The Criminal Appeal Court has rejected the argument by Mr Megrahi's legal team that it is incompetent for the Advocate General for Scotland on behalf of the UK Government to claim public interest immunity in Scottish legal proceedings where the Lord Advocate declines to do so. The court held that, under the law governing devolution to Scotland, it must be permissible for a UK Government departments to claim PII in Scottish proceedings, just as the Lord Advocate could do on their behalf prior to devolution. For the full text of the court's judgment, see
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC15.html
This is the outcome that I predicted in respect of this issue: see
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/third-procedural-hearing-much-as.html
The court has ordered further argument on whether it should compel disclosure of the document notwithstanding the UK Foreign Secretary's claim of PII. A possibility that has been canvassed is that it should be handed over, not to Megrahi's lawyers, but to a specially appointed independent counsel. This is a mechanism sometimes adopted in England in terrorism cases, but it has not heretofore been resorted to in Scotland.
Here are the reports about the court's decision from the websites of The Scotsman and the BBC:
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Appeal-setback-for-Lockerbie-bomber.3856346.jp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7283139.stm
You write here: "This is the outcome that I predicted in respect of this issue"
ReplyDeleteYou waffle on your predictions. Previously you wrote:
"(my prediction here is that the court will order the document to be made available to Megrahi’s lawyers)." at
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/third-procedural-hearing-much-as.html
It seems your theories and "predictions" are as well founded as Megrahi's appeal; complete and unfounded bunk!
What you quote is my prediction in respect of the second issue (on which the court has ordered further argument). What I said in relation to the issue of the competency of the Advocate General's claim for PII was
ReplyDelete"my prediction is that the court will rule in favour of the competency of the Advocate General’s plea".
If you are going to criticise my accuracy, you should at least try to get your facts right.
I was referring to your comment:
ReplyDelete"(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 court did NOT order the document to be made available to the appellant. Thus, your "prediction" is, as previously noted, inaccurate.
The court has not yet reached a decision on whether to order the disclosure of the document. It has ordered further argument on that issue. My prediction will not turn out to be inaccurate unless and until the court refuses to order disclosure. Is that so difficult for you to understand?
ReplyDelete