The Lockerbie Case: Dr Swire on the UK Foreign Office's PII claim

Saturday 23 February 2008

Dr Swire on the UK Foreign Office's PII claim

In today’s issue of The Herald there is a letter from Dr Jim Swire (who attended Wednesday’s procedural hearing, as he had also the previous two). He calls on the UK Government to cease objecting on “national security” grounds to disclosure to Megrahi’s legal team of the document emanating from a foreign country (relating to timers) that was in the hands of the Crown before the Zeist trial but which was not divulged to the defence even though (according to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) it could have helped Megrahi’s defence.

Dr Swire’s letter rehearses the problems that have always existed about the timer evidence at the Lockerbie trial, and suggests that the UK Government could have ulterior motives for not wishing this matter to be clarified (which release of the mysterious document might do).

For the full text of the letter, see

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2067864.0.Lockerbie_document_must_be_revealed.php

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments

Readers are invited to comment on blog posts. All comments require to be pre-moderated by me, and I shall reject all (a) that are not related to the Lockerbie disaster or (b) that fail to meet my -- perhaps idiosyncratic -- standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Comments will not be rejected simply because I disagree with them or because I, or other contributors, find them irritating. But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. I am perfectly relaxed about being sued in respect of material which I personally have posted -- but not in respect of material that others wish to post as comments and which, in any case, I often strongly disagree with.

Particularly during my sojourns in South Africa, it may not be possible for me to perform the moderation function speedily. I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions.