planted. They concluded that there had been no tampering with the mark.115 This report has not been located.
Commentary: Pro forma reports and disclosure
9.52. Productions 100,116 101117 and 154,118 the principal 1997 joint reports, were all prepared in accordance with the pro forma style. They each narrated that they were joint reports in terms of section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. In fact, section 26 was repealed by the Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1995, section 6 and schedule 5 with effect from 1 April 1996. The relevant pro forma at SCRO had not been updated to reflect that change in the law.119 This error in the 1997 reports, though not of substantive legal significance, may indicate a lack of legal input into SCRO's work at that time.
9.53. It is clear from the fact that the pro forma style was being followed that the fingerprint evidence relative to the identification of Y7 was still being approached as essentially routine in nature. That the identification of Y7 was not routine and straightforward was, or should have been, apparent when Mr Geddes failed to agree Mr MacPherson's sixteen points. Unknown to the police and Crown Office the subsequent checks did not provide unqualified endorsement of the views of the four examiners who came to be signatories to the joint reports because as many as five of those involved in the checking processes failed to find 16 points in coincident sequence and matched only as a non-court standard 'elimination'.120
9.54. The SCRO examiners may themselves have been at cross-purposes in this regard.
9.55. The problem is that there is a latent ambiguity in the term 'elimination' because it can cover a conclusion of identity formed either in accordance with the 16-point standard or to a lesser standard of personal satisfaction.124 There does seem to have been unanimity among the SCRO examiners with respect to the conclusion that Y7 could be 'eliminated' as the mark of Ms McKie but behind that unanimity there were differences of opinion as to whether the conclusion could be supported in accordance with the 16-point standard.
9.56. Exhaustive reports were instructed from SCRO. Given the significance of fingerprint evidence to the case against Mr Asbury the Crown sought to explain as many of the other marks as possible. The proximity of Y7 to the place where Miss Ross's body was found meant that it was an important mark and inevitably that made finding an explanation for it a matter of importance. Crown Office even followed up the second comparison of Y7 but due to the fact that the case had been assigned to four examiners who had, from the outset, identified that mark to the 16-point standard, instructing a further comparison using another image
(18 February as it turned out) did not cast any doubt on the previous understanding that the fingerprint evidence was irrefutable and the trial in HMA v Asbury proceeded on that basis.
9.57. In retrospect, the approach of the day, which was to prepare routine reports to a pre-set style, was not apt to bring out the full complexity of the situation regarding Y7. That said, it is perhaps more accurate to say that the failure to disclose the full complexity had first occurred at an earlier stage when the result was first reported to the police.125
9.58. This is taken up in the discussion of factor (x) in Chapter 28.
1. SG_0409
2. ST_0006h
3. ST_0004h
4. FI_0046 para 109 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
5. FI_0036 para 96 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
6. SG_0457 is an example
7. FI_0036 para 97 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart. For the distinction between a 'volume case' and a 'special case' see Chapter 22.
8. FI_0055 paras 62 and 66 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
9. FI_0046 para 109 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
10. Mr Stewart 5 November page 103
11. FI_0046 para 109 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
12. FI_0039 para 53 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
13. FI_0036 para 99 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
14. FI_0055 para 66 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson, FI_0036 paras 232-234 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart, FI_0039 paras 52-55 and 56 and FI_0054 para 97 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
15. FI_0055 para 68 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0036 para 102 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
16. Mr McKenna 6 November page 35, FI_0054 para 97 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
17. FI_0055 para 67 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0039 para 55 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
18. Mr McKenna 6 November page 35, FI_0054 para 97 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna, FI_0036 para 102 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart and FI_0039 para 55 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
19. FI_0055 paras 67-68 and 90-91 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson.
20. FI_0039 para 57 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride, FI_0040 paras 73-85 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Ms McBride (and also FI_0043 para 16 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Bell)
21. FI_0055 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson; see Chapter 31, para 16ff, for the background to this statutory provision.
22. Mr Stewart 5 November page 105
23. FI_0046 paras 58-59 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
24. CO_4342 pdf pages 23-25
25. See Chapter 30 para 11ff
26. PS_0002h
27. ST_0006h
28. FI_0114 para 55 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Pattison and CO_4305: see also Mr Chamberlain 18 November pages 63-65 and Mr Logan 16 November page 40
29. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 134, FI_0055 para 69 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart 5 November page 192
30. CO_3989
31. SG_0375 para 3.11.2ff
32. FI_0039 para 58 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
33. FI_0036 para 109 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
34. FI_0045 paras 58-59 and 112 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie, FI_ 0053 para 165 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar and FI_0036 para 106 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart.
35. FI_0046 para 59 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
36. FI_0056 para 110 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
37. FI_0039 para 61 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
38. FI_0036 para 108 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
39. Mr Stewart 5 November page 188
40. Ms McBride 6 November page 173
41. SG_0375 para 3.11.2
42. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 67-68, Mr Stewart 5 November page 116 and Mr McKenna 6 November page 79
43. SG_0375 para 3.11.5 and CO_0307 section 1.1
44. Mr Geddes 26 June page 110ff, 131ff, Mr McKenna 6 November page 47ff at page 50, Ms McBride 6 November page 167ff and FI_0039 para 64 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
45. Mr Dunbar 6 October page 142, Mr Stewart 5 November page 111ff, Mr McKenna 6 November page 50 and FI_0036 para 105 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
46. FI_0053 paras 161-162 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
47. Ms McBride 6 November page 167-168
48. Mr Graham 9 July page 91 and FI_0089 para 41 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Graham
49. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 140-143
50. FI_0055 para 66 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson, FI_0036 paras 108 and 232-234 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart, FI_0054 paras 100, 117 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna and FI_0039 paras 62, 64 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
51. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 93
52. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 69, 142
53. SG_0131
54. Mr MacPherson 3 November page 145
55. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 144-145
56. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 93-94
57. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 111-115, 119-120
58. Mr Donald Findlay Q.C., counsel for Ms McKie - see Chapter 12
59. SG_0375 section 3.11
60. CO_0307
61. CO_4198
62. SG_0457
63. FI_0046 paras 324-325 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie and FI_0055 para 62 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson.
64. FI_0055 para 63 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
65. FI_0046 para 325 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
66. FI_0055 para 131 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson, FI_0039 para 116 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride and FI_0054 para 94 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
67. Ms McBride 6 November page 105
68. FI_0055 para 131 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
69. FI_0055 para 162 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
70. FI_0036 paras 236, 248 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
71. SG_0377
72. SG_0131
73. DB_0142h
74. FI_0055 para 129 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
75. FI_0036 para 248 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
76. FI_0054 para 113 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna; Mr MacPherson signed the case envelope on 14 March 1997 and the report was dated 17 March 1997
77. FI_0054 paras 114-115 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
78. FI_0039 para 129 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
79. SG_0352
80. SG_0010h
81. SG_0523 pdf pages 11-12 (Transcript of proceedings, HMA v Asbury 27 May 1997 evidence of Mr MacPherson)
82. SG_0349h, SG_0350h and SG_0351h
83. See Chapter 27 para 14ff
84. DB_0004
85. It was also not a production in HMA v McKie.
86. SG_0409
87. Mr Stewart 5 November page 104ff and FI_0036 para 239 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
88. Mr McKenna 6 November pages 46-47 and FI_0054 paras 103-104 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
89. FI_0039 para 122 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
90. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 114
91. See Chapter 8 para 44
92. CO_3850 pdf pages 68-69
93. SG_0409
94. ST_0006h
95. ST_0004h
96. FI_0054 para 105 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
97. FI_0039 para115 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
98. FI_0039 para.122 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
99. FI_0036 para 242 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
100. FI_0055 para 165 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
101. See Chapter 8 para 44
102. See Chapter 8
103. CO_3989. See Chapter 8
104. See Chapter 7 para 48
105. See Chapter 7 para 165
106. FI_0036 para 236 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
107. SG_0526 pdf page 41 and FI_0036 para 244 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
108. FI_0055 paras 63-64 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0056 para 119 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
109. FI_0056 para 119 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
110. See FI_0046 para 113 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
111. FI_0036 para 231 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
112. SG_0411
113. DB_0015. Mr MacPherson spoke to the report during the trial in HMA v Asbury - SG_0523 pdf pages 37-39 (Transcript of proceedings, HMA v Asbury 27 May 1997 evidence of Mr MacPherson).
114. SG_0401
115. FI_0036 paras 262-263 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
116. SG_0352
117. SG_0377
118. SG_0409
119. The Y7 report produced specifically for HMA v McKie (Production 190 (SG_0396)) made reference to the correct statutory provision.
120. See Chapter 7 para 192
121. See Chapter 12 para 22
122. See Chapter 12 para 37(ii)
123. CO_0050 pdf page 4
124. See for example Chapter 7 para 194
125. See Chapter 8 paras 11-12