the first statutory extension of the Ombudsman's remit since 1967, the Office was permitted to investigate the actions of consular staff abroad in their duties towards United Kingdom citizens. Clothier also considered that in instances where it was questionable whether an investigation should be undertaken or not, that he would lean in favour of the complainant. Even so, if the complainant was unable to produce prima facie evidence of maladministration, Clothier was bound to reject the complaint. Parliamentary investigations Occasional reports were issued under s10(4) Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 alongside the regularly quarterly and annual reports. An important report concerned the illegal occupation of Government land in Worcestershire by forty gypsy families in 1978. They were joined by families of Irish travellers and serious damage to Government-owned buildings occurred. Two farmers complained to have been affected by this, and their complaints were referred to Clothier. He found that the Government was not to blame for the original occupation and that the decision to refrain from eviction had been reasonable in the circumstances. He nevertheless found that officials were unable to make a decision to bring the situation under control, that Ministers were not brought into consultation at an early enough stage and that it took too long for an agreement to be reached on the decision to be taken. Clothier was therefore able to attribute part of the losses incurred by the farmers to maladministration and considered it appropriate for the departments concerned to offer ex gratia compensation. Another significant case was that of John Preece, who complained of a four-year delay by the Home Office and the Scottish Home and Health Department in reviewing his conviction for murder following the suspension from duty of the forensic scientist who had been an expert witness at his trial. Clothier observed that, although it was not the duty of the Home Office to actively look for miscarriages of justice, the circumstances of the case made the matter wholly exceptional. Clothier concluded that a miscarriage of justice where a person loses his or her liberty was one of the gravest matters which can occupy the attention of a civilised society. An exceptional effort was necessary to remedy the consequences of what he described as a pollution of justice at its source. Clothier noted sadly that when the Home Office became aware of shortcomings which struck at the very roots of justice it did