Controversy dogs man who puts DNA in the dock

THEIR evidence can consign the accused to a lifetime behind bars – or it can give the convicted a new chance of liberty. DNA experts have emerged as the superstars of the witness box, bringing scientific near-certainty to the courtroom.

The techniques have inspired countless fictional plots, from Patricia Cornwell's Dr Kay Scarpetta mysteries to TV's CSI. But a division has opened up in the real world of DNA evidence, centred on the work of a controversial Scottish scientist.

Professor Allan Jamieson has built a high-profile reputation for his work challenging convictions based on DNA evidence. The Glasgow-based scientist gave pivotal testimony in the Omagh bombing trial that saw the case collapse and provoke a Home Office review.

And Jamieson was contacted recently by the legal team of Bradley Murdoch, jailed for the murder of Peter Falconio in the Australian outback seven years ago. They hope the Scot can help them win Murdoch's appeal against conviction.

But Jamieson's work has made him many enemies. And behind the scenes, rival scientists and police detectives are briefing against Jamieson, calling into question his qualifications to give expert evidence and dragging up incidents earlier in his career, including a criminal conviction that led him to resign from his post at Lothian and Borders Police.

At issue is the safety of Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA evidence. LCN DNA testing can analyse samples 1,000 times smaller than a grain of salt, a few cells being replicated over and over again to create sufficient quantity for analysis.

LCN DNA evidence represented a crucial breakthrough in the prosecution of serious crime, especially long-unsolved cases. It was vital in securing the conviction of Tony Jasinskyj in May 2002 for the 1981 murder of Marion Crofts, 14, from Aldershot.

Jamieson argues the technique is unsafe, mainly because of the risk of cross-contamination. As well as Omagh, he advised the defence team that secured the acquittal of Vincent Simpson at the end of last year over the 1980 murder of Elizabeth McCabe in Dundee. Again, Jamieson's attack on LCN DNA evidence in the case was seen as crucial, and revolved around possible cross-contamination in the police laboratory between the clothing of the victim and the accused.

Jamieson justifies his work, pointing to a double-first in biology and genetics, as well as a PhD in forensic science, but his detractors complain he has not conducted the laboratory-based research necessary to make him an expert court witness in the field of DNA.

His critics also question the status of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow, which Jamieson set up, and which some view as little more than a one-man band.

One scientist, who asked not to be named, said: "Look at the website of the Forensic Institute and you get the impression that it is a massive organisation, claiming expertise in just about every area of science.

"Scratch beneath the surface and you find it's made up of a handful of people. Can so few people really have everything covered? Most practitioners have clearly defined limits. We will give evidence only in areas that we genuinely have expertise in. If more is required, we tell the people posing the questions they need another expert. The Institute will take anything and everything on."

Paul Hackett, a DNA expert at the Forensic Science Service (FSS), declined to discuss concerns about any specific individual, but he acknowledged that there was growing concern within the profession about the ease with which people could set themselves up as experts.

He said: "The FSS has grown and developed forensic science in the UK with genuine commitment and massive investment to the tune of some £15m a year. We lead the field in this type of work. We do not simply put scientists forward as experts. We put forward the people who have done the work in the lab, who understand every part of the process and who can speak with authority about it.

"A science degree, even a PhD, does not make you an expert, and we are concerned about the fact that the courts appear to attach similar weight to the testimony of genuine experts and those who simply purport to be experts."

One senior police officer said he feared for justice if the row continued. He said: "The FSS are the experts, not only in the UK but in the world. If our courts continue to give a platform to those who are not genuine accredited experts in the field, juries will be confused, and justice will not be served. The regulator needs to act."

Jamieson had been falling out with his peers long before his recent attacks on LCN DNA evidence. Formerly a member of the FSS, he lost his seat after a motion of no confidence against him was supported.

Jamieson was previously head of the Lothian and Borders Police laboratory. In 1996, he was sacked by the force over an incident that saw him land a criminal conviction. He was charged with placing a female motorist in a state of fear and alarm, allegedly having waved her to the roadside and, flashing his police-issue identification, lectured her on her driving. As a civilian employee of the police, he had no such authority.

He was fined £300 at Airdrie Sheriff Court, but his dismissal by the force was later replaced with a written warning and he returned to his post. He quit his post some six years ago to establish the Forensic Institute.

Jamieson told Scotland on Sunday: "As a scientist, and a very good one, I believe I'm entitled to look at and ask questions about anything. Just because I haven't done the work in the lab doesn't mean to say I don't understand it, or I can't ask pertinent and relevant questions about the methodology."

He was scathing about the Caddy Report, which cleared LCN DNA for use despite recent failures: "If it's so reliable, why doesn't the FBI use it? We hear a lot of nonsense about it because the FSS has a warped view, but most countries don't trust it, with good reason.

"I could shake your hand, then brush against a table and leave a tiny particle of your DNA on that table and none of mine, yet you've never touched it. DNA is safe in high volume. Semen, blood, saliva tends to be safe, but when there is a tiny fragment of skin or a single hair, I'm entitled to ask how the crime samples were stored and is there any way they could have been contaminated?

"The review reached a conclusion that is not justified when you read it in full."

Jamieson added that, as a member of the council of the FSS, he had been instrumental in pushing for a regulatory body, but he said he was not in favour of accreditation. "Those with vested interests will simply find ways to guard their patch," he said. "I recognise that I do have limits, but my role is primarily to test the evidence others have presented.

"I am very well aware of what people say about me and the institute, but none has accepted an invitation to come and find out what we are about." Asked how many scientists worked at the institute, he said: "Three. No four, four in all."

He added that the no confidence vote against him as a member of the society's council had been taken in front of only five members and he had not been present. Despite that, one of the members in attendance had spoken up for him.

Of his criminal conviction, he said: "It was a misunderstanding. The woman was driving dangerously, I flashed my lights and she pulled over. I stopped and explained why I'd flashed and she made a complaint. It was nothing. The bottom line is, the police gave me my job back."