The Rachel Nickell case: Severe blow to future of profiling: Stephen Ward assesses the role of the psychologist after Mr Justice Ognall's ruling

AT THE end of his judgment freeing the man accused of murdering Rachel Nickell, Mr Justice Ognall delivered a broadside which is likely to keep psychological profiling out of court for years.

The outcome was welcomed by some psychologists who have grown increasingly worried at the spread and growth of profiling.

The judge said: 'The notion of psychological profiling in any circumstances as proof of identity is redolent of considerable danger.

'I don't wish to give encouragement to investigating or prosecuting authorities to seek to construct or supplement a case on this kind of basis.'

Even if a particular use of a profile were not seen as unfair, as in the Nickell case, it was questionable whether it would be admissible as expert evidence at all, he warned. Expert evidence, in his opinion, needed to be based on something which had general acceptance in a profession.

Dr Barry Irving, a psychologist who works for the Police Foundation, welcomed the judge's remarks. 'Profiling can be useful in developing lines of inquiry, but it will never reach the probability 'beyond reasonable doubt' to be used in court,' he said.

Psychological profiling of offenders had been due to take a fall. An American concept used for more than 30 years, it was imported a decade ago, developed and endowed with almost mythical powers.

Police have called in pyschologists to help investigate many major crimes lacking an obvious perpetrator, such as a spouse or a man with a grudge.

The use of profiling reached new heights with the kidnapping of baby Abbie Humphreys from a hospital in Nottingham. According to many accounts of the case, the psychologist Paul Britton vitually led the police operation, not just telling police the likely traits of the kidnapper, but tailoring the release of information and scripting television appeals.

This week it went beyond assisting the investigation and into the courtroom itself as a claimed scientific basis for identifying a suspect.

The Home Office had already commissioned the Police Research Group to find out how widespread and how useful profiling was. Detailed questionnaires have been sent to all police forces.

There are broadly two camps among psychologists. One bases its help to police on a number of cases, attempting to construct a scientific analysis of the circumstances surrounding crimes and offenders. The other claims to analyse the mind of a particular offender, based on the psychologist's experience.

Professor David Canter, head of the Investigative Psychology Unit at Liverpool University, is in the first camp. Investigative psychology uses 200 to 300 criteria, such as whether and how the hands of the victim were tied, or the precise nature of the wounds.

Professor Canter said the psychologist might never be used in court, because evidence of similarities would be so clearly defined that an expert witness would not be required to explain its significance to a jury.

Mike Berry, a clinical psychologist at the Ashworth Hospital in Merseyside, who has been drawing up psychological profiles for police forces for a decade and is currently working on three murders and a serial rape case, said the main benefit was in narrowing down the list of suspects. 'A murder inquiry costs pounds 30,000 a day. If I can reduce the workload by a day, I save them a lot of money,' he said.

He said his profiles had been part of prospective prosecution cases, but he had never appeared in court.

Paul Britton, the psychologist in the Nickell case, was unavailable for comment yesterday. He had been called in to a new murder inquiry.