From Michael Russell, SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament

The case of Shirley McKie raises some very serious questions about the criminal justice system in Scotland. 

As one of Shirley’s local members of the Scottish Parliament, I first became involved in this case as a result of the BBC Frontline Scotland documentary and at the request of Shirley and her family.

There can now be no doubt at all that the evidence offered against Shirley by the authorities at the time of her trial was false. There were no possible grounds for believing that the fingerprint at the crime scene was hers. That has been attested to by finger print experts from across the world and I know how grateful Shirley is, in particular, to Allan Bayle of New Scotland Yard, and to American experts Pat Wertheim and David Grieve. They have described her case to me as "the talk of the whole international fingerprint community". Their determination to bring forward the truth has been of great importance in the whole case.

Over recent months both Shirley’s father, Ian, and myself have written on several occasions to the Lord Advocate (Scotland’s Chief Prosecutor) and to the Scottish Justice Minister Jim Wallace. We both became increasingly frustrated at the total lack of response to our enquiries, and I eventually tabled a number of parliamentary questions.

On 21 March 2000, I hosted a press conference at the Scottish Parliament, attended by Shirley and a number of finger print experts. At this we called for answers to our questions and for the most open and accountable public enquiry.

Throughout this case, it has become obvious that political pressure coupled with media attention, are the most effective weapons when democratic institutions become arrogant or defensive. 

The very day after the press conference, I got replies to my parliamentary questions, and a reply to my letters. We now know the remit of the enquiry to be held this summer by H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary and it has been confirmed that it will take evidence from Shirley and will look at independent fingerprint evidence. It appears however that the enquiry will in fact be an Inspection and the ultimate responsibility for taking action on its findings will rest with the Minister for Justice. While it is obvious from the answers to my questions that initial attempts at a cover-up have failed we will continue to need to be vigilant. 

I am still concerned that the oppressive and unjustified police behaviour against Shirley before, at the time of, and after her arrest, has not yet been explained, still less apologised for. Responses to me from Strathclyde Police have been evasive and unsatisfactory. 

There is also little sign that the question of possible perjury by witnesses at the trial is being seriously addressed. Nor is there any official willingness to acknowledge that Ms McKie suffered unjust treatment at the hands of the Scottish Criminal Records Office. Without an apology there can be no real acknowledgement of what has actually happened, nor any real possibility of moving forward. 

In addition there must be substantial concern, given what has been discovered over the past months and years, that there may be other cases in which SCRO evidence has been tainted. What are the consequences for the Guilty or Innocent if this is the case? 

Shirley has shown a great deal of dignity throughout her ordeal. That ordeal has resulted in the loss of her career, endless personal suffering and real persecution. Her courage and fortitude have been remarkable. The Police, the Prosecution Service, SCRO and the government owe her an apology, recompense and a promise that her suffering will not be inflicted on others. They must also change their procedures and, if necessary, their personnel so that there can never be another case like this.

None of us will rest until justice has been done and seen to be done, and that will require much more in the way of action from the public agencies and public officials.

None the less I am confident that Shirley's persistence will be rewarded soon. I am proud to have been able to work with her and her father and family, though I regret that such work has been required in a modern nation that is supposed to be based on the rule of law.