Public Prosecution Service V. Mckee Case Summary
The Public Prosecution Service v. William Elliot and Robert McKee is a case relating to fingerprint evidence that was ruled inadmissible due to unlawful means of evidence collection. This caused dispute over the validity of the inadmissibility submission by the defence counsel, however, I believe the fingerprint evidence was rightfully dismissed from the court.
On October 6th 2007, William Elliot and Robert McKee were arrested for the theft of building materials on the premises of Aluminum & Plastic Systems. The defendants were found in a Ford van parked nearby, but claimed to be in the area innocently. Physical evidence recovered from the van was seized, along with the van itself, for forensic examination. Among the evidence collected was …show more content…
The individual would coat the finger pads in an ink-like substance and roll them onto the form. This was the standard method that had been used for many years in their jurisdiction. As new technology became available, new fingerprinting methods were developed, and so multiple revisions were made to the Code of Practice under the Act of 1984, which applied to England and Wales. At the time of the two suspects’ arrest, Code D 4(A) was relevant to fingerprint evidence collection in connection with a criminal investigation and stated that:
“References to ‘fingerprints’ mean any record, produced by any method, of the skin pattern and other physical characteristics of features of a person’s: (i) fingers; or (ii) palms.”
Code D 4.5 of the Code of Practice stated that “A person’s fingerprints may be taken, as above, electronically”, however, does not specify the method of which finger and palm prints are to be collected. Changes to the 1984 Act were introduced to Northern Ireland through changes to the 1989 Order, but this often occurred some time after. Thus Northern Ireland found itself falling behind the rest of the UK. This may have caused confusion among law enforcers regarding which methods of fingerprinting can be used and will be acceptable in court. I believe, however, that changes to the law that directly relate to the duties of police officers should be followed
On October 6th 2007, William Elliot and Robert McKee were arrested for the theft of building materials on the premises of Aluminum & Plastic Systems. The defendants were found in a Ford van parked nearby, but claimed to be in the area innocently. Physical evidence recovered from the van was seized, along with the van itself, for forensic examination. Among the evidence collected was …show more content…
The individual would coat the finger pads in an ink-like substance and roll them onto the form. This was the standard method that had been used for many years in their jurisdiction. As new technology became available, new fingerprinting methods were developed, and so multiple revisions were made to the Code of Practice under the Act of 1984, which applied to England and Wales. At the time of the two suspects’ arrest, Code D 4(A) was relevant to fingerprint evidence collection in connection with a criminal investigation and stated that:
“References to ‘fingerprints’ mean any record, produced by any method, of the skin pattern and other physical characteristics of features of a person’s: (i) fingers; or (ii) palms.”
Code D 4.5 of the Code of Practice stated that “A person’s fingerprints may be taken, as above, electronically”, however, does not specify the method of which finger and palm prints are to be collected. Changes to the 1984 Act were introduced to Northern Ireland through changes to the 1989 Order, but this often occurred some time after. Thus Northern Ireland found itself falling behind the rest of the UK. This may have caused confusion among law enforcers regarding which methods of fingerprinting can be used and will be acceptable in court. I believe, however, that changes to the law that directly relate to the duties of police officers should be followed