A FINGERPRINT expert who was unfairly dismissed over the Shirley McKie scandal is launching another bid to get her old job back.
Fiona McBride is appealing against a decision which ruled she should not be reinstated by the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) because there could be "disastrous consequences". Her case will be heard in the Court of Session next month.
Ms McBride was one of six specialists at the former Scottish Criminal Records Office who identified a print taken from a murder scene in 1997 as belonging to policewoman Shirley McKie. When Ms McKie denied in court the print was hers, and that she had not been in the home of victim Marion Ross, she was tried for perjury.
However, she was acquitted after an independent American fingerprint expert said the Scots specialists had misidentified the print. The verdict caused panic in the justice system, as it raised questions about the reliability of other fingerprint evidence.
Ms McKie was awarded £750,000 in damages in 2006, and David Asbury, who was jailed for Ms Ross's murder, had his conviction quashed.
Since then, an inquiry ruled the blunder was the result of human error.
Ms McBride and the other fingerprint officers involved were suspended and, in 2007, the SPSA sacked her.
However, in January 2009, an employment tribunal found she had been unfairly dismissed and ordered her reinstatement. It also awarded her £31,768.
The SPSA accepted the unfair dismissal ruling, but appealed against reinstatement. A hearing was held before Lady Smith who highlighted the problems reinstatement would cause the SPSA. Lady Smith said: "The clear picture is that returning the claimant [McBride] to work ... would not work. [McBride and the SPSA] parted company against a background of considerable conflict. Far from being practicable, the impression presented was one of the reinstatement ... being liable to have disastrous consequences."
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