Forensic service bosses have apologised to a former police officer for falsely accusing her of leaving her fingerprint at a murder scene.
Tom Nelson, director of forensic services at the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA), publicly apologised to Shirley McKie and her family for the "errors that took place" and the "subsequent pain" they caused.
It came after a public inquiry found Ms McKie, a former detective constable with Strathclyde Police, had not made the disputed mark.
Inquiry chairman Sir Anthony Campbell has now recommended that fingerprint evidence should be "recognised as opinion evidence and not fact".
After Sir Anthony published his report, Mr Nelson said the SPSA accepted that Ms McKie, from Troon in Ayrshire, "did not make the mark". He stated: "We have today apologised directly to the McKie family for the errors that took place in the late 1990s and for the subsequent pain that has caused them."
Ms McKie was tried for perjury after insisting a fingerprint found in the home of murder victim Marion Ross in 1997 did not belong to her.
She was later cleared of lying under oath and, in February 2006, was given £750,000 by the then Scottish Executive in an out-of-court settlement.
The case created doubt about the reliability of fingerprint evidence and Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill ordered the public inquiry, saying the controversy had "cast a shadow of uncertainty and suspicion" over the individuals involved and the criminal justice system.
The SPSA has accepted the inquiry's findings and recommendations in full.
Afterwards Ms McKie's father Iain said: "It's an extremely important apology because it's the first time I have ever heard anyone say sorry.
"This is the first real apology that has been made in 14 years."
Ms McKie, now 49, was not at the press conference where Sir Anthony presented his findings. But her father said she was "speechless" when he told her the SPSA had apologised.
Mr McKie, also a former police officer, said: "Anyone here who has suffered a miscarriage of justice will know what it is to be vindicated and believed."
In his report Sir Anthony, a former Northern Ireland appeal court judge, said the fingerprint in question, known as mark Y7, had been "misidentified as the fingerprint of Ms McKie".
He also said a fingerprint found in the home of David Asbury, convicted then cleared of murdering Miss Ross, had also been misidentified as belonging to the dead woman.
He put this down to "human error" and said there was "no conspiracy against Ms McKie".
Sir Anthony recommended special processes be developed for complex fingerprint marks, saying these should be examined independently by three experts.
Fingerprint examiners performed "important, difficult and at times complex work", he said, adding that his 86 recommendations were "designed to assist them in these challenges and to ensure the identification evidence they provide continues to be evidence in which the public and the criminal justice system can have confidence".
Experts Hugh Macpherson, Charles Stewart, Fiona McBride and Anthony McKenna had originally identified the mark found in Miss Ross's home as being made by Ms McKie. They and three other former fingerprint officers involved in the case said they were "disappointed in some of the findings of the inquiry".
The officers added: "It was never going to be able to restore any of the damage done to us over the years."
The SPSA plans to make the necessary improvements and in January will launch a new approach to complex fingerprint marks, in line with the inquiry recommendations.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article