MINISTERS under fire over the Shirley McKie scandal have admitted that fingerprint evidence in other criminal cases in Scotland had to be discarded because it was so unreliable.
In two separate cases, the Crown was forced to ditch the evidence in its prosecution because of fears that it would dent their case.
One of the cases involved the trial of Mark Sinclair, a man charged with armed robbery in 2003. Fingerprint evide
nce compiled by the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) was sent by the defence to an independent expert who was unable to support their analysis, thus forcing the Crown to ditch it.
The other case in which evidence was thrown out is unknown. The Crown Office is refusing to reveal which trial had been affected.
The revelations come as MSPs prepare to begin a parliamentary inquiry into the case in a fortnight, in which they intend to quiz fingerprint experts about the safety of Scotland's justice system.
Scotland on Sunday understands that among the first witnesses will be John McLean, the current director of the SCRO, who has led a staunch defence of the organisation's record so far. He is to leave the SCRO in May to take up a post in Jamaica with the island's police force.
Also to face scrutiny is Euan Innes, the head of the Scottish Fingerprint Service.
The inquiry will focus on the case of former policewoman Shirley McKie, who was wrongly identified as having entered a crime scene in 1997.
She was awarded £750,000 damages in February after the Scottish Executive admitted that officers had made an "honest mistake". However, a leaked report by police chiefs has alleged that McKie was the victim of a criminal conspiracy, and says that SCRO officials then attempted to cover up their mistakes.
The case has led to calls for a full public inquiry, which are so far being resisted by ministers.
The revelation that two other cases have suffered from unreliable evidence in the past 10 years followed a parliamentary question, answered by Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson.
Asked whether there were cases where fingerprint evidence had been withheld or withdrawn, Jamieson replied: "The Scottish Criminal Record Office knows of two cases in the last 10 years where the reliability of the identification was such that the evidence was not used in court."
The Sinclair case is particularly worrying as it occurred in 2003, when reforms to the SCRO following the McKie case were supposed to have been put in place.
Alex Neil, the SNP MSP who asked the questions, said: "What this shows is that, despite the reforms that everything is now fine at the SCRO, there are still occasional problems going on. Could it be that there is another Shirley McKie case around? They have admitted two cases."
It also emerged yesterday that two-thirds of Scots back a full public inquiry into the Shirley McKie case.
A YouGov poll, commissioned by the SNP, asked 1,600 people their views, with 66% backing a judicial inquiry.
The McKie family have also supported a full public inquiry, and have been backed by several senior legal figures, including Lord McCluskey, the former Solicitor-General.
The McKies are supporting the parliamentary inquiry into the affair, but claim it will fall short in getting to the truth of the matter.
