Today's procedural hearing related to the appellant's two petitions for access to material used at the Zeist trial, or referred to in material used at the trial. In respect of one petition, concerning documents and photographs relevant to the (alleged) identification of Abdelbaset Megrahi by the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, the Crown (represented by Ronnie Clancy QC) intimated that it was no longer opposing the appellant's application to be allowed to show the originals to an expert psychologist. The court accordingly granted the prayer of the petition.
As regards the second petition, relating to the appellant's claim to be allowed access to documents and productions used at the Zeist trial (and to other material referred to in such documents), and to be permitted to subject them to forensic scientific examination, the Crown's opposition was maintained. However, after an adjournment of twenty minutes, the court (Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lords Kingarth and Eassie) granted the prayer of the petition, subject to satisfactory arrangements being agreed between the Crown and the appellant's representatives for the security of the productions during the forensic examination.
The fact that the court, without reserving judgement, granted the application makes it unnecessary for me to try to explain the convoluted grounds on which the Crown opposed the application. This is something that (despite having taken ten pages of notes during the hearing) I would have found it difficult to do for a (predominantly) lay readership. Perhaps the most important aspect of today's hearing is the ease and speed with which the court dismissed the Crown's submissions and granted the appellant's requests.
[For some light relief, why not glance at this piece from Radar?]
I'm glad the applications were successful. However, in UK government sensitive cases it's always important that the proceedings look reasonably fair. So I wonder if the prosecutions objections were a put up job to make it look as if the judge is not totally biased when he refuses the disclosure that is under PII.
ReplyDeleteYou could be right. But my best guess is still that the court will order some form of dislosure of the documents to the defence (and not simply to security-vetted special counsel). But I wouldn't be TOO surprised if I'm proved wrong.
ReplyDelete