The Court of Appeal has called for an examination of the quality standards of fingerprint experts.

The court last week quashed the conviction of Peter Kenneth Smith from Nottinghamshire for the murder of his neighbour Hilda Owen in 2007, after doubt was cast on the reliability of the fingerprint evidence used against him in 2008.

In the judgment, Lord Justice Thomas raised a number of issues in relation to the training and quality of fingerprint experts, the procedures in place and the presentation of fingerprint evidence at court.

In particular, the court was concerned that fingerprint experts are not independent of police forces, and there is no opportunity for people to become fully qualified as fingerprint experts outside a police fingerprint bureau, which does not recognise qualifications obtained overseas.

It said: ‘It is essential for the administration of justice that there are independent ­persons expert in fingerprint examination.’

The court also criticised the quality of the reports provided, which lacked notes taken throughout examinations and reasons for conclusions, and said they ‘reflected standards that existed in other areas of forensic science some years ago’.

In making the comments, Lord Justice Thomas said none of the issues had been material to the decision reached on the safety of Smith’s conviction, adding: ‘This is one of the very few cases where fingerprint evidence has been challenged at a trial since 1999.’

He said there is a ‘real need’ for the points identified to be the subject of ‘wider examination’ by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Forensic Science Regulator and the recently established Fingerprint Quality Standards Specialist Group to ensure ‘common quality standards and a robust and accountable system’.

An ACPO spokeswoman said it would be considering the judgment and recommendations made in it.

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said: ‘The CPS is committed to the principle that the work of all expert witnesses should be independent, transparent and of the highest possible standard, as set out in our Guidance for Expert Witnesses.

'We are considering this judgment carefully.’

Smith faces a retrial at a date yet to fixed.