From what has appeared in the media about the third procedural hearing in the new Lockerbie appeal, it would appear that the arguments were much as had been anticipated in this blog on 19 February.
The most interesting feature of the proceedings is the confirmation of the hints given at the second procedural hearing that if it were up to the Lord Advocate, the head of the prosecution system in Scotland (and a member of the Scottish Government) the document could be made available to Megrahi’s legal team. It is the United Kingdom Government, in the shape of the Foreign Office (represented in Scottish legal proceedings by the Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC) that is claiming that the document should remain secret on the ground of public interest immunity. According to the Advocate General, the Foreign Secretary is of the view that non-disclosure of the document is required in the interests of national security. I may perhaps be forgiven for commenting that, in the light of the UK Government’s resort to “national security” arguments in its attempts to prevent disclosure of material pertinent to the decision to embark upon the Iraq invasion and in its approach to internal security measures in the “war” against terrorism, confidence in the UK Government’s assessment of the UK national interest must be pretty low.
The Court of Appeal, which has reserved its judgment (“made avizandum” in Scottish legal parlance) will now have to decide (a) whether it is competent for the UK Government to raise the issue of public interest immunity in Scottish criminal proceedings when the Scottish public prosecutor chooses not to do so (my prediction is that the court will rule in favour of the competency of the Advocate General’s plea) and (b) whether the “national security” argument outweighs the public interest in an accused person’s having access to all material that might assist in his defence (my prediction here is that the court will order the document to be made available to Megrahi’s lawyers).
The Guardian's account of the proceedings is to be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/21/lockerbie.scotland
And
The Telegraph's is at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/20/nlockerbie120.xmlFor the serious Scottish media’s accounts of the procedural hearing, see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7254822.stm
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2060826.0.Westminster_meddling_in_Megrahi_case.phphttp://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Legal-row-breaks-out-over.3799673.j
The following comment comes from the distinguished Berlin journalist, Bo Adam, who tried, without success, to post it himself:
ReplyDeleteAs a simple minded person who already some years ago almost gave up to trust logic, fairness and impartiality of the Scottish judiciary I again am quite irritated by the latest twists in the Lockerbie case. As far as I can see the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has seen the notorious document that was not handed over to the defense of Mr. Megrahi during the trial. As I understand it the SCCRC has assessed that the fact that the document was not handed over "might" have been a miscarriage of justice.
Well, what else? It is as simple as that: The Crown has the advantage of being the master of the investigation. To create equivalence of Crown and defence it is indispensable that the latter is informed about all documents that matter in the case. And be it the telephone directory of Greater London.
So the only conclusion that can be drawn from all that is that the whole trial against Mr. Megrahi is null and void. It is a matter of principle. It cannot be allowed that the Crown hides anything. Otherwise it would happen again and again. It would be the end of any legal system.
And now the London Government argues to have the right to hide the notorious document further on because its revelation allegedly threatens essential state interests? So it was not the Greater London telephone directory but obviously something more essential to the case . So, at the time the Crown had a look at the document without having secured that the document was to be handed over to the defense they were guilty of miscarriage of justice. When they decided to hold back the document without announcing that they were guilty of conscious miscarriage of justice. As I understand it they not only deceived the defense but also the judges.
It may be that the government now has the right to claim PII - but not to the disadvantage of the appellant.
So the only the price for that government policy must be a clear cut Scottish verdict: The trial against Mr. Megrahi cannot be reviewed due to the obstruction/intervention by the British government and so the cased must be closed, Mr. Megrahi immediately has to be set free and is to be seen as an innocent man further on.
But, OK, I have seen so many flaws in this case, so I have only little hope that justice is done.