View source for Frank Skuse

'''Frank Skuse''' (born ca. 1934)<ref name=H2/> is a British former [[forensic scientist]] for the North West Forensic Laboratories based in [[Chorley]], [[Lancashire]]. His flawed conclusions, eventually discredited, contributed to the convictions of [[Judith Ward]] and the [[Birmingham Six]].<ref>The Birmingham Framework – Six Innocent Men Framed for the Birmingham Bombings by Fr [[Denis Faul]] and Fr Raymond Murray (1976).<!-- ISSN/ISBN needed, if any --></ref>
Others who claimed they were wrongfully convicted on Skuse's evidence include [[Pat "the Cope" Gallagher#Family|Ann Gillespie]], a native of Donegal, who served almost 10 years of a 15-year sentence for conspiracy and explosive charges after a bomb exploded in a home she and her sister were visiting in Manchester.<ref name=ST>"I don't want English pardon", ''[[The Sunday Times]]'', 27 November 2005.</ref>
==Summerland==
As an employee of the Home Office North-West forensic science laboratory, Skuse helped investigate the [[Summerland Fire]]. He concluded that the fire had started in a plastic mini-golf hut.<ref>[[The Guardian]], ''Clear advice on Oroglas from America'', 21 November 1973.</ref>
==Judith Ward==
Skuse used the [[Griess test]] in which the presence of [[nitrite|NO<sub>2</sub><sup>−</sup>]] (nitrite ions) is detected in a sample by formation of a red [[azo dye]]. He used the extraction solvent [[diethyl ether|ether]]. He analysed samples from Ward using [[thin layer chromatography]] in addition to the Griess test.<ref name="expwit">{{cite web|url=http://netk.net.au/UK/Schurr.pdf|title= Expert Witnesses And The Duties Of Disclosure & Impartiality: The Lessons Of The IRA Cases In England|accessdate=2019-07-05|first=Beverley|last=Schurr|website=NetK.net.au|publisher=NSW Legal Aid Commission|date=1993}}</ref>
==Birmingham Six==
Skuse used the results of the Griess test to claim that Patrick Hill and William Power had handled explosives. [[Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry]] tests at a later date were negative for Power and contradicted the initial results for Hill.<ref name="expwit"/>
Skuse's 99% certainty that Power and Hill had explosives traces on their hands was fundamentally opposed by defence expert Dr Hugh Kenneth Black [[Royal Institute of Chemistry|FRIC]] (ex HM Chief Inspector of Explosives, Home Office). Skuse's evidence and testimony were preferred by [[Nigel Bridge, Baron Bridge of Harwich|The Hon. Mr Justice Bridge]], the trial judge.<ref>R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 [[Criminal Appeal Reports|Cr.App.R.]] 287.</ref>
==Questions of competence==
In 1981 and 1982 line managers at Chorley forensic science laboratory referred to a deterioration in the performance of Skuse and in January 1983 he was removed from reporting cases to court.<ref name=H1>[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1988/mar/17/dr-frank-skuse HC Deb 17 March 1988 vol 129 cc1209-10], api.parliament.uk; accessed 6 April 2017.</ref>
In October 1985 a [[World in Action]] documentary ''In The Interests of Justice'' concluded the real [[Birmingham pub bombings|Birmingham pub bombers]] had gone free.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081022023422/http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/402590 ''World in Action: In The Interests of Justice'' (1985)], bfi.org.uk; accessed 6 April 2017.</ref> Days after the TV programme, the Home Office retired Skuse,<ref name=NS>''[[New Scientist]]'', 16 February 1991.</ref> aged 51, from the Civil Service on the grounds of "limited effectiveness".<ref name=H2>[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1990/jun/12/birmingham-pub-bombings HC Deb 12 June 1990 vol 174 cc261-70], api.parliament.uk, 12 June 1990.</ref>
Throughout the following year 350 of Skuse's cases, dating back to 1966, were re-examined by the Laboratory Director.<ref name=H1/> On 1 December 1986, another "World in Action" documentary: ''A Surprise Witness'' made public the doubts about Skuse's methods.<ref name=H1/><ref>University of Hull Catalog] DMU/1 ''Birmingham Six Case Papers''; accessed 28 August 2017.</ref> Skuse was subsequently portrayed by actor [[David Ryall]] in the 1990 [[docudrama]] ''Who Bombed Birmingham?'' <ref>[http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//GranadaProgs/1990/03/28/115410001/?s=bombings ITN Source] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019111826/http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITVProgs/1992/01/07/Y05870109/|date=19 October 2013}}</ref>
==Appeals==
===Birmingham Six appeal===
In 1991, The Court of Appeal stated that the Griess test should only be used as a gateway or preliminary test and that:<blockquote>Dr Skuse's conclusion was wrong, and demonstrably wrong, judged even by the state of forensic science in 1974.<ref>R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 53-54.</ref></blockquote>
[[Sodium hydroxide|Caustic soda]] is used to break down the molecule of [[nitroglycerine]] to produce nitrite ions. The concentration is crucial to the test. If Skuse had used a dilute solution as he claimed, the test would react positive only on hands dripping with nitroglycerine,<ref>R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 297.</ref> which was an absurdity.<ref>R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 298.</ref> A stronger solution would react positive to any number of chemicals. Contaminants suggested included laboratory detergents used to wash the test containers and some soaps and [[lacquer]]s, as well as the [[nitrocellulose]] polymer used on playing cards.<ref>{{cite book|last=Mullin|first=Chris|author-link=Chris Mullin (politician)|title=Error of Judgement|year=1990|edition=3rd|publisher=Poolbeg|isbn= 1-85371-090-3|pages=168–169}}</ref>
===[[Judith Ward]] appeal===
In 1993, The Court of Appeal stated:<ref>R v Ward (1993) 96 Cr.App.R. 1.</ref>{{cquote|there is...impressive...expert opinion...that Dr Skuse's tests...were of no value in establishing contact between the appellant and...explosives...}}
[[Scientific evidence]] showed that the samples taken by Skuse were 57 hours after the last bomb, and as such there could be no suggestion of explosives on Ward's hands.<ref name="expwit"/> Skuse relied on one TLC test spot which was not pink, causing the judges to question his handling of the Griess test as well.{{citation needed|date=April 2017}}
==Libel==
The successful appeals ended [[sub judice]] issues. In March 1993, Skuse, wishing to prove he had not negligently misrepresented to the court, won an appeal allowing him to sue [[Granada TV]] for libel over the ''World in Action'' programmes. The action was partly funded by Sir [[James Goldsmith]].<ref name=Indy>"Pub blasts scientist drops libel action", The Independent; 18 October 1994.</ref><ref>"Skuse wins right to sue", ''The Times'', 31 March 1993.</ref> he sued [[ITV Granada|Granada]] using the defence that it was possible for someone to be wrong without being [[negligent]].<ref>"Birmingham Six scientist says he has new evidence", ''The Times'', 5 October 1994.</ref>
The libel action was dropped in October 1994 following attempts by scientists on both sides to reproduce the tests Skuse carried out. No damages or costs were awarded. Ian McBride, producer of the 1985 programme, stated "We stand by our programme".<ref name=Indy/> Skuse's total legal bill was estimated at £290,000<ref>[https://archive.today/20121209184906/http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fMIV7Oa8LDAJ:www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode%3D156830%26sectioncode%3D7+Frank+Skuse&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=uk It could be you: a sure-fire way to lose a million], ''Times Higher Education'', 24 March 2000.</ref> In May 1995, his solicitor, [[Peter Carter-Ruck]], commenced proceedings for £130,000 in unpaid fees.<!-- results? --><ref>"Scientist sued", ''The Independent'', 27 May 1995.</ref>
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Skuse, Frank}}
[[Category:British forensic scientists]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:1930s births]]
[[Category:Place of birth missing (living people)]]
[[Category:Date of birth missing (living people)]]