OBITUARY

Michael George Hall 1942-1999

The untimely death of Mike Hall on 11 November 1999 robbed forensic science of one of its most experienced doc- ument examiners and one of its most human characters.

Mike graduated in chemistry from Leicester University in 1964, and went straight from there to the Home Office forensic science laboratory in Cardiff. It was only shortly after the retirement from that lab of the late Wilson R Harrison, who had been the pioneer in the UK in establish- ing document examination, and handwriting identification in particular, as a reliable and respected branch of forensic science. Mike joined the fledgling documents division, working under Ronald Mitchell and Ron Page, and soon became enthusiastic for his speciality. He started reporting cases after what might now be regarded as an unduly short training period, but court appearances were frequent, and in the days before the C.J. Act of 1968, all committals were heard in full, and provided a stimulus for rapid learning. He soon realised that forensic work could only be done proper- ly by specialists who knew the subject thoroughly and com- bined their knowledge with a rational scientific approach. He was promoted to senior scientific officer in 1972.

Mike had a very practical approach to life, with little time for sentimentality, as he demonstrated in 1973 when the Documents Division, which by then had grown to seven, was transferred from Cardiff to Birmingham. In contrast to

the anger shown by other people involved (myself included), he accepted the move calmly and supervised many of the arrangements, which helped to make the trans- fer proceed smoothly. Once established in Birmingham, he developed an interest in the training of document examin- ers. He had plenty of opportunity to pursue this, as the Documents Division had always had a steady stream of vis- itors from overseas, coming to benefit from the division's expertise on courses of varying length. For Mike, these vis- itors were more than just part of a job; he took personal responsibility for them while they were in Birmingham and often invited them home to meet his family. The visitors were touched by this and some lasting friendships ensued. He also devised plans for improving the training of the Home Office's own document examiners, and the mainte- nance of standards of expertise, being closely involved in quality assurance trials from the outset. He saw the Diploma of the Forensic Science Society as a significant step towards a formal qualification for document exarnin- ers, and was one of the first to acquire it. Later, after a peri- od serving on the Council of the Society, he became an examiner for this diploma, and argued strongly that the highest standards should apply to it.

He was promoted in 1980 to principal scientific officer, and five years later became head of the Documents Division,

Science & Justice 2000; 40(2): 155-156 O The Forensic Science Society 2000 155

OBITUARY

which then comprised about a dozen scientists and a sup- porting photographic section which also served other divi- sions of the laboratory.

On first acquaintance, Mike could appear provocative, but this was his own way of getting to know people. He loved to stimulate discussions and would often provoke people just to get an argument going, possibly with an outrageous or politically incorrect statement. Harmless practical jokes were also part of his repertoire. But those who knew him also knew that there was no malice behind any of it. In pro- fessional matters integrity meant more than popularity. In discussions he would stand by his principles, and would sooner end a meeting without an agreement than compro- mise over an important matter. He had no time for dissem- blers, but those who were direct and open, and who gave of their best, would earn his respect and support.

When the Forensic Science Service became an executive agency in 1989, the changes proposed caused Mike great concern. He saw many of them as inimical to the principles he had held for so long, and eventually began to think that the only way to continue honourably would be in private practice. A number of others in the Documents Division had come to the same conclusion, and so in 1992 he and I resigned from the Agency to start a private forensic docu- ment examination business in direct competition. It was an

ERRATA

We apologise for an error published in 'Minimum lung function for breath alcohol testing using the Lion Alcolmeter SD-400' Science & Justice 1999; 39: 173-1 77. On page 174, second column, line 13, the sentence should now read, "Resistance was calculated from the pressure drop divided by the flow."

immense gamble but it paid off, and it was not long before the business could support several others.

Fate was to deal Mike a cruel blow at that time. Less than six months afterwards, he started to suffer severe pain in his joints, which turned out to be rheumatoid arthritis, and from then on he was never free of pain. Yet he continued to work full-time, and go to court. It would not be true to say that he did not complain: he did, vociferously! But he was never one to give in easily, and it was only on rare occasions that he had to have a day's sick leave. He seemed more deter- mined than ever to cany on directing the company which he had done so much to establish. As a director, he viewed the business as a long-term venture, and did not allow irnrnedi- ate problems to distract him unduly.

In the summer of 1999 he was clearly not well, and was found to be suffering from leukaemia. Treatment was start- ed immediately, and a good prognosis was given. But com- plications arose during his third course of chemotherapy, from which he was unable to recover. He is greatly missed by all his colleagues at Document Evidence and throughout the forensic science community. The Society expresses its condolences to his widow Gill, daughter Claire and son Patrick.

David Baxendale

We apologise for another error published in the Editorial, Science & Justice 2000; 40: 1. Page 1, column 2, line 11 should now read, "If the abbreviated training that the British Road Traffic Officers will go through, compared to the American DRE officers, means that their specificity for detecting impairment falls to below 95% then there will be even more false positives, i.e. even more irritated customers."

Science & Justice 2000; 40(2): 155-156