Interim release is usually only granted where a prisoner's appeal appears to have a serious prospect of success.
In Mr Megrahi's case, the SCCRC decided after three years of scrutiny that his trial might have been a miscarriage of justice. Against that finding it does not look as if his petition for interim release could have failed to meet that criterion.
The possibilities of further offending or of absconding in this case are reduced almost to the absurd by the pernicious mix of a deadly illness, and the high public profile which this man endures.
The briefest look at the actions of the Libyan regime over the last 8 years or so indicates that any inappropriate or clandestine intervention on their part would be totally illogical and extremely counterproductive to their recent progress internationally.
It is difficult therefore to see what justification there could be for today's decision.
It is of course true that with so many victims' relatives involved there would have been harsh criticism from some had he been released, and for some of those it would have caused real distress.
It has however never been a goal of our group to seek revenge, and the refusal of a return to his family for a dying man, whose verdict is not even yet secure, looks uncomfortably like either an aspect of revenge or perhaps timidity.
It seems tragic that Scottish justice has missed a golden opportunity to display mercy in a situation where it has been unable to complete the appeal process within a reasonable time frame. It must bear some responsibility for the dilemmas posed by having a dying man in its custody, whose guilt or innocence it still has not finally decided.
Prime Minister William Gladstone's words "justice delayed is justice denied" may come to have a terrible resonance for Mr Megrahi, and will now interminably stalk the future reputation of Scottish justice.
No doubt the prisoner will now apply to Kenny MacAskill for release on compassionate grounds. Personally I hope that he does, and that he succeeds. A mix of compassion and courage is required. Both Christian virtues I believe.
Dr Jim Swire UK Families-Flight 103
Mr Megrahi, winner is the truth !
ReplyDeleteThe second appeal judgement in the "Lockerbie Affair" will reveal the scandalous fraud against Libya: a clear and deliberate miscarriage of justice! (conspiracy against Libya)
That’s why the Crown is delaying and protracting their final decision ! Their only concern is how to back out of the affair and save the respectability of the Scottisch and British Legal System.
But their tactics to cover up the truth about the conspiracy against Libya will be in vain.
by Edwin and Mahnaz, Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland
For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of clarity - it has been clearly stated that one of the main causes of the extensive delay in preparing for the second appeal has been caused by the defence being granted permisssion to widen the scope of the appeal to include matters EXTRA to the original six grounds found by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
ReplyDeleteThis is their right and many (including myself) hope that the additional matters will provide many answers to many, many unanswered questions.
As someone who has ALWAYS believed in Megrahi's inncoence...I and many others, can't wait for the appeal to commence.
From yesterday's comments in court - their Lorships are being extremely careful, especially given the simple fact that none of those treating Megrahi for cancer seemed willing to give the court a 'definitive'timescale as to the potential progress of his cancer.
The emotive and sensational tsunami of stories in the media - seemingly discredited by facts stated in court, can't have helped Megrahi's petition.
What happens in the media and outside the court is all froth and wind... ebol can fantastise as much as he wants, but will he be coming to the second appeal to make his claims in correct English, before the court, on oath and subject to detailed examination and cross-examination.
(If the defence decide to call him!).
He would do well to remember (a) the comments about his evidence in Zeist and (b) the laws of contempt of court in Scotland, (c) as I urged him in 1999 from Zeist by telephone - he really should obtain independent legal advice by someone qualified in Scots Law and licenced by the Law Society of Scotland and (d) he should, at all times (in and/or out of a Scottish Court) have a fully-qualified interpreter in view of hiscontinuing problems with English.