The appellant’s legal team and the Advocate General (representing the UK Government) had been unable to agree the whole terms of a protocol governing the role and functions of a special (security-vetted) counsel to protect the interests of the appellant in relation to the document(s) in respect of which PII has been asserted. In particular, the appellant’s view was that, while the special advocate was to be appointed by the court, the appellant should be allowed to nominate him or her. The Advocate General, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC, appearing in person, took the view that while the appellant should be entitled to make representations specifying objections to the court’s choice, he should have no right to suggest who that counsel should be.
The other main divergence of view related to what relations should exist between the special counsel once appointed and the appellant’s regular legal team. The Advocate General contended that, after the special counsel had been given access to the document(s), there should be no contact between him or her and the appellant’s lawyers (or indeed between him or her and anyone other than the court and the Advocate General). Ms Scott contended that the recognised principles applicable in England to special counsel, namely “minimum derogation” from the normal rights of an accused person or appellant and “maximum participation” of the appellant’s chosen legal representatives should apply and that the special counsel, so long as he or she did not divulge the contents of the document(s) in respect of which PII was asserted, should be free to consult whomever he or she thought might be helpful in the performance of his/her function of protecting the interests of the appellant.
The court indicated that, after having considered the submissions of the parties, it would draft a protocol which would settle these issues of principle. The parties, at a hearing yet to be fixed, would be given an opportunity to make representations on matters of detail, but not on the principles enshrined therein.
The Reuters report of the proceedings can be read here.
The Scottish High Court at Edinburgh should have finally the courage and stand to the miscarriage of justice in the Lockerbie-Affair; and bring the true background of the deliberate delays on the table.
ReplyDeleteIt is a provocation for all innocently taken part ones and a dishonor for Scotland...
+++
Why did Margaret Scott QC make the request for the witnesses statements not earlier?
The defense has enough determining defence evidence from MEBO Ltd. to win Mr Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's second Appeal and to prove his innocence.
An examination of 1160 witnesses statements extends unnecessarily the time for the beginning of the appeal and increases excessively the process costs of the defence lawyers; everything at the expenses of Libya's and at the cost off Mr. Megrahi's health and freedom! Dubious...
We are neither pessimistic nor optimistic about Megrahi's appeal, but we are determined to reveal the Scottish Miscarriage of Justice with our exonerating evidence and thus help to rehabilitate Libya and give Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi his honour back.
We will prove that Libya and Mr Al Megrahi had absolutely nothing to do with the PanAm 103 bombing.
A revised judgement in favour of Libya and its official Mr. Megrahi will rise Libya's international reputation and the prestige of Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi and his son Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was a key figure in normalizing Libya's relations with the World and make the international community aware of the unjust UN-embargo against Libya and its people.
Merry Christmas
Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland