Here, reproduced with his permission, is the text of an e-mail sent earlier today by Patrick Haseldine to Professor Hans Köchler and myself:
Today I extracted from the FCO's Libya website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/libya?profile=intRelations&pg=4) the following section related to the Lockerbie bombing:
"The Lockerbie trial began on 3 May 2000. On 31 January 2001 Al-Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah not proven. Al-Megrahi subsequently appealed against his conviction. His appeal was refused on 14 March 2002.
On 23 September 2003 Al-Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for his conviction to be reviewed. On 28 June 2007 the Commission referred his case back to the High Court, allowing him to appeal against his conviction for a second time.
Trilateral talks began on 13 February 2001 to discuss how Libya could meet the Security Council’s remaining requirements. As a result of these talks, in August 2003 the UK tabled a resolution recommending that the Security Council lift UN sanctions. That resolution was passed by the Security Council on 12 September 2003."
On 10 July 2008 Prof. Black e-mailed the FCO pointing out that the verdict on Fhimah was in fact not guilty but the error has not yet been corrected (see Lockerbie verdict posted on Prof. Koechler's website http://i-p-o.org/Lockerbie_Verdict-31Jan2001.htm).
As regards the delay of over a year in arranging Mr Megrahi's second appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing, Prof. Black wrote an article on 17 July 2008 entitled 'Justice Delayed...', posing these two questions:
"Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?" (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/07/justice-delayed.html)
US and British diplomats (as I used to be) would probably deny that there has been a delay. Rather, they would euphemistically say it is a case of making haste slowly. I offer three reasons that might be seen, from an American perspective, to justify maintaining the slow progress in having Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction overturned:
1. The Lockerbie bombing took place during the Reagan/Bush Snr interregnum. President Bush Jr is unlikely to allow the case to unravel and the convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber to be acquitted before the new president gets sworn in next January.
2. PA103 relatives and US politicians (eg Senators Hillary Clinton and Frank Lautenberg) insist that Libya should pay a further $540 million in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation_from_Libya).
3. Lifting of UN Security Council sanctions against Libya hinged upon the payment of compensation for UTA772 as well as PA103 (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7868.doc.htm and http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/03/libyas-lockerbie-compensation-proposal.html) The US will doubtless want Libya to pay some or all of the $6 billion compensation for the UTA772 bombing before Mr Megrahi's appeal can be heard.
And finally here is a question from me: since the twentieth anniversary of the PA103 disaster is on 21 December 2008, will a future criminal prosecution (perhaps of apartheid South Africa) in respect of the Lockerbie bombing be ruled out by the 20-year statute of limitations?
[Note by RB: On one issue I can reassure Mr Haseldine. There is no statute of limitations applicable to common law crimes like murder in Scotland.]
It is unbelievable. Can one really have any confidence in that government Institution and its seriosity:
ReplyDeleteThe verdict in the case of Mr. Fhimah was not
NOT PROVEN
but
NOT GUILTY
Bo Adam
I would like to know if the money already paid to the Lockerbie victims will be paid back when Megrahi is released. If the appeal does not proceed on the basis that it cannot be fair, will this be enough to prove Libya did not carry out the bombing and have the victims' money returned to the country? Will it be enough for Libya and its citizens to sue the countries which implemented the sanctions, which caused the Libyan
ReplyDeletecitizens so much hardship?
"Seriosity"??? Buy a dictionary. Seriously.
ReplyDeleteThe sanctions came AFTER and as a result of the Libyan government's terrorist acts INCLUDING the bombing of PA 103
ReplyDeleteOK, I bought a dictionary. Do you agree that the Foreign Office needs more than that?
ReplyDeleteBo Adam
If you're asking about the U.S. as regards to needing "more than that", then the answer is absolutely. Rather a rhetorical question don't you think? Bush could use a dictionary too. Though I don't think he can read. So it won't do him much good.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Mr. Bush is concerned we should concede that he tried to learn reading at the Booker Elementary School a few years ago. There is a youtube video to prove it.
ReplyDeleteI meant the Foreign and commonwealth Office in London. Even without a dictionary I know the difference between not guilty and not proven in the Scottish legal system. And so should the FCO.
Bo Adam
I would like to know if the money already paid to the Lockerbie victims will be paid back when Megrahi is released. If the appeal does not proceed on the basis that it cannot be fair, will this be enough to prove Libya did not carry out the bombing and have the victims' money returned to the country? Will it be enough for Libya and its citizens to sue the countries which implemented the sanctions, which caused the Libyan
ReplyDeletecitizens so much hardship?
On the matter of whether Libya would seek repayment of the compensation paid to Lockerbie relatives if Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction were quashed, see the post "Saif on Lockerbie" on 9 December 2007 (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/12/saif-on-lockerbie_09.html).
ReplyDeleteI am personally convinced that the Libyans would not seek to recover from the relatives, but might well launch a damages claim against eg the United Kingdom and the United States, in which the damages claimed would include what Libya had paid out in compensation.
Pr Black writes
ReplyDeleteOn one issue I can reassure Mr Haseldine. There is no statute of limitations applicable to common law crimes like murder in Scotland.
But what would happen if someone involved in the crime was citizen of a country that recognizes such statute of limitations? Best.
If the non-Scottish accused person were being tried in Scotland (or, as at Zeist, under Scottish procedure) then the law and procedure applied would be Scottish. In criminal proceedings courts apply their national law and procedural rules, irrespective of the nationality of the accused.
ReplyDelete