|Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 02:33 am: ||
Today's coverage of Shirley's fight against Strathclyde Police in 'The Herald' begins:
'Shirley McKie ordered to pay £13,000 by Strathclyde Police
POLICE are pressing ahead with legal action against a former policewoman who was cleared of lying on oath during a murder trial.
Shirley McKie yesterday received a formal demand from Strathclyde Police that she pay £13,000 within 14 days. It threatens seizure of her earnings, loss of her property or making her bankrupt if she does not comply.'
Full Story at: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13975.html
After being systematically abused for 8 years Shirley is being made to pay for the privilege.
A letter 'The Herald' by an eminent Scottish lawyer shows that the problems at SCRO continue:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/13963.html (click on 'letters - points of view)
'Fingerprinting must be independent
WHEN something like the Shirley McKie case arises your letter page is more powerful than parliament. In a case on the Ayr Circuit last autumn I had a fingerprint certified in absolute terms by the Scottish Criminal Records Office as belonging to my client. We used Allan Bayle, for the defence, and he could not support this identification. The Crown then sent their papers to the Northern Ireland police. Their fingerprint officers could not support the SCRO either, so the evidence was not used.
I wrote to the lord advocate immediately telling him that it was his duty to draw to the attention of the profession that the Scotch Botch was alive and well. He did nothing, and it was only after I had drawn the matter to the attention of Alex Neil, MSP, and the Sunday Herald, that I got a peevish letter in reply. If the lord advocate has done anything since he has not done so publicly. So much for open government. Alex Neil has put down question after question on this subject but neither Cathy Jamieson nor Colin Boyd can be awakened from their stupor.
Quite apart from Shirley McKie, whose case is a disgrace to the police and prosecution alike, every fingerprint which is in issue must now be challenged, adding to the length and expense of trials. The very least that must happen is the creation of a fingerprint service answerable only to parliament, staffed by civilian experts and quite independent of the police. Such a tool as the SCRO should never be in the hands of the police and prosecution in a free society. The temptation to fabricate evidence is too great. Meanwhile the murderer of Marion Ross goes undetected.
Ian Hamilton, QC, Lochnabeithe, North Connel, Argyll.'
The fight against SCRO continues. Please give your support.