§ Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if, when it was decided to reopen Mr. Preece's case and to refer it to the Court of Appeal after previouces decisions not to do so, it was because further evidence had emerged or because there was a different evaluation of evidence that had previously been considered;
(2) if he will publish in the Official Report the number of times Mr. Preece's solicitors made representations for his case to be reopened, the number of times they were rejected, by whom and for what reason;
(3) if, in his inquiry into the matter, he will seek to ascertain whether at the time that the requests from Mr. Preece's solicitors for a reopening of his cases were rejected by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, it was 405W known that the blood group of Mr. Preece and the murdered woman were the same, and that Dr. Clift had not informed the court that convicted Mr. Preece of this fact.
§ Mr. YoungerMr. Preece's solicitors were in touch with my Department and the Home Office on several occasions from June 1978 onwards about the implication of Dr. Clift having given evidence at the trial; but only two formal requests were received asking for the case to be referred to the High Court of Justiciary for re-examination. The initial request dated 23 June 1978 was refused because there were no sufficient grounds at that time for such a reference. After further correspondence with another firm of solicitors they made the second formal request on 28 August 1980 and this was accepted in the light of a report by a senior Home Office forensic scientist who had examined the forensic evidence offered in Mr. Preece's case and cast doubts on certain of the conclusions reached. The case was accordingly referred to the High Court of Justiciary on 17 February 1981. Information regarding the murdered woman's blood group was not known to the Scottish Office until the forensic scientist's report was received in March 1980.