The Independent today runs an article by Diplomatic Editor, Anne Penketh, in its series The Big Question. It is headed 'Is the West right to resume friendly relations with Gaddafi's Libya?' It contains the following paragraph:
'What about Lockerbie?
'The Libyan national who is serving a life sentence for the Lockerbie bombing, the former intelligence agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, has been given leave to appeal his sentence after top secret documents were passed to Britain by a foreign power. Questions remain about who placed the bomb and what was the motivation for blowing up the Pan Am aircraft, which took place five months after the US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner. With conspiracy theories abounding, some now say that Iran masterminded the Lockerbie bombing, while Megrahi's defence lawyers have in the past pointed the finger at a Palestinian group that operated in Germany at the time of the bombing.'
This is, of course, wildly inaccurate. What Megrahi is appealing is his conviction, not his sentence. And his new appeal comes not because top secret documents have been passed to the UK Government, but because the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found that the conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. One of the six reasons for so finding was that documents from a foreign power, which could have helped the defence and which were already in the hands of the Crown at the time of his trial, were not disclosed to the defence. But by far the most important reason given by the SCCRC was that, on the evidence led at the trial it was strongly arguable that no reasonable court could have properly concluded that Megrahi was the purchaser in Malta of the items that allegedly accompanied the bomb in the brown Samsonite suitcase. This is the crux of the matter and is the real basis upon which Megrahi's new appeal should be allowed.
'On the evidence led at the trial it was strongly arguable that no reasonable court could have properly concluded that Megrahi was the purchaser in Malta of the items that allegedly accompanied the bomb in the brown Samsonite suitcase."
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that the verdict reached not by one judge but three was unreasonable?
I understand that judges at the time of the Lockerbie trial were nominated by the Lord Advocate.
I'd like to know who appointed/nominated the Lord Advocate at the time of the trial.
It is the case that the SCCRC finding implies that the three-judge court may have reached a factual conclusion that no reasonable court could have reached on that evidence; and that is certainly one of the grounds of appeal being advanced in the new appeal.
ReplyDeleteBefore 2002 Scottish judges were nominated for appointment by the Lord Advocate.
The Lord Advocate is, amongst other things, the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Government. He or she is chosen by the First Minister. At the time of the Lockerbie trial, the First Minister was Donald Dewar and the Lord Advocate was Colin Boyd QC (who had only recently succeeded Lord Hardie of Blackford QC).
Dear Diplomatic Editor, Anne Penket,
ReplyDeletedo not forget, the questions remain about who placed the alleged bomb in the MaltaAir and the wilfuhl involving Mr Abdelbaset al Megrahi in the invent Malta-story, starts with the manipulated MST-13 Timer-Fragment (PT/35), as a conspiracy against Libya...
This was the most important reason, as point 5, given by the SCCR-Commission for a new appeal.
I'm sorry my english.
Thank you for the information.
ReplyDeleteGerald James in his speech at the Conference of the Environmental Law Center on his experiences, the Scott Inquiry, the British Legal System stated
'In the course of my own experiences I took considerable note and interest in parallel cases like Matrix Churchill, Ordtec, Euromac, Atlantic Commercial, BNJ, SRC, Forgemasters, Walter Somers, Polly Peck, Foxley Ferranti/ISC, BCCI, Maxwell etc. All these cases and others and the Astra case involved the gross abuse of power by Government and its agencies and servants, concealment of key evidence, intimidation, threats, false and selective prosecutions, manipulation of evidence, perversion of the course of justice. It has also been clearly demonstrated that there is no separation of powers within the United Kingdom. Key legal appointments like Lord Chancellor and attorney General, Solicitor General are wholly political. It has also been clearly demonstrated that Parliament has no control of knowledge of events and that a vast apparatus of permanent unelected Government exists. This permanent Government consists of senior civil servants, intelligence and security officers, key figures in certain city and financial institutions (including Lloyds of London), key industrialists and directors of major monopolistic companies, senior politicians. The Lord Chancellors Office which is responsible for the appointment of Judges, Clerks of the House of Commons select Committees and approval of Chairmen of such committees and the approval of the Queen’s Counsel, holds a total control of the legal administrative framework and has strong connections to the security and intelligence services. . The last Clerk to the Crown in Chancery was Sir Thomas Legg, KCB QC who had strong links to the intelligence and security establishment and who was responsible for allocating Judges to controversial trials of a political nature where the “national interest” and “national security” (those much abused phrases) were involved, ie the Ponting Case.
The real framework which secretly controls our lives is little understood or studies even by those who work within its musty and murky depths. It has only recently emerged that Appeal Court Judges are secretly briefed making appearances before such luminaries a sham and a joke.