HC Deb 01 July 1981 vol 7 cc391-3W
Mr. Ashley

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the names and details of the two cases other than that of Mr. Preece where representations were made about Dr. Clift; if he will give the number and position of the investigating officers in one of the cases who decided that the evidence against the prisoner was overwhelming; and if he will allow these cases to be reopened now that further investigation has led a judge in the Scottish Court of Appeal to describe Dr. Cliff as discredited.

Mr. Whitelaw

I would prefer not to publish the names of the persons in question but I am writing to the the right hon. Member to give him the information.

The investigating officer asked to consider one of these cases was Detective Chief Superintendent Proven Sharpe, the then head of the CID in Devon and Cornwall constabulary. The decision that the evidence in the case was not such as to justify any special action was taken not by him, but by the Home Office which had the benefit both of his report and of the views of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not consider that the two cases were of a nature that requires their reconsideration in the light of the recent judgment in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland.

Mr. Ashley

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of those convicted after trials in which Dr. Clift had given evidence; and if he will include the name of the convicted person's solicitors.

Mr. Whitelaw

Dr. Clift joined the forensic science service in 1953. It would not be practicable to compile the requested information now.

Mr. Ashley

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department at which forensic science laboratory Dr. Clift was working when he gave evidence in the cases of Messrs. Morgan, Brown and Cowley and of Mr. Preece whose convictions were subsequently quashed; and in what year Dr. Clift gave evidence in the trials that led to conviction of Messrs. Morgan, Brown and Cowley and Mr. Preece.

Mr. Whitelaw

Dr. Clift was working at the Chorley forensic science laboratory when he gave evidence at the trial of Mr. Preece in 1973, and at the Harrogate forensic science laboratory when he gave evidence at the trial of Messrs. Morgan, Brown and Cowley in 1975.

Mr. Ashley

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the forensic science laboratories at which Dr. Clift has worked, giving for each the dates when he was there and an estimate of the number of cases he dealt with.

Mr. Whitelaw

The dates of Dr. Clift's service and the forensic science laboratories at which he has worked are as follows:

  • May 1953-May 1954—Wakefield
  • May 1954-December 1954—Harrogate
  • January 1955-December 1970—Preston
  • December 1970-June 1974—Chorley
  • June 1974-June 1976—Harrogate
  • June 1976-September 1977—Birmingham

Dr. Clift was involved in about 250 cases in the period he was at the Birmingham laboratory. I regret that it is not possible to estimate accurately the number of cases that he handled at the other laboratories.

Mr. Ashley

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to investigate the cases Dr. Clift may have been involved with when he was at forensic science laboratories other than Birmingham.

Mr. Whitelaw

I do not contemplate such a general inquiry. I explained the reason for my decision in a letter I sent to the right hon. Member on 23 June.

Mr. Ashley

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report details of the quality assurance scheme that has been introduced by the forensic science department of the Home Office; and whether the development of the scheme is any way connected with the suspension of Dr. Clift.

Mr. Whitelaw

Formal schemes of quality assurance have operated in forensic science laboratories since 1969. Therefore their introduction had nothing to do with the matter referred to. However, the schemes have been kept under review and developed in the light of experience. A notable development was the creation in June 1977 of posts of assistant director in laboratories with the responsibilities for quality control set out in (1), (2) and (4) following.

Currently the schemes are organised as follows:

  1. (1) the director of each laboratory is responsible for overall quality control in his laboratory; additionally an assistant director is specifically responsible for auditing laboratory performance and reporting to the director;
  2. (2) such audit reports are discussed with heads of departments who take any remedial action needed;
  3. (3) all members of staff bear a corporate responsibility for matters relating to the performance of their department and the laboratory as a whole; and any officer who becomes aware of irregularities in procedure should bring them to notice;
  4. (4) the assistant director is responsible for ensuring that internal quality control exercises are organised, including the 393 monitoring of reports to courts;
  5. (5) the Central Research Laboratory is responsible for preparing test exhibits to be inserted overtly and covertly into the normal work of laboratories;
  6. (6) under the controller, a deputy director at the Forensic Science Headquarters in London is responsible for oversight of these arrangements, for co-ordination and monitoring of test results, and for the initiation of any corrective procedures that may be necessary.