HC Deb 15 July 1981 vol 8 cc419-20W
Mr. Ashley

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply of 1 July, whether the report by the senior Home Office forensic scientist which cast doubts on the conclusions related to the forensic evidence in the case of M. Preece, is the consideration of the findings of the examination by Miss Mr. Pereira by the Controller of Forensic Science which was concluded by early May 1980, or if it is a later report.

Mr. Younger

The reference in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman on 1 July 1981—[Vol. 7, c.405]—to a report by a senior Home Office forensic scientist which cast doubts on certain of the conclusions reached in the scientific evidence in Mr. Preece's case was a reference to the report by Miss Pereira which was sent to my Department by the Home Office in March 1980.

Mr. Ashley

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his reply of 1 July, whether Mr. Preece's solicitors, when in June 1979 they wrote alleging an excess of zeal on the part of Dr. Clift, either directly or indirectly suggested that his case should be reopened; and when Mr. Preece's solicitors solicitors were informed in April 1980 of the investigation that had taken place since their allegations were made, whether they were informed that Mr. Preece's case would not be reopened.

Mr. Younger

On 28 June 1979 solicitors acting for Mr. Preece wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions referring to investigations of evidence given by Dr. Clift and to his evidence in Mr. Preece's case, and asking whether the investigations went as far back as 1973 and whether the Director had any information about the evidence that might assist Mr. Preece. The Home Office replied on 7 August 1979 that the investigations had not gone so far back as 1973 but that the forensic science service was now re-examing the work done on Mr. Preece's case.

On 28 April 1980 the Home Office wrote to the solicitors informing them of that Department's conclusions as a result of this re-examination. That letter did not state that the case would not be reopened. It did, however, inform the solicitors, who were a different firm from that to which the previous decision was conveyed in 1978, that the case had previously been considered by the Secretary of State for Scotland who had found no grounds for any action on his part.