§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the review of cases in which Dr. Clift gave forensic evidence began; on what date it was completed; how many forensic scientists were engaged on the review; for how long, and what was their status; and if any forensic scientists independent of the Home Office were employed.
§ Mr. BrittanThe review began in early August 1981 and ended with the decisions announced in the reply which I gave on 26 January to a question by the right hon. Member. — [Vol. 52, c.625–7.] The review was not confined to examining only scientific evidence; and as my earlier answer made clear, in deciding which cases to refer to the Court of Appeal I did not seek to reach conclusions on the validity of the evidence given by Dr. Clift. I was, however, greatly assisted by advice from the present controller of the Forensic Science Service and a senior principal scientific officer in the Forensic Science Service who has special responsibility for quality assurance. No forensic scientists from outside the Home Office were employed on the review.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what further steps he has taken about referring to the Court of Appeal the 16 cases in which Dr. Clift gave forensic evidence and which he undertook to refer for appeal; if, with the agreement of the people concerned, he will publish their names and details of their cases; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what were the dates of the original trials of the 16 cases in which Dr. Clift gave forensic evidence and which are to be referred to the Court of Appeal; and at which laboratories Dr. Clift was working on each of these dates.
§ Mr. BrittanThe persons whose cases I propose to refer to the Court of Appeal are being so informed, when they can each be traced. It is open to them to draw public attention to their cases, and details will in any event become publicly available when cases are considered by the court. In the meantime, I do not propose to name the persons involved or to make public details from which they might be identified. The trials took place at various times between March 1968 and October 1975. During this period Dr. Clift served at the forensic science laboratories at Preston, Chorley and Harrogate.
519W
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the Parliamentary Commissioner's view that the danger of improperly induced confessions had to be considered in cases where Dr. Clift gave forensic evidence, and that innocent persons could be led to plead guilty, he will as a first step review those of the 534 cases in which Dr. Clift gave evidence and the accused person pleaded guilty and is still in prison.
§ Mr. BrittanThe Parliamentary Commissioner concludes in paragraph 55 of his report that it would not be practicable to evaluate in restrospect the extent to which evidence from Dr. Clift may have induced pleas of guilty. Taking this part of his report as a whole, therefore, I do not feel that it affords a basis for the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.
But if the examination by the Court of Appeal of the cases which I propose to refer to it should reveal any new consideration affecting these matters, I shall naturally then consider whether any further action is called for.
§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department at which laboratories records of Dr. Clift's forensic evidence were found during the review of his cases from 1967; how many records were found at each of the laboratories; and which laboratories were responsible for the gap in records between January 1970 and April 1971.
§ Mr. BrittanThe records which it was necessary to find as a starting-point for the review were not of the evidence given by Dr. Clift, but merely of instances in which he had examined material. Further inquiries were then made with a view to establishing in which of these instances a case subsequently came to trial.
Records dating back to 1967 were found for the forensic science laboratories at Preston, Chorley, Harrogate and Birmingham. The number from each laboratory was of no significance for the conduct of the review and could now be established only at disproportionate cost. During the period for which there is a gap in these records, Dr. Clift served at the laboratories at Preston and Chorley.