The appellant’s written Grounds of Appeal are not a public document. It follows that while the grounds are being discussed in court, those sitting in the public benches find it very difficult to follow the proceedings. These persons include representatives of the press, law students, humble bloggers and, by far the most important, relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. These last have expressed to me the deep sense of exclusion that they feel when numbered grounds of appeal are discussed while they themselves are in complete ignorance of what issues these numbered grounds relate to.
I appreciate that the Grounds of Appeal are a very lengthy document and contain legal argument as well as mere bald specification of appeal points. If it is thought undesirable that the document in this form be in the public domain, would it not be possible for a summary (perhaps confined to the headings and sub-headings of the various grounds) to be made public? This would be greatly appreciated by the relatives and would be of immense value to the press and to bloggers in their mission to provide accurate and useful information and commentary on the proceedings.
I respectfully invite the court and the parties to give consideration to this proposal.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Friday, 28 November 2008
Ninth (public) procedural hearing: second day (cont’d)
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 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.
Ninth (public) procedural hearing: second day
The High Court this morning announced its decisions on the matters ventilated at yesterday’s hearing.
The court accepted the prioritisation of grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant, and ordered a four-week hearing on grounds 1 and 2 (unreasonableness, on the evidence, of the verdict) to be held in the spring of 2009. Written notes of argument are to be lodged by the appellant six weeks before the date eventually fixed and by the Crown four weeks before. As suggested by Maggie Scott QC for the appellant, the next chapter to be argued will be those parts of ground of appeal 3 (fairness of the trial) that relate to Tony Gauci. The Crown was ordered to provide written answers to this ground of appeal (directed particularly to the appellant’s assertions of fact) within eight weeks from today. The court will then decide how long a hearing will need to be allocated and when that hearing should take place.
The court accepted undertakings from the Crown to hand over to the appellant’s legal team the bulk of the witness statements by 12 December. In respect of those few assessed by the Crown possibly to give rise to public interest immunity issues, the Crown would submit them as soon as possible to the Advocate General who would by 23 January 2009 determine which, if any, gave rise to national security or international relations concerns which the court would require to adjudicate upon. All the rest would be handed over to the appellant.
The Crown undertook to make available to the appellant within eight weeks the UK previous conviction information relating to witnesses. In respect of non-UK convictions, the Crown would use its best endeavours to secure the information from the relevant foreign countries.
The court invited the former legal representatives of the appellant to comment on the grounds of appeal relating to defective representation at the trial and requested them to supply any relevant documentation not already handed over to the appellant’s present legal team.
Argument is continuing on a protocol governing the role of the “special advocate” to be appointed in relation to the mystery document in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has asserted public interest immunity.
The court accepted the prioritisation of grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant, and ordered a four-week hearing on grounds 1 and 2 (unreasonableness, on the evidence, of the verdict) to be held in the spring of 2009. Written notes of argument are to be lodged by the appellant six weeks before the date eventually fixed and by the Crown four weeks before. As suggested by Maggie Scott QC for the appellant, the next chapter to be argued will be those parts of ground of appeal 3 (fairness of the trial) that relate to Tony Gauci. The Crown was ordered to provide written answers to this ground of appeal (directed particularly to the appellant’s assertions of fact) within eight weeks from today. The court will then decide how long a hearing will need to be allocated and when that hearing should take place.
The court accepted undertakings from the Crown to hand over to the appellant’s legal team the bulk of the witness statements by 12 December. In respect of those few assessed by the Crown possibly to give rise to public interest immunity issues, the Crown would submit them as soon as possible to the Advocate General who would by 23 January 2009 determine which, if any, gave rise to national security or international relations concerns which the court would require to adjudicate upon. All the rest would be handed over to the appellant.
The Crown undertook to make available to the appellant within eight weeks the UK previous conviction information relating to witnesses. In respect of non-UK convictions, the Crown would use its best endeavours to secure the information from the relevant foreign countries.
The court invited the former legal representatives of the appellant to comment on the grounds of appeal relating to defective representation at the trial and requested them to supply any relevant documentation not already handed over to the appellant’s present legal team.
Argument is continuing on a protocol governing the role of the “special advocate” to be appointed in relation to the mystery document in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has asserted public interest immunity.
Low key plans for bombing anniversary
Details have been released of the Lockerbie air disaster 20th year memorial events which will take place next month.
A series of public commemorations are planned in locations around the town on Sunday December 21 but they are going to be low key, in accordance with the wishes of the community.
The programme includes wreath laying at Dryfesdale Cemetery starting at 2 pm that afternoon with readings by the Lord Lieutenant and the US consul.
Free buses will run between the town hall and the cemetery for anyone wishing to attend.
There will also be an ecumenical service at Dryfesdale Church and a vigil at Tundergarth Church between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm that night .
They have been timed to coincide with the actual time that Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie in 1988.
Furthermore, the Dryfesdale Lodge Visitors’ Centre and Lockerbie Town Hall lesser hall will be open all day as designated ‘places to remember’ for visitors and townsfolk to attend and refreshments will be served in the town hall all day.
Meanwhile, two special TV programmes will be aired next month to mark the 20th anniversary.
The two-part Living Lockerbie will be shown on Border TV on December 4 and 11.
It has been made by filmmaker John Wallace, who was a 14-year-old pupil at Lockerbie Academy at the time of the disaster.
The first, entitled “Living Lockerbie: the media” examines the impact the arrival of journalists and news crews from around the world had on an already shocked community.
John said: “There were concerns raised at the time about how some of the media behaved in and around Lockerbie.
“What I didn’t know about was the groundbreaking work that went on to train local people to deal with reporters.”
He added: “It wasn’t pleasant for anyone who had to deal with that kind of attention, but lessons were learned and it did help to improve how the media behave in disaster situations.”
The second programme looks at some of the positive memorials that have been created over the last two decades to honour those who died.
John himself benefited from the scholarship programme, now in its 19th year, set up between Lockerbie and Syracuse University.
And 20 years on, victims’ relatives are still putting their hands in their pockets to support forward-looking projects, creating new memorials to their loved ones.
“I’ve been bowled over by the generosity of spirit I’ve found among people affected by the disaster -- there’s a real and ongoing effort to make good things come out of the tragedy,” he said.
“Knowing that, in the face of such a terrible loss, people can find the strength to try and build bridges like that -- it really gives you hope for the future.”
[From the Annandale Herald, Lockerbie's weekly local newspaper. Further details can be found in this article from another local newspaper, the Dumfries and Galloway Standard.]
A series of public commemorations are planned in locations around the town on Sunday December 21 but they are going to be low key, in accordance with the wishes of the community.
The programme includes wreath laying at Dryfesdale Cemetery starting at 2 pm that afternoon with readings by the Lord Lieutenant and the US consul.
Free buses will run between the town hall and the cemetery for anyone wishing to attend.
There will also be an ecumenical service at Dryfesdale Church and a vigil at Tundergarth Church between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm that night .
They have been timed to coincide with the actual time that Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie in 1988.
Furthermore, the Dryfesdale Lodge Visitors’ Centre and Lockerbie Town Hall lesser hall will be open all day as designated ‘places to remember’ for visitors and townsfolk to attend and refreshments will be served in the town hall all day.
Meanwhile, two special TV programmes will be aired next month to mark the 20th anniversary.
The two-part Living Lockerbie will be shown on Border TV on December 4 and 11.
It has been made by filmmaker John Wallace, who was a 14-year-old pupil at Lockerbie Academy at the time of the disaster.
The first, entitled “Living Lockerbie: the media” examines the impact the arrival of journalists and news crews from around the world had on an already shocked community.
John said: “There were concerns raised at the time about how some of the media behaved in and around Lockerbie.
“What I didn’t know about was the groundbreaking work that went on to train local people to deal with reporters.”
He added: “It wasn’t pleasant for anyone who had to deal with that kind of attention, but lessons were learned and it did help to improve how the media behave in disaster situations.”
The second programme looks at some of the positive memorials that have been created over the last two decades to honour those who died.
John himself benefited from the scholarship programme, now in its 19th year, set up between Lockerbie and Syracuse University.
And 20 years on, victims’ relatives are still putting their hands in their pockets to support forward-looking projects, creating new memorials to their loved ones.
“I’ve been bowled over by the generosity of spirit I’ve found among people affected by the disaster -- there’s a real and ongoing effort to make good things come out of the tragedy,” he said.
“Knowing that, in the face of such a terrible loss, people can find the strength to try and build bridges like that -- it really gives you hope for the future.”
[From the Annandale Herald, Lockerbie's weekly local newspaper. Further details can be found in this article from another local newspaper, the Dumfries and Galloway Standard.]
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Ninth (public) procedural hearing: first day
Today’s lengthy procedural hearing was taken up with (a) submissions on the appellant’s most recent petition for disclosure of material in the hands of the Crown; and (b) case management and timetabling.
As regards (a), the material in question is mainly the pre-trial witness statements of the more than 1100 witnesses who featured on the Crown’s list at the Zeist trial. The appellant’s lawyers claim that upwards of 800 of these statements have not yet been handed over. The Crown stated today that it was willing to do so, subject to any public interest immunity issues that might be raised by the Advocate General on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The Advocate General’s counsel, Raymond Doherty QC, indicated that in the vast majority of cases there was unlikely to be any PII concern and that these statements could be handed over by the Crown within fourteen days. In respect of any few statements in respect of which the UK Government’s assessment was that PII issues arose, the matter would have to return to the court.
As regards (b) Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi asked that the Crown be ordered to answer in writing the appellant’s detailed grounds of appeal. This would serve the useful purpose of clarifying the issues of fact and law on which there was genuine dispute between the parties and of identifying the factual and legal issues on which the parties were at one. The Crown responded that this was not normal Scottish practice and questioned whether it would serve any beneficial function.
The appellant’s legal team had been asked for this hearing to prioritise their grounds of appeal and to indicate the order in which the court should be asked to address them. Ms Scott stated that the appellant wished first consideration to be given to grounds of appeal 1 and 2 relating to the reasonableness of the verdict (ie whether any reasonable tribunal, on the evidence led, could have convicted Megrahi). She stated that the appellant’s legal team would be in a position to argue these grounds in April 2009 and that she anticipated that perhaps four weeks of court time would be required. The next chapter to be addressed should be those portions of ground of appeal 3 relating to the evidence of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci. Ms Scott tentatively suggested that this section of the hearing might be scheduled for July 2009 and that as much as eight weeks might be required.
Ms Scott also requested the court at this stage to forward the grounds of appeal to the lawyers who represented Mr Megrahi at the original trial, in order to give them an opportunity, if so minded, to respond to the issues raised and the criticisms made of them in ground of appeal 4 relating to defective or inadequate representation.
The Crown did not indicate any strong views on these prioritising and timetabling matters. The one particularly interesting thing that Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown disclosed was that, as of today, the Crown did not concede that even if Tony Gauci’s evidence were wholly discredited there remained insufficient evidence to justify the conviction of Megrahi. This is a view that few legal observers share.
The hearing was continued until tomorrow (Friday). It is to be expected that the court will then issue its decision on most of the issues outlined above. The other matter to be dealt with tomorrow is the protocol governing relations between the appellant’s legal team and the special (security-vetted) advocate appointed to consider the mystery document(s) in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has already asserted public interest immunity and the non-disclosure of which formed one of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s grounds for holding that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is possible that when these matters are discussed tomorrow, the court will have to go into closed session.
The report on the BBC News website can be read here. The Herald's report of the proceedings can be read here. It appears to be the only Scottish or UK newspaper to provide any coverage. Like the BBC, it concentrates on the application for the criminal records of witnesses to be disclosed. Trust the British media to focus on the peripheral and inessential!
As regards (a), the material in question is mainly the pre-trial witness statements of the more than 1100 witnesses who featured on the Crown’s list at the Zeist trial. The appellant’s lawyers claim that upwards of 800 of these statements have not yet been handed over. The Crown stated today that it was willing to do so, subject to any public interest immunity issues that might be raised by the Advocate General on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The Advocate General’s counsel, Raymond Doherty QC, indicated that in the vast majority of cases there was unlikely to be any PII concern and that these statements could be handed over by the Crown within fourteen days. In respect of any few statements in respect of which the UK Government’s assessment was that PII issues arose, the matter would have to return to the court.
As regards (b) Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi asked that the Crown be ordered to answer in writing the appellant’s detailed grounds of appeal. This would serve the useful purpose of clarifying the issues of fact and law on which there was genuine dispute between the parties and of identifying the factual and legal issues on which the parties were at one. The Crown responded that this was not normal Scottish practice and questioned whether it would serve any beneficial function.
The appellant’s legal team had been asked for this hearing to prioritise their grounds of appeal and to indicate the order in which the court should be asked to address them. Ms Scott stated that the appellant wished first consideration to be given to grounds of appeal 1 and 2 relating to the reasonableness of the verdict (ie whether any reasonable tribunal, on the evidence led, could have convicted Megrahi). She stated that the appellant’s legal team would be in a position to argue these grounds in April 2009 and that she anticipated that perhaps four weeks of court time would be required. The next chapter to be addressed should be those portions of ground of appeal 3 relating to the evidence of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci. Ms Scott tentatively suggested that this section of the hearing might be scheduled for July 2009 and that as much as eight weeks might be required.
Ms Scott also requested the court at this stage to forward the grounds of appeal to the lawyers who represented Mr Megrahi at the original trial, in order to give them an opportunity, if so minded, to respond to the issues raised and the criticisms made of them in ground of appeal 4 relating to defective or inadequate representation.
The Crown did not indicate any strong views on these prioritising and timetabling matters. The one particularly interesting thing that Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown disclosed was that, as of today, the Crown did not concede that even if Tony Gauci’s evidence were wholly discredited there remained insufficient evidence to justify the conviction of Megrahi. This is a view that few legal observers share.
The hearing was continued until tomorrow (Friday). It is to be expected that the court will then issue its decision on most of the issues outlined above. The other matter to be dealt with tomorrow is the protocol governing relations between the appellant’s legal team and the special (security-vetted) advocate appointed to consider the mystery document(s) in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has already asserted public interest immunity and the non-disclosure of which formed one of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s grounds for holding that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. It is possible that when these matters are discussed tomorrow, the court will have to go into closed session.
The report on the BBC News website can be read here. The Herald's report of the proceedings can be read here. It appears to be the only Scottish or UK newspaper to provide any coverage. Like the BBC, it concentrates on the application for the criminal records of witnesses to be disclosed. Trust the British media to focus on the peripheral and inessential!
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Ninth (public) procedural hearing
A further procedural hearing will take place in the High Court on Thursday, 27 November (and on Friday 28th, if more time is required). This hearing will consider (a) the protocol regarding the rôle of the special (security vetted) advocate which the parties were instructed to negotiate in relation to the mystery document in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary claimed public interest immunity; (b) a further petition for disclosure of documents submitted by the appellant's legal team, along with any answers lodged by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Crown and the Advocate General on behalf of the UK government; and (c) case management issues, including time-tabling and the order in which the appellant's grounds of appeal should be argued.
Rebuilding US-Libyan Relations Twenty Years after Lockerbie
This is the title of a lengthy article in the Policy Watch series on the website of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It can be read here. In the course of the article, it is said:
'The Lockerbie attack was a crisis in Libya's relations with the United States and the rest of the world. To avoid the brunt of responsibility, Colonel Qadhafi eventually blamed rogue intelligence agents, and one, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was found guilty by a special Scottish court. Despite repeated attempts to reopen his case and reports that he is dying of cancer, al-Megrahi is still in a Scottish prison. Libya did agree to pay financial compensation to the victims' families, a slow process that eventually led to payouts last week from a fund that includes monies from U.S. corporations wanting to do business in the north African state.'
It is disappointing, but instructive, that a supposedly reputable organisation could publish such a farrago of inaccuracy. Gaddafi has never admitted that Libyan "rogue intelligence agents" were responsible for Lockerbie. The individuals eventually handed over for trial were identified not by Gaddafi but by the US and UK investigators. And the delay in handing them over, at least from January 1994, was attributable wholly to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. It might also have been thought worth mentioning that the most recent attempt to reopen Megrahi's case has been successful and that an appeal is currently wending its way -- painfully slowly -- through the Scottish criminal justice system.
'The Lockerbie attack was a crisis in Libya's relations with the United States and the rest of the world. To avoid the brunt of responsibility, Colonel Qadhafi eventually blamed rogue intelligence agents, and one, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was found guilty by a special Scottish court. Despite repeated attempts to reopen his case and reports that he is dying of cancer, al-Megrahi is still in a Scottish prison. Libya did agree to pay financial compensation to the victims' families, a slow process that eventually led to payouts last week from a fund that includes monies from U.S. corporations wanting to do business in the north African state.'
It is disappointing, but instructive, that a supposedly reputable organisation could publish such a farrago of inaccuracy. Gaddafi has never admitted that Libyan "rogue intelligence agents" were responsible for Lockerbie. The individuals eventually handed over for trial were identified not by Gaddafi but by the US and UK investigators. And the delay in handing them over, at least from January 1994, was attributable wholly to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. It might also have been thought worth mentioning that the most recent attempt to reopen Megrahi's case has been successful and that an appeal is currently wending its way -- painfully slowly -- through the Scottish criminal justice system.
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi on the settlement
A CNN interview with Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Leader, in which he talks about the Libya's settlement with the families of the Lockerbie victims, can be viewed here.
Monzer al-Kassar
[The following is reproduced, for what it is worth, from the Terrorism blog. The full text can be read here.]
On 20 November 2008, Monzer Al Kassar, following a three-week jury trial in Manhattan federal court, was found guilty of: conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals, conspiracy to murder U.S. officers and employees, conspiracy to acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles, conspiracy to provide material support and resources to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a designated foreign terrorist organization, and money laundering. (...)
Reportedly, since the early 1970s, Al Kassar was a source of weapons and military equipment for groups engaged in violent conflicts around the world. (...)
Kassar is said to have been a CIA asset, involved with Colonel Oliver North and General Richard Secord. (...)
Reportedly, Rifat Assad, 'the Syrian boss of the Lebanese heroin industry', and Monzer al-Kassar took over Lebanon's Bekaa Valley in 1975 with the help of the Syrian Army.
Allegedly, heroin was transported from the Bekaa Valley to the USA on PanAm flights with the help of Kassar and elements of the CIA. (...)
Kassar has been linked to the Lockerbie Bombing.
On board Pan Am 103, on 21 December 1988, were Major Charles McKee, of the the US Defence Intelligence Agency in Beirut, and Matthew Gannon, CIA Deputy Station Chief in Beirut.
McKie and his team had reportedly discovered evidence that a 'rogue' CIA unit called COREA, was involved in the drugs business with Monzar Al-Kassar. (...)
Reportedly Al-Kassar 'was part of the secret network run by US Lt. Colonel Oliver North.'
Outraged that COREA was doing business with a Syrian 'who made money from drugs, arms and terrorism', the McKee team reportedly 'decided to fly to CIA HQ in Virginia to expose COREA'.
They flew on Pan Am flight 103 which came down over Lockerbie. (...)
Kassar was arrested just days before the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was granted a second extraordinary appeal and 'just days after Blair went to Tripoli to negotiate a deal that would save him the embarrassment of a fresh appeal.'
On 20 November 2008, Monzer Al Kassar, following a three-week jury trial in Manhattan federal court, was found guilty of: conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals, conspiracy to murder U.S. officers and employees, conspiracy to acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles, conspiracy to provide material support and resources to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a designated foreign terrorist organization, and money laundering. (...)
Reportedly, since the early 1970s, Al Kassar was a source of weapons and military equipment for groups engaged in violent conflicts around the world. (...)
Kassar is said to have been a CIA asset, involved with Colonel Oliver North and General Richard Secord. (...)
Reportedly, Rifat Assad, 'the Syrian boss of the Lebanese heroin industry', and Monzer al-Kassar took over Lebanon's Bekaa Valley in 1975 with the help of the Syrian Army.
Allegedly, heroin was transported from the Bekaa Valley to the USA on PanAm flights with the help of Kassar and elements of the CIA. (...)
Kassar has been linked to the Lockerbie Bombing.
On board Pan Am 103, on 21 December 1988, were Major Charles McKee, of the the US Defence Intelligence Agency in Beirut, and Matthew Gannon, CIA Deputy Station Chief in Beirut.
McKie and his team had reportedly discovered evidence that a 'rogue' CIA unit called COREA, was involved in the drugs business with Monzar Al-Kassar. (...)
Reportedly Al-Kassar 'was part of the secret network run by US Lt. Colonel Oliver North.'
Outraged that COREA was doing business with a Syrian 'who made money from drugs, arms and terrorism', the McKee team reportedly 'decided to fly to CIA HQ in Virginia to expose COREA'.
They flew on Pan Am flight 103 which came down over Lockerbie. (...)
Kassar was arrested just days before the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was granted a second extraordinary appeal and 'just days after Blair went to Tripoli to negotiate a deal that would save him the embarrassment of a fresh appeal.'
Saturday, 22 November 2008
Unjust Verdict
As a former student of Professor Robert Black, QC, who arranged for the Lockerbie bomber's trial to be held at Camp Zeist, and having researched the case myself, I am still amazed that al-Megrahi was convicted.
It made a mockery of the Scottish judiciary. What happened at Lockerbie was undoubtedly murder, but the tragedy does not sanction the imprisonment of a potentially innocent man to appease American prosecutors and some of the families of the victims.
G. M., by email
[A letter from today's Daily Record. I hasten to add that the Lockerbie case did not feature in my lectures during my tenure as Professor of Scots Law. But I did, I hope, help to turn out students who are capable of recognising a miscarriage of justice when they see one.]
It made a mockery of the Scottish judiciary. What happened at Lockerbie was undoubtedly murder, but the tragedy does not sanction the imprisonment of a potentially innocent man to appease American prosecutors and some of the families of the victims.
G. M., by email
[A letter from today's Daily Record. I hasten to add that the Lockerbie case did not feature in my lectures during my tenure as Professor of Scots Law. But I did, I hope, help to turn out students who are capable of recognising a miscarriage of justice when they see one.]
Friday, 21 November 2008
Posts on the new Lockerbie blog
Two new posts have been made today on the blog The Masonic Verses - Lockerbie and Related Scams. They are "A Poisoned Pill - The Mysterious Life and Death of Ian Spiro" and "Lockerbie Propositions" a summary in twenty-five paragraphs of the author's views about the Lockerbie disaster.
US Senate confirms ambassador to Libya
The US Senate has confirmed career diplomat Gene Cretz to be the first US Ambassador to Libya in 36 years. His nomination had been held up by Senate Democrats until Libya made good on its promise to fully compensate the families of victims of terrorist acts in the 1980s.
The Senate action late Thursday came after the Senate Democrat who had led the effort to block the nomination cleared the way for confirmation by noting that Libya last month paid $1.5 billion to relatives of victims of acts of terrorism for which Tripoli accepted responsibility.
"I lifted my hold. The process will work its way now," said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat. (...)
Relatives of those who died in the Pan Am bombing joined Senator Lautenberg at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday to mark the settlement of claims. "We are here today to say that a measure of justice has finally prevailed," he said.
Kara Weipz lost her brother in the tragedy. "We are free now to close this chapter in our nightmare. Does it change the majority of feelings of families towards Mr. Gadhafi? Absolutely, positively not. And do the families believe that he himself or those high-ranking officials in his regime were responsible for this? Absolutely. And that does not change just because this was completed."
The Pan Am bombing claimed the lives of 270 people.
[From the website of Voice of America. The full article can be read here.]
The Senate action late Thursday came after the Senate Democrat who had led the effort to block the nomination cleared the way for confirmation by noting that Libya last month paid $1.5 billion to relatives of victims of acts of terrorism for which Tripoli accepted responsibility.
"I lifted my hold. The process will work its way now," said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat. (...)
Relatives of those who died in the Pan Am bombing joined Senator Lautenberg at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday to mark the settlement of claims. "We are here today to say that a measure of justice has finally prevailed," he said.
Kara Weipz lost her brother in the tragedy. "We are free now to close this chapter in our nightmare. Does it change the majority of feelings of families towards Mr. Gadhafi? Absolutely, positively not. And do the families believe that he himself or those high-ranking officials in his regime were responsible for this? Absolutely. And that does not change just because this was completed."
The Pan Am bombing claimed the lives of 270 people.
[From the website of Voice of America. The full article can be read here.]
Lockerbie families say compensation complete
Nearly two decades after the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the families of the 180 Americans aboard the plane said Thursday they had received full compensation from Libya for the loss of their loved ones.
At the same time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, who is in Washington on a private visit following an unprecedented phone call this week between his father and President Bush. (...)
Under the agreement worked out between U.S. and Libyan officials in August, Libya agreed to hand over $1.5 billion to finish compensation payments to families of Americans killed on Pan Am 103, those killed and wounded in a 1986 attack on a Berlin disco, and resolve other claims for property and personal damages.
The agreement also called for $300 million in compensation to be paid for the Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes that were ordered by former President Reagan in retaliation for the Berlin bombing. The Bush administration says no taxpayer money will be used for those payments but has not said where the money is coming from. (...)
Libya completed payments into the compensation fund in late October, clearing the last hurdle in restoration of full normalization of diplomatic relations between Washington and Tripoli, and the Treasury began transfers to the Lockerbie families earlier this month. In return, Bush restored Libya's sovereign immunity from terror-related lawsuits.
[From Matthew Lee of the news agency Associated Press. The full article can be read here. The deal covers the families of all Lockerbie victims, not just the American ones.]
At the same time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's son, who is in Washington on a private visit following an unprecedented phone call this week between his father and President Bush. (...)
Under the agreement worked out between U.S. and Libyan officials in August, Libya agreed to hand over $1.5 billion to finish compensation payments to families of Americans killed on Pan Am 103, those killed and wounded in a 1986 attack on a Berlin disco, and resolve other claims for property and personal damages.
The agreement also called for $300 million in compensation to be paid for the Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes that were ordered by former President Reagan in retaliation for the Berlin bombing. The Bush administration says no taxpayer money will be used for those payments but has not said where the money is coming from. (...)
Libya completed payments into the compensation fund in late October, clearing the last hurdle in restoration of full normalization of diplomatic relations between Washington and Tripoli, and the Treasury began transfers to the Lockerbie families earlier this month. In return, Bush restored Libya's sovereign immunity from terror-related lawsuits.
[From Matthew Lee of the news agency Associated Press. The full article can be read here. The deal covers the families of all Lockerbie victims, not just the American ones.]
Thursday, 20 November 2008
New Lockerbie blog
A warm welcome is extended to a new blog entitled The Masonic Verses - Lockerbie and Related Scams. Its first post was on 14 November 2008 and takes the form of a critique of the evidence relating to insertion on Pan Am 103 of the suitcase containing the bomb, concluding that it was inserted at Heathrow and was not an interline bag from Malta via Frankfurt. Baz, the blog administrator, informs me that he will be doing one post a week.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
UK and Libya sign prisoner transfer agreement
The United Kingdom Government and the Libyan Government have just signed the prisoner transfer agreement that was negotiated between them some time ago. The relevant Foreign and Commonwealth Office press release can be read here.
Two points are made very clear. (1) The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) allows the return of a prisoner to serve out his sentence in his home country where both jurisdictions are in agreement. Prisoners do not have an automatic right to transfer: the consent of the authorities in both states is required before transfer can take place. (2) No individual can be transferred under the PTA until all criminal proceedings in relation to that individual have been exhausted.
In the case of a prisoner serving his sentence in Scotland, it is the Scottish (not the UK) Government that would require to decide whether transfer should be allowed; and the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, has so far made it abundantly clear that in his view the PTA negotiated by the UK Government should specifically have excluded anyone convicted in respect of the Lockerbie bombing. On 2 February 2008 he said:
"My role, the role of the government is to defend the integrity of the judicial system in Scotland and that's exactly what we intend to do.
"We've made it quite clear that, in terms of prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, we thought it would be appropriate if anyone connected with the Lockerbie atrocity was excluded specifically from any prisoner transfer agreement.
"Until very recently, that was also the position of the UK Government."
It might therefore appear that, if an application were made for Abdelbaset Megrahi to be transferred back to Libya (and there has been no hint that one is likely to be made), the Scottish Government would not be disposed to grant it.
Two points are made very clear. (1) The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) allows the return of a prisoner to serve out his sentence in his home country where both jurisdictions are in agreement. Prisoners do not have an automatic right to transfer: the consent of the authorities in both states is required before transfer can take place. (2) No individual can be transferred under the PTA until all criminal proceedings in relation to that individual have been exhausted.
In the case of a prisoner serving his sentence in Scotland, it is the Scottish (not the UK) Government that would require to decide whether transfer should be allowed; and the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, has so far made it abundantly clear that in his view the PTA negotiated by the UK Government should specifically have excluded anyone convicted in respect of the Lockerbie bombing. On 2 February 2008 he said:
"My role, the role of the government is to defend the integrity of the judicial system in Scotland and that's exactly what we intend to do.
"We've made it quite clear that, in terms of prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, we thought it would be appropriate if anyone connected with the Lockerbie atrocity was excluded specifically from any prisoner transfer agreement.
"Until very recently, that was also the position of the UK Government."
It might therefore appear that, if an application were made for Abdelbaset Megrahi to be transferred back to Libya (and there has been no hint that one is likely to be made), the Scottish Government would not be disposed to grant it.
Lockerbie victims' families call payment repulsive
This is the headline over a long article in the US news magazine Newsday published to coincide with President Bush's phone call to Colonel Gaddafi expressing his satisfaction at the final Libyan payment into the compensation fund. It reads in part:
'For Siobhan Mulroy, who lost six relatives when a terrorist bomb ripped apart a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the final restitution from Libya doesn't bring relief, or satisfaction, or closure. The feeling, she said, is closer to revulsion.
'"It's kind of a repulsive situation to be in where people are offering money, I guess, to make you feel better," said Mulroy of East Northport, who lost her father, brother, sister-in-law, uncle, aunt and cousin. (...)
'"I'm glad that the president is satisfied with it. I'm certainly not," said Peter Lowenstein of Montauk, whose son, Alexander, was one of 35 Syracuse University students on the flight who had been in London for the semester. "I don't recall him losing a relative on Flight 103.
'"His interest is to satisfy the oil industry, who are major supporters of his. ... He wants what they want, which is to get Libyan oil."
'Daniel Tobin, who lost his brother Mark Tobin of Hempstead, said the money doesn't put the issue to rest.
'"So many have forgotten us. ... I'm still concerned that Exxon Mobil and other oil companies, that they're able to do business with Gadhafi," said Tobin, also of Hempstead. "They're allowed to do business with terrorists."'
The full article can be read here. Interestingly, it contains a timeline of significant events relating to the Lockerbie tragedy. It omits all reference to the fact that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi has been referred back to the High Court on the ground that it may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. When are the media in the United States going to wake up to the fact that the officially-approved Libyan guilt scenario is under severe attack and is highly unlikely to survive?
'For Siobhan Mulroy, who lost six relatives when a terrorist bomb ripped apart a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the final restitution from Libya doesn't bring relief, or satisfaction, or closure. The feeling, she said, is closer to revulsion.
'"It's kind of a repulsive situation to be in where people are offering money, I guess, to make you feel better," said Mulroy of East Northport, who lost her father, brother, sister-in-law, uncle, aunt and cousin. (...)
'"I'm glad that the president is satisfied with it. I'm certainly not," said Peter Lowenstein of Montauk, whose son, Alexander, was one of 35 Syracuse University students on the flight who had been in London for the semester. "I don't recall him losing a relative on Flight 103.
'"His interest is to satisfy the oil industry, who are major supporters of his. ... He wants what they want, which is to get Libyan oil."
'Daniel Tobin, who lost his brother Mark Tobin of Hempstead, said the money doesn't put the issue to rest.
'"So many have forgotten us. ... I'm still concerned that Exxon Mobil and other oil companies, that they're able to do business with Gadhafi," said Tobin, also of Hempstead. "They're allowed to do business with terrorists."'
The full article can be read here. Interestingly, it contains a timeline of significant events relating to the Lockerbie tragedy. It omits all reference to the fact that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi has been referred back to the High Court on the ground that it may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. When are the media in the United States going to wake up to the fact that the officially-approved Libyan guilt scenario is under severe attack and is highly unlikely to survive?
Monday, 17 November 2008
A dilemma more moral than legal
Keeping a dying man in jail pending appeal is unnecessary on the part of the Scottish court of criminal appeal
The refusal of the Scottish court of criminal appeal to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on bail while he awaits his appeal against his conviction as the Lockerbie bomber, has added unease to unease. It was not edifying to see lawyers quibble about when Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, is expected to die, then have the judge base his bail decision on that prediction.
At the Scottish court of criminal appeal, Lord Hamilton concluded that he might have a few more years left and therefore should not be released pending appeal. By way of consolation, he ruled that should his condition deteriorate more rapidly than expected, he could renew his application. What concerns me is that his appeal is unlikely to be heard before the summer. Why?
There has, for years, been a feeling among lawyers and others who have studied the case that Megrahi was not responsible for the bombing. Even Dr Jim Swire, the most prominent campaigner on behalf of Lockerbie victims, whose daughter died in the bombing, does not believe in his guilt; nor do the relatives of many other victims.
It has been alleged that because of the desire to have sanctions lifted against Libya, Muammar Gadafy delivered him to the Scottish authorities rather than the principal perpetrator. [RB: I am not aware of anyone having suggested that Megrahi was handed over in substitution for some other Libyan perpetrator.] The evidence against Megrahi has always seemed slightly deficient although, of course, the jury had convicted him [sic; he was in fact convicted by a court of three judges], and an appeal court in 2002 had turned down his first appeal.
Last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission studied new evidence and decided it was enough to justify Megrahi being granted another appeal. That does not mean the commission necessarily believes he is innocent, nor that the appeal court will necessarily overturn his conviction. But it does mean that he has a strong case.
Here's the dilemma - more moral than legal. If he is innocent, keeping a dying man in jail pending his appeal is a particularly cruel injustice to add to that of his years in prison. So why does the appeal have to wait so long? There can be no logistical reason.
[From an article by Marcel Berlins in The Guardian.]
The refusal of the Scottish court of criminal appeal to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on bail while he awaits his appeal against his conviction as the Lockerbie bomber, has added unease to unease. It was not edifying to see lawyers quibble about when Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, is expected to die, then have the judge base his bail decision on that prediction.
At the Scottish court of criminal appeal, Lord Hamilton concluded that he might have a few more years left and therefore should not be released pending appeal. By way of consolation, he ruled that should his condition deteriorate more rapidly than expected, he could renew his application. What concerns me is that his appeal is unlikely to be heard before the summer. Why?
There has, for years, been a feeling among lawyers and others who have studied the case that Megrahi was not responsible for the bombing. Even Dr Jim Swire, the most prominent campaigner on behalf of Lockerbie victims, whose daughter died in the bombing, does not believe in his guilt; nor do the relatives of many other victims.
It has been alleged that because of the desire to have sanctions lifted against Libya, Muammar Gadafy delivered him to the Scottish authorities rather than the principal perpetrator. [RB: I am not aware of anyone having suggested that Megrahi was handed over in substitution for some other Libyan perpetrator.] The evidence against Megrahi has always seemed slightly deficient although, of course, the jury had convicted him [sic; he was in fact convicted by a court of three judges], and an appeal court in 2002 had turned down his first appeal.
Last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission studied new evidence and decided it was enough to justify Megrahi being granted another appeal. That does not mean the commission necessarily believes he is innocent, nor that the appeal court will necessarily overturn his conviction. But it does mean that he has a strong case.
Here's the dilemma - more moral than legal. If he is innocent, keeping a dying man in jail pending his appeal is a particularly cruel injustice to add to that of his years in prison. So why does the appeal have to wait so long? There can be no logistical reason.
[From an article by Marcel Berlins in The Guardian.]
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Mrs Megrahi speaks
The wife of convicted Lockerbie bomber Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi said in an interview published on Sunday that her husband is critically ill with cancer and slammed Scotland's authorities for not taking better care of him.
Aisha al-Megrahi spoke to the daily Oea, considered close to Seif al-Islam, the son of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, after a Scottish court on Friday rejected her husband's appeal to be freed on bail because of his illness.
"Hospitals in Scotland refused to take him in because of the increased security involved in transferring him, especially the use of helicopters," Oea quoted her as saying.
And despite increased surveillance "he remains handcuffed to the bed when he is examined, which affects his morale badly," she added. (…)
His lawyers applied for his interim release after announcing last month that he has prostate cancer which has spread to other parts of his body.
But on Friday the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that he could live for years depending on how successful his treatment is.
"While the disease from which the appellant suffers is incurable and may cause his death, he is not at present suffering material pain or disability," Lord Justice General Arthur Hamilton said.
The Libyan newspaper slammed the ruling as "inhuman" and accused the judicial authorities in Scotland of "politicising the trial" of Megrahi.
"We expected justice to atone for the sin of condemning an innocent man convicted for political reasons, and ease his suffering", the paper wrote, and accused the Scottish judges of having been "stripped of their humanity". (…)
On Friday Megrahi, who is being held at Greenock prison in western Scotland, voiced deep disappointment.
"I am very distressed that the court has refused me bail pending the hearing of my appeal, and the chance to spend my remaining time with my family," he said in a statement read out by his lawyer Tony Kelly.
"I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing, and that the fight for justice will continue whether or not I'm alive to witness my name being cleared."
[From an article by the news agency Agence France Presse.
The story has been picked up in Monday's issue of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
Aisha al-Megrahi spoke to the daily Oea, considered close to Seif al-Islam, the son of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, after a Scottish court on Friday rejected her husband's appeal to be freed on bail because of his illness.
"Hospitals in Scotland refused to take him in because of the increased security involved in transferring him, especially the use of helicopters," Oea quoted her as saying.
And despite increased surveillance "he remains handcuffed to the bed when he is examined, which affects his morale badly," she added. (…)
His lawyers applied for his interim release after announcing last month that he has prostate cancer which has spread to other parts of his body.
But on Friday the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that he could live for years depending on how successful his treatment is.
"While the disease from which the appellant suffers is incurable and may cause his death, he is not at present suffering material pain or disability," Lord Justice General Arthur Hamilton said.
The Libyan newspaper slammed the ruling as "inhuman" and accused the judicial authorities in Scotland of "politicising the trial" of Megrahi.
"We expected justice to atone for the sin of condemning an innocent man convicted for political reasons, and ease his suffering", the paper wrote, and accused the Scottish judges of having been "stripped of their humanity". (…)
On Friday Megrahi, who is being held at Greenock prison in western Scotland, voiced deep disappointment.
"I am very distressed that the court has refused me bail pending the hearing of my appeal, and the chance to spend my remaining time with my family," he said in a statement read out by his lawyer Tony Kelly.
"I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing, and that the fight for justice will continue whether or not I'm alive to witness my name being cleared."
[From an article by the news agency Agence France Presse.
The story has been picked up in Monday's issue of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
UK Sunday newspapers on bail refusal
As far as I can see, only two UK Sunday newspapers feature stories related to the High Court's refusal of interim liberation to Mr Megrahi.
Scotland on Sunday's health correspondent, Kate Foster, provides an article on the difficulties that face his legal advisers of supplying to the court (or to the Scottish Government, if an application were made for compassionate release) a medical prognosis that indicates how long he has to live. An unnamed source is quoted as follows:
"All the doctors will say is that this is terminal and it's not their job to predict how long he has to live. That's the problem his legal team faces. The doctors won't commit themselves. The court is saying that if he gets a prognosis, then by all means come back. But the doctors simply won't give a prognosis. It's the nature of this particular condition and the fact he is on hormone treatment."
The Sunday Express picks up the story, run yesterday as an exclusive by The Herald, about Dr Jim Swire saying that, if Mr Megrahi dies before his appeal is decided, he (Swire) might seek to be recognised by the court as having a legitimate interest to continue it. Of course, if a member of Mr Megrahi's family (eg wife, child, sibling) were prepared to take over the appeal on his death, this would spare the High Court from having to decide whether the relative of a murder victim qualifies as having a legitimate interest to continue the appeal of the person convicted of the murder. The article can be read here.
Scotland on Sunday's health correspondent, Kate Foster, provides an article on the difficulties that face his legal advisers of supplying to the court (or to the Scottish Government, if an application were made for compassionate release) a medical prognosis that indicates how long he has to live. An unnamed source is quoted as follows:
"All the doctors will say is that this is terminal and it's not their job to predict how long he has to live. That's the problem his legal team faces. The doctors won't commit themselves. The court is saying that if he gets a prognosis, then by all means come back. But the doctors simply won't give a prognosis. It's the nature of this particular condition and the fact he is on hormone treatment."
The Sunday Express picks up the story, run yesterday as an exclusive by The Herald, about Dr Jim Swire saying that, if Mr Megrahi dies before his appeal is decided, he (Swire) might seek to be recognised by the court as having a legitimate interest to continue it. Of course, if a member of Mr Megrahi's family (eg wife, child, sibling) were prepared to take over the appeal on his death, this would spare the High Court from having to decide whether the relative of a murder victim qualifies as having a legitimate interest to continue the appeal of the person convicted of the murder. The article can be read here.
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Swire: I will carry on appeal if Megrahi dies in jail
The Herald runs an article by Lucy Adams with this title. The relevant portion reads:
'The father of a woman killed over Lockerbie yesterday vowed to stand in and continue the appeal of the Libyan convicted of the bombing if he dies "before justice is done".
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, died in the tragedy 20 years ago, has taken legal advice and believes he would be able to pursue the case if Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi cannot. (...)
'Dr Swire said he felt the court had missed a "golden opportunity" in not granting Megrahi bail and he would pursue the appeal personally.
'He told The Herald last night: "I understand that someone with a legitimate interest in the case can continue the appeal provided they apply within three months of the death of the person who lodged the appeal. So the Libyan Government or his family or one of the relatives could apply to pursue the appeal.
'"I very much hope Megrahi will live to see it completed but, if he does not, then I will look to pursue it. The defence has said there is new evidence and it sounds like pretty potent stuff. We would want to hear this in court. I have reason to believe there would be solicitors and advocates who would be willing to take this up on a pro bono free basis."'
[The issue of transfer of rights of appeal if an appellant dies before his appeal is determined is dealt with in this post in this blog. Here is what Mr Megrahi himself said in the statement issued yesterday on his behalf:
"I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue, regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared."]
'The father of a woman killed over Lockerbie yesterday vowed to stand in and continue the appeal of the Libyan convicted of the bombing if he dies "before justice is done".
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, died in the tragedy 20 years ago, has taken legal advice and believes he would be able to pursue the case if Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi cannot. (...)
'Dr Swire said he felt the court had missed a "golden opportunity" in not granting Megrahi bail and he would pursue the appeal personally.
'He told The Herald last night: "I understand that someone with a legitimate interest in the case can continue the appeal provided they apply within three months of the death of the person who lodged the appeal. So the Libyan Government or his family or one of the relatives could apply to pursue the appeal.
'"I very much hope Megrahi will live to see it completed but, if he does not, then I will look to pursue it. The defence has said there is new evidence and it sounds like pretty potent stuff. We would want to hear this in court. I have reason to believe there would be solicitors and advocates who would be willing to take this up on a pro bono free basis."'
[The issue of transfer of rights of appeal if an appellant dies before his appeal is determined is dealt with in this post in this blog. Here is what Mr Megrahi himself said in the statement issued yesterday on his behalf:
"I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue, regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared."]
Lockerbie mum’s wish
A mother whose son was killed in the Lockerbie bombings last night said she hoped a fresh appeal would reveal the truth behind her son’s death.
Terminally-ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was yesterday refused bail at an Appeal Court hearing in Edinburgh.
He is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died, including Alistair Berkley, 29, of Sandhoe, near Hexham, Northumberland. (...)
If he were to be granted an appeal, all the evidence surrounding the attack would be reinvestigated, a move supported by Alistair’s mother, Jean.
Last night she said she was confident Megrahi would receive the right medical attention while he was in prison.
She said: “I don’t have any strong feelings about whether he should get bail or not.
“In these circumstances I’m sure he will get the same medical treatment as if he was out of prison.
“The news that he has got a fatal illness obviously just makes us want what we’ve always wanted – for the appeal to go on.”
Alistair, a law lecturer, was on board the Pan Am Flight 103, travelling from his workplace in London to New York. (...)
The Berkley family have never been totally satisfied with the conviction of Libyan intelligence agent Megrahi in Holland in early 2001.
And last night Mrs Berkley, 78, said she was still looking for the truth behind her son’s death. She said: “I am not vindictive about the whole thing – I know that some people are, but I am not.
“We feel there is a lot more that we don’t know. We’ve been hoping there would be another appeal because it’s another opportunity to find out what happened.
“I’m co-ordinator of the UK’s family group and we all think there is a great deal that we should know. Everybody knows there were more people involved than just Megrahi.” (...)
[From Journal Live, a news website covering mainly the Northeast of England. The full article can be read here.]
Terminally-ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was yesterday refused bail at an Appeal Court hearing in Edinburgh.
He is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died, including Alistair Berkley, 29, of Sandhoe, near Hexham, Northumberland. (...)
If he were to be granted an appeal, all the evidence surrounding the attack would be reinvestigated, a move supported by Alistair’s mother, Jean.
Last night she said she was confident Megrahi would receive the right medical attention while he was in prison.
She said: “I don’t have any strong feelings about whether he should get bail or not.
“In these circumstances I’m sure he will get the same medical treatment as if he was out of prison.
“The news that he has got a fatal illness obviously just makes us want what we’ve always wanted – for the appeal to go on.”
Alistair, a law lecturer, was on board the Pan Am Flight 103, travelling from his workplace in London to New York. (...)
The Berkley family have never been totally satisfied with the conviction of Libyan intelligence agent Megrahi in Holland in early 2001.
And last night Mrs Berkley, 78, said she was still looking for the truth behind her son’s death. She said: “I am not vindictive about the whole thing – I know that some people are, but I am not.
“We feel there is a lot more that we don’t know. We’ve been hoping there would be another appeal because it’s another opportunity to find out what happened.
“I’m co-ordinator of the UK’s family group and we all think there is a great deal that we should know. Everybody knows there were more people involved than just Megrahi.” (...)
[From Journal Live, a news website covering mainly the Northeast of England. The full article can be read here.]
UK press coverage of the bail refusal
The Herald
Lucy Adams, the paper’s chief reporter, provides a lengthy report on yesterday’s proceedings and quotes reactions from Jim Swire, Tam Dalyell and US relative Robert Monetti. The paper also prints a letter from Dr Swire and an editorial on the subject.
The Scotsman
John Robertson and Michael Howie jointly contribute a report on the outcome of the interim liberation application. The article incorporates with short pieces by Jim Swire arguing that Megrahi should be released and by US relative Daniel Cohen arguing that he should not.
The Times
Charlene Sweeney provides a lengthy article on the court hearing and reaction to it. She quotes the statements from Megrahi’s lawyer, Tony Kelly, and from Jim Swire that were reproduced yesterday on this blog. I am quoted as saying: “It would have required something really exceptional by way of injury to his health to overcome the fact he murdered 270 people. The court is of the view that his health has not reached that state.” What I actually said was “It would have required something really exceptional by way of injury to his health to overcome the fact he stands convicted of murdering 270 people.” I do not believe that Abdelbaset Megrahi had anything whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie atrocity. The paper also runs a feature entitled “Should the Lockerbie bomber's appeal succeed?” which contains a “pro” piece by me and a “con” piece by Daniel Cohen.
The Guardian
This paper confines itself, disappointingly, to a brief narration of the outcome of the hearing.
Lucy Adams, the paper’s chief reporter, provides a lengthy report on yesterday’s proceedings and quotes reactions from Jim Swire, Tam Dalyell and US relative Robert Monetti. The paper also prints a letter from Dr Swire and an editorial on the subject.
The Scotsman
John Robertson and Michael Howie jointly contribute a report on the outcome of the interim liberation application. The article incorporates with short pieces by Jim Swire arguing that Megrahi should be released and by US relative Daniel Cohen arguing that he should not.
The Times
Charlene Sweeney provides a lengthy article on the court hearing and reaction to it. She quotes the statements from Megrahi’s lawyer, Tony Kelly, and from Jim Swire that were reproduced yesterday on this blog. I am quoted as saying: “It would have required something really exceptional by way of injury to his health to overcome the fact he murdered 270 people. The court is of the view that his health has not reached that state.” What I actually said was “It would have required something really exceptional by way of injury to his health to overcome the fact he stands convicted of murdering 270 people.” I do not believe that Abdelbaset Megrahi had anything whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie atrocity. The paper also runs a feature entitled “Should the Lockerbie bomber's appeal succeed?” which contains a “pro” piece by me and a “con” piece by Daniel Cohen.
The Guardian
This paper confines itself, disappointingly, to a brief narration of the outcome of the hearing.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Statement from Dr Jim Swire
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
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
Press release from Megrahi's lawyers
14th November 2008.
Mr Megrahi was today refused bail pending the hearing of his appeal by the High Court of Justicary.
He said:
“I am very distressed that the Court has refused to grant me bail and denied me the chance to spend my remaining time with my family.
I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue, regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people of Scotland and elsewhere who have taken the time to send me cards and letters of support. Their kindness has touched me and helped me at this difficult time.
I ask that the privacy of my family is respected during this very difficult time.”
Notes for Editors
There is no appeal against the refusal of the application for bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The Court can consider a further application for review of the decision but there must be a change in circumstances to be placed before the Court before it can reconsider the matter.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back to the High Court of Justiciary on 28th June 2007. Grounds of Appeal were lodged on Mr Megrahi’s behalf on 21st December 2007. The Crown sought to restrict the scope of the Grounds of Appeal submitted on behalf of Mr Megrahi. They submitted that only those Grounds which had been referred back to the Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission could be heard. In their decision of 15th October 2008 the Court rejected the Crown’s argument and confirmed that Mr Megrahi was entitled to have his stated Grounds of Appeal decided by the Court on their respective merits.
A further hearing in the case has been assigned for 27th and 28th November 2008. At this hearing parties will discuss their proposals in relation to case management, as requested by the Court. Proposals in relation to the appointment of a Special Advocate/Counsel will also be discussed. This relates to the Public Interest Immunity plea taken by the Advocate General for Scotland in relation to a document relied upon by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in their decision to refer. Mr Megrahi has sought disclosure of significant documents for the proper preparation and presentation of his appeal. This application is being opposed by the prosecution. Procedures to resolve this matter will also be discussed on 27th and 28th November 2008.
Mr Megrahi was today refused bail pending the hearing of his appeal by the High Court of Justicary.
He said:
“I am very distressed that the Court has refused to grant me bail and denied me the chance to spend my remaining time with my family.
I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue, regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people of Scotland and elsewhere who have taken the time to send me cards and letters of support. Their kindness has touched me and helped me at this difficult time.
I ask that the privacy of my family is respected during this very difficult time.”
Notes for Editors
There is no appeal against the refusal of the application for bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The Court can consider a further application for review of the decision but there must be a change in circumstances to be placed before the Court before it can reconsider the matter.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back to the High Court of Justiciary on 28th June 2007. Grounds of Appeal were lodged on Mr Megrahi’s behalf on 21st December 2007. The Crown sought to restrict the scope of the Grounds of Appeal submitted on behalf of Mr Megrahi. They submitted that only those Grounds which had been referred back to the Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission could be heard. In their decision of 15th October 2008 the Court rejected the Crown’s argument and confirmed that Mr Megrahi was entitled to have his stated Grounds of Appeal decided by the Court on their respective merits.
A further hearing in the case has been assigned for 27th and 28th November 2008. At this hearing parties will discuss their proposals in relation to case management, as requested by the Court. Proposals in relation to the appointment of a Special Advocate/Counsel will also be discussed. This relates to the Public Interest Immunity plea taken by the Advocate General for Scotland in relation to a document relied upon by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in their decision to refer. Mr Megrahi has sought disclosure of significant documents for the proper preparation and presentation of his appeal. This application is being opposed by the prosecution. Procedures to resolve this matter will also be discussed on 27th and 28th November 2008.
Interim liberation refused
The High Court of Justiciary this morning refused Abdelbaset Megrahi's application for interim liberation. The court's view was that the gravity of the crime of which he stands convicted is such that liberation pending his appeal could not reasonably be expected except on compelling compassionate grounds. Their Lordships expressed the view that Mr Megrahi's state of health has not as yet reached the stage where its seriousness overrides the factor of the gravity of the crime. The court indicated that it would be willing to consider a further application for bail if and when his prognosis is clearer or his medical condition deteriorates.
The court's written Opinion can be read here. The report of today's proceedings on the BBC News website can be read here.
The court's written Opinion can be read here. The report of today's proceedings on the BBC News website can be read here.
An anniversary
Seventeen years ago today, on 14 November 1991, the US Department of Justice announced that an indictment had been brought against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah for the murder of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The Crown Office in Scotland simultaneously announced that a petition had been presented to the sheriff at Dumfries (the nearest court town to Lockerbie) charging the two Libyans with the murders and that warrants for their arrest had been granted. The Libyan Government was called upon to surrender the men for trial in Scotland or the United States.
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Justice for families of Pan Am 103
On Dec. 21, 1988, my brother was killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103 when it was bombed by Libyan terrorists over Lockerbie, Scotland. Two decades later, my family and the families of the 189 other Americans killed on that flight are finally able to claim some form of justice for our lost loved ones.
The Scottish high court convicted one Libyan intelligence officer for his involvement after the initial investigation, but the complexities of a crime perpetrated by a foreign government made it impossible to seek traditional criminal justice for all those responsible, so we turned to the civil court.
After many painful years of negotiations, the Libyan government finally agreed to pay $10 million to each victim's family. The first 80 percent of this sum was paid as planned, but the Libyan government withheld the remaining 20 percent as it negotiated restored diplomatic relations with the United States. The closer the restoration of these ties came, the harder we fought to ensure that the Libyan government was held accountable for its debt.
In July, the United States and Libya agreed that relations could be normalized only after Libya paid its full debt for its state-sponsored terrorism. On Oct. 31, the Libyan government executed full payment to the victims and their families.
While we may never know the names of all of those involved in this crime or see them face the punishment they so justly deserve, we can gain some peace from forcing the Libyan government to be accountable for its crimes. We thank Sen. Frank Lautenberg and others who stood by us the last two decades.
Kara Weipz
President
Victims of Pan Am Flight 103
[Letter from the president of the largest US organisation of relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, published in today's issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer]
The Scottish high court convicted one Libyan intelligence officer for his involvement after the initial investigation, but the complexities of a crime perpetrated by a foreign government made it impossible to seek traditional criminal justice for all those responsible, so we turned to the civil court.
After many painful years of negotiations, the Libyan government finally agreed to pay $10 million to each victim's family. The first 80 percent of this sum was paid as planned, but the Libyan government withheld the remaining 20 percent as it negotiated restored diplomatic relations with the United States. The closer the restoration of these ties came, the harder we fought to ensure that the Libyan government was held accountable for its debt.
In July, the United States and Libya agreed that relations could be normalized only after Libya paid its full debt for its state-sponsored terrorism. On Oct. 31, the Libyan government executed full payment to the victims and their families.
While we may never know the names of all of those involved in this crime or see them face the punishment they so justly deserve, we can gain some peace from forcing the Libyan government to be accountable for its crimes. We thank Sen. Frank Lautenberg and others who stood by us the last two decades.
Kara Weipz
President
Victims of Pan Am Flight 103
[Letter from the president of the largest US organisation of relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, published in today's issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer]
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Decision on interim liberation
Monday, 10 November 2008
Closed minds?
[Here, in its entirety, is a report from Google News, attributed to the UK news agency The Press Association.]
American relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing have been accused of closing their minds to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
The charge came from former MP Tam Dalyell as the Lockerbie saga reached another milestone.
The US has begun transferring more than 500 million dollars in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
[A fuller report can now be found on the website of The Independent. It reads in part:
'American relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing were today accused of closing their minds to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
'The charge came from former MP Tam Dalyell as the Lockerbie saga reached another milestone.
'The US has begun transferring more than 500 million dollars in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
'Mr Dalyell, who is convinced of the innocence of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, serving a life term in a Scottish prison for the bombing, said developments in the case often saw some but not all US relatives asserting that Megrahi should die in prison.
'"This would be understandable if there were not the gravest doubts about whether he has anything to do with this crime that bereaved these relatives in the first place," said Mr Dalyell. a former Labour MP.
'"But I recognise that the pressures from some very vociferous relatives in the States are huge.
'"They have shut their minds to the possibility that the court could have carried out a miscarriage of justice."'
The full article can be read here.]
American relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing have been accused of closing their minds to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
The charge came from former MP Tam Dalyell as the Lockerbie saga reached another milestone.
The US has begun transferring more than 500 million dollars in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
[A fuller report can now be found on the website of The Independent. It reads in part:
'American relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing were today accused of closing their minds to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
'The charge came from former MP Tam Dalyell as the Lockerbie saga reached another milestone.
'The US has begun transferring more than 500 million dollars in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
'Mr Dalyell, who is convinced of the innocence of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, serving a life term in a Scottish prison for the bombing, said developments in the case often saw some but not all US relatives asserting that Megrahi should die in prison.
'"This would be understandable if there were not the gravest doubts about whether he has anything to do with this crime that bereaved these relatives in the first place," said Mr Dalyell. a former Labour MP.
'"But I recognise that the pressures from some very vociferous relatives in the States are huge.
'"They have shut their minds to the possibility that the court could have carried out a miscarriage of justice."'
The full article can be read here.]
Dr Swire feels responsible
[Dr Jim Swire] admitted he feels responsible [for Abdelbaset Megrahi's plight] because he met Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi in 1998 and persuaded him to hand over al-Megrahi and another suspect for trial.
The retired GP said: “I believe he was handed over by Gadaffi because of my meetings with him.
“But after hearing the evidence at the trial, I believe he isn’t guilty.”
He added: “I believe the truth will never come out while I’m alive.
“Justice will not be done in my lifetime.”
[From today's issue of The Scottish Sun and drawn to my attention by a blog reader who wishes it to be clearly understood that the newspaper in question is not his regular morning read. The full article can be accessed here.]
[From an e-mail from Dr Swire to me: "I don't know how the Sun can live with itself, they've used the mistakes from another article to misrepresent my position, without ever bothering to ask me what I actually thought."]
The retired GP said: “I believe he was handed over by Gadaffi because of my meetings with him.
“But after hearing the evidence at the trial, I believe he isn’t guilty.”
He added: “I believe the truth will never come out while I’m alive.
“Justice will not be done in my lifetime.”
[From today's issue of The Scottish Sun and drawn to my attention by a blog reader who wishes it to be clearly understood that the newspaper in question is not his regular morning read. The full article can be accessed here.]
[From an e-mail from Dr Swire to me: "I don't know how the Sun can live with itself, they've used the mistakes from another article to misrepresent my position, without ever bothering to ask me what I actually thought."]
Sunday, 9 November 2008
US transfers Libyan money to Lockerbie victims
The U.S. said Sunday it has begun transferring more than $500 million in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.
More money is on the way to complete the settlement, but $504 million of $536 million to be distributed to the families was moved from the Treasury to a private account administered by Lockerbie families' lawyers on Friday, the top U.S. diplomat for the Mideast said.
David Welch spoke to reporters aboard Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's plane as she returned to Washington from the Middle East. He said he expected the rest of the Lockerbie payments would be made soon as soon as administrative details were worked out.
The cash comes from a $1.5 billion fund for U.S. victims of Libyan-linked terrorism in the 1980s that Libya finished paying into last month. (...)
Libya's payment into the fund cleared the last hurdle in full normalization of ties between Washington and Tripoli. On Oct. 31, President Bush signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing pending compensation cases. (...)
There has been a huge increase in interest from U.S. firms, particularly in the energy sector, in doing business in Libya, where European companies have had much greater access in recent years. Libya's proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world, close to 39 billion barrels, and vast areas remain unexplored for new deposits.
[From Matthew Lee, Associated Press]
More money is on the way to complete the settlement, but $504 million of $536 million to be distributed to the families was moved from the Treasury to a private account administered by Lockerbie families' lawyers on Friday, the top U.S. diplomat for the Mideast said.
David Welch spoke to reporters aboard Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's plane as she returned to Washington from the Middle East. He said he expected the rest of the Lockerbie payments would be made soon as soon as administrative details were worked out.
The cash comes from a $1.5 billion fund for U.S. victims of Libyan-linked terrorism in the 1980s that Libya finished paying into last month. (...)
Libya's payment into the fund cleared the last hurdle in full normalization of ties between Washington and Tripoli. On Oct. 31, President Bush signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing pending compensation cases. (...)
There has been a huge increase in interest from U.S. firms, particularly in the energy sector, in doing business in Libya, where European companies have had much greater access in recent years. Libya's proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world, close to 39 billion barrels, and vast areas remain unexplored for new deposits.
[From Matthew Lee, Associated Press]
Lockerbie Reflections
This is the title of a lengthy post on Ed's Blog City which takes the line that Pan Am flight 103 was probably a revenge attack for the downing of Iran Air flight 655 by the USS Vincennes on 3 July 1988. The article links the official stonewalling over Lockerbie to the Shirley McKie case. It also points out the involvement in Lockerbie of various notorious (some might say murky) characters on the US intelligence scene.
The post can be read here.
The post can be read here.
Saturday, 8 November 2008
20 years on and Lockerbie victim's father still searches for the truth
This is the headline over a moving article on the website of the Sunday Mercury, a newspaper serving largely the English midlands. It consists largely of interviews with Jim and Jane Swire. It reads in part:
'... Jim pledged to win justice for his daughter and all those killed on Pan Am Flight 103. Yet over the years he has become convinced the Libyans were not involved.
'He said: “The evidence points to the involvement of Iran and Syria, not Libya. The case against al-Megrahi, I believe is invalid.”
'Jim believes the Lockerbie bombing was a revenge attack against the Americans who had ordered an Iranian Airbus to be shot down months before Lockerbie killing 290 innocent people.
'He also believes a Syrian terror group had amassed a cache of bombs designed for infiltration into European airports, explosives would sense the drop of pressure as an aircraft climbed into the skies - and would explode about 40 minutes after take-off.
'And the Lockerbie bomb, he claims, may have been handed to and planted by an insider at Heathrow during a break-in the night before the disaster.
'But with al-Megrahi serving a life sentence, he fears the true story will never be known unless the conviction is overturned.
'Jim added: “I believe that the truth will never come out while I am alive. Justice will not be done in my lifetime.”
'Soon after Lockerbie Jim and Jane planted young trees in the grounds of their family home in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, which they named Flora’s Wood.
'The trees are mature now and still stand there today, despite the couple selling the house in 2002. They were planted in the shape of an F for Flora, a poignant outline that can still be seen from satellite pictures on Google Earth.'
The full article can be read here.
'... Jim pledged to win justice for his daughter and all those killed on Pan Am Flight 103. Yet over the years he has become convinced the Libyans were not involved.
'He said: “The evidence points to the involvement of Iran and Syria, not Libya. The case against al-Megrahi, I believe is invalid.”
'Jim believes the Lockerbie bombing was a revenge attack against the Americans who had ordered an Iranian Airbus to be shot down months before Lockerbie killing 290 innocent people.
'He also believes a Syrian terror group had amassed a cache of bombs designed for infiltration into European airports, explosives would sense the drop of pressure as an aircraft climbed into the skies - and would explode about 40 minutes after take-off.
'And the Lockerbie bomb, he claims, may have been handed to and planted by an insider at Heathrow during a break-in the night before the disaster.
'But with al-Megrahi serving a life sentence, he fears the true story will never be known unless the conviction is overturned.
'Jim added: “I believe that the truth will never come out while I am alive. Justice will not be done in my lifetime.”
'Soon after Lockerbie Jim and Jane planted young trees in the grounds of their family home in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, which they named Flora’s Wood.
'The trees are mature now and still stand there today, despite the couple selling the house in 2002. They were planted in the shape of an F for Flora, a poignant outline that can still be seen from satellite pictures on Google Earth.'
The full article can be read here.
Op-ed from The Tripoli Post
Will Justice be Served? Will Al-Megrahi be Released from Prison Soon?
By Zainab Al-Arabi
07/11/2008 22:44:00
Yes I know that this week the eyes and ears of the world are concentrated on America and the new President-elect, Barack Obama; that the United Nations and various human rights organisations are calling for help concerning the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But my thoughts are with Abdul Basit Al-Megarhi, the Libyan man wrongly convicted of mass murder in the Lockerbie case, who has been in prison since 1999.
The news that he has been diagnosed with advanced-stage prostate cancer has stunned many Libyans. For years his appeals for a re-examination of the evidence against him had been refused, and only last year was this even considered a possibility.
The case for a re-trial is strongly put forward by many experts in the field of law, perhaps the most eminent of whom is Professor Robert Black (born and raised in Lockerbie, Scotland). Often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, he has been sceptical of the grounds on which the court delivered its sentence for years.
Based on his assessment of the evidence and the witnesses, he is convinced that a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place. This seemed to be more evident when a British court ruled in early 2008, in answer to a request by the Appeals Court in October, 2007, that certain documents deliberately withheld from Al-Megarhi’s defence lawyers by the prosecution, could not be released due to reasons of ‘National Security’.
Finally in October 2008, the defence lawyers request for a hearing was approved. The next hearing in the High Court in Edinburgh is planned to take place on the 21st of November 2008. On the question of whether Al-Megarhi has the right to be released on bail while his case is under review by the Scottish court, Professor Black (on his website) answers,” yes.
What matters is whether the grounds of appeal (1) if successful, would lead to the conviction being quashed and (2) are arguable, i.e. not on the face of it doomed to failure. These tests are clearly satisfied in cases, such as Abdelbaset Megrahi’s, where an independent expert body (the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) has referred the case to the Criminal Appeal Court on the ground that the conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.”
Al-Megarhi has requested that the privacy of his family be respected, and that he would prefer to undergo medical treatment in Scotland if exonerated. The Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs has reportedly also informed Libya on the 25th of October that it would welcome Al-Megarhi for medical treatment on his release.
The Swiss company, Mebo Ltd, the makers of the device allegedly used in the Lockerbie bombing, have their own ‘Lockerbie’ website in which they call Al-Megarhi the ‘271st Lockerbie victim’.
Their claim is that the evidence produced by the prosecution was misleading and false.
In his most recent comment on the subject, “The Scotsman” reported on 7 July 2007 that the United Nations observer Dr. Hans Köchler has written to Mr. Salmond and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of Scotland, calling for experts from countries not involved in the case to investigate the way the investigation was conducted by UK and US authorities.
In his letter, Dr. Köchler called for a full and independent public inquiry of the Lockerbie case and its handling by the Scottish judiciary as well as the British and US political and intelligence establishments.
He also called for the SCCRC’s full report to be made public. Although he was included in talks regarding prisoner exchange between Libya and Britain, Al-Megarhi has refused to leave his prison in Scotland until his innocence was proven.
According to Jim Swire, spokesman for the UK Family Group, whose daughter was among the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy, stated that the families of the UK victims agreed that Al-Megarhi should be released for compassionate reasons whatever the outcome of SCCRC hearing.
Even though they might not all be convinced of his innocence, they saw no reason to keep a dying man in prison far from his country and family.
Dr.Swire has been to Libya on several occasions and has stated that he is not convinced of the court’s sentencing. He has continued to press the British government for a new investigation. Will justice be served?
By Zainab Al-Arabi
07/11/2008 22:44:00
Yes I know that this week the eyes and ears of the world are concentrated on America and the new President-elect, Barack Obama; that the United Nations and various human rights organisations are calling for help concerning the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But my thoughts are with Abdul Basit Al-Megarhi, the Libyan man wrongly convicted of mass murder in the Lockerbie case, who has been in prison since 1999.
The news that he has been diagnosed with advanced-stage prostate cancer has stunned many Libyans. For years his appeals for a re-examination of the evidence against him had been refused, and only last year was this even considered a possibility.
The case for a re-trial is strongly put forward by many experts in the field of law, perhaps the most eminent of whom is Professor Robert Black (born and raised in Lockerbie, Scotland). Often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, he has been sceptical of the grounds on which the court delivered its sentence for years.
Based on his assessment of the evidence and the witnesses, he is convinced that a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place. This seemed to be more evident when a British court ruled in early 2008, in answer to a request by the Appeals Court in October, 2007, that certain documents deliberately withheld from Al-Megarhi’s defence lawyers by the prosecution, could not be released due to reasons of ‘National Security’.
Finally in October 2008, the defence lawyers request for a hearing was approved. The next hearing in the High Court in Edinburgh is planned to take place on the 21st of November 2008. On the question of whether Al-Megarhi has the right to be released on bail while his case is under review by the Scottish court, Professor Black (on his website) answers,” yes.
What matters is whether the grounds of appeal (1) if successful, would lead to the conviction being quashed and (2) are arguable, i.e. not on the face of it doomed to failure. These tests are clearly satisfied in cases, such as Abdelbaset Megrahi’s, where an independent expert body (the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) has referred the case to the Criminal Appeal Court on the ground that the conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.”
Al-Megarhi has requested that the privacy of his family be respected, and that he would prefer to undergo medical treatment in Scotland if exonerated. The Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs has reportedly also informed Libya on the 25th of October that it would welcome Al-Megarhi for medical treatment on his release.
The Swiss company, Mebo Ltd, the makers of the device allegedly used in the Lockerbie bombing, have their own ‘Lockerbie’ website in which they call Al-Megarhi the ‘271st Lockerbie victim’.
Their claim is that the evidence produced by the prosecution was misleading and false.
In his most recent comment on the subject, “The Scotsman” reported on 7 July 2007 that the United Nations observer Dr. Hans Köchler has written to Mr. Salmond and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of Scotland, calling for experts from countries not involved in the case to investigate the way the investigation was conducted by UK and US authorities.
In his letter, Dr. Köchler called for a full and independent public inquiry of the Lockerbie case and its handling by the Scottish judiciary as well as the British and US political and intelligence establishments.
He also called for the SCCRC’s full report to be made public. Although he was included in talks regarding prisoner exchange between Libya and Britain, Al-Megarhi has refused to leave his prison in Scotland until his innocence was proven.
According to Jim Swire, spokesman for the UK Family Group, whose daughter was among the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy, stated that the families of the UK victims agreed that Al-Megarhi should be released for compassionate reasons whatever the outcome of SCCRC hearing.
Even though they might not all be convinced of his innocence, they saw no reason to keep a dying man in prison far from his country and family.
Dr.Swire has been to Libya on several occasions and has stated that he is not convinced of the court’s sentencing. He has continued to press the British government for a new investigation. Will justice be served?
Friday, 7 November 2008
Scottish "heavies" on the bail hearing
There is good coverage in both The Herald and The Scotsman of yesterday's interim liberation hearing. Lucy Adams's article in The Herald is entitled "Lockerbie bomber bail ruling deferred" and contains a useful synopsis of the arguments advanced by both the appellant and the Crown.
John Robertson's article in The Scotsman is headlined "'Compelling' case to free dying Megrahi but Crown insists he must remain behind bars" and predicts that the judges will announce their decision in days rather than weeks.
John Robertson's article in The Scotsman is headlined "'Compelling' case to free dying Megrahi but Crown insists he must remain behind bars" and predicts that the judges will announce their decision in days rather than weeks.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Avizandum
The Criminal Appeal Court (consisting of Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lords Kingarth and Wheatley) today reserved judgement in Abdelbaset Megrahi's application for interim liberation pending his appeal. No indication was given as to how long this period of avizandum (consideration) would be. There is a further sitting of the court already fixed for 27 November, but it is devoutly to be hoped that their Lordships will be in a position to announce their decision before then.
As anticipated in a previous post on this blog, the appellant's counsel, Maggie Scott QC, founded on (1) the substantial nature of the appellant's grounds of appeal, including the fact that some of them have the support of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission; (2) the delay that has already occurred in the case and the further delay that is likely before the appeal is heard; and (3) the state of the appellant's health.
The Crown, represented by Ronnie Clancy QC, opposed the granting of bail, principally on the ground of the gravity of the crime of which the appellant stands convicted (the murder of 270 persons), but also on the basis that at least some of the grounds of appeal were unlikely to succeed; that the delays which had occurred were not (at least primarily) the fault of the Crown (this submission causing a measure of astonishment amongst many of those present in the courtroom); and that the appellant's illness (which the Crown accepted as genuine) could be satisfactorily treated in Greenock Prison.
The court investigated what conditions should be attached to interim liberation, if granted, which at least indicates that the possibility is being taken seriously.
The report of today's hearing on the BBC News website can be read here.
As anticipated in a previous post on this blog, the appellant's counsel, Maggie Scott QC, founded on (1) the substantial nature of the appellant's grounds of appeal, including the fact that some of them have the support of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission; (2) the delay that has already occurred in the case and the further delay that is likely before the appeal is heard; and (3) the state of the appellant's health.
The Crown, represented by Ronnie Clancy QC, opposed the granting of bail, principally on the ground of the gravity of the crime of which the appellant stands convicted (the murder of 270 persons), but also on the basis that at least some of the grounds of appeal were unlikely to succeed; that the delays which had occurred were not (at least primarily) the fault of the Crown (this submission causing a measure of astonishment amongst many of those present in the courtroom); and that the appellant's illness (which the Crown accepted as genuine) could be satisfactorily treated in Greenock Prison.
The court investigated what conditions should be attached to interim liberation, if granted, which at least indicates that the possibility is being taken seriously.
The report of today's hearing on the BBC News website can be read here.
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
Do those convicted of murder ever get interim liberation?
The answer to this question is yes. What matters is whether the grounds of appeal (1) if successful, would lead to the conviction being quashed and (2) are arguable, ie not on the face of it doomed to failure. These tests are clearly satisfied in cases, such as Abdelbaset Megrahi’s, where an independent expert body (the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) has referred the case to the Criminal Appeal Court on the ground that the conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Examples of recent murder cases in which interim liberation was granted pending the appeal are the Campbell and Steele case (where the appellants had been convicted of the murder of six people) and the Nat Fraser case.
Will the High Court grant interim liberation tomorrow? Provided the court is satisfied about security issues (both Mr Megrahi’s personal security and the measures in place to ensure that he will not abscond) the criteria seem to be satisfied (and this is wholly without reference to the grave state of his health). But no-one has ever contended that the Lockerbie case is other than exceptional.
[The BBC News website's advance report of the interim liberation hearing can be read here.]
Examples of recent murder cases in which interim liberation was granted pending the appeal are the Campbell and Steele case (where the appellants had been convicted of the murder of six people) and the Nat Fraser case.
Will the High Court grant interim liberation tomorrow? Provided the court is satisfied about security issues (both Mr Megrahi’s personal security and the measures in place to ensure that he will not abscond) the criteria seem to be satisfied (and this is wholly without reference to the grave state of his health). But no-one has ever contended that the Lockerbie case is other than exceptional.
[The BBC News website's advance report of the interim liberation hearing can be read here.]
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Edinburgh Student newspaper on Lockerbie
The current issue of Student, the newspaper of University of Edinburgh students (and the oldest student newspaper in the United Kingdom) runs an interview with me on Lockerbie, as well as an op-ed piece.
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Security concerns if Megrahi bailed
The Sunday Express has a story by Ben Borland about concerns over Abdelbaset Megrahi's safety and security if he is released as a result of Thursday's interim liberation application. The article reads in part:
'A massive security operation will be launched to protect the Lockerbie bomber from revenge attacks if he is released from prison this week.
'Experts believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is at risk of assault or even being murdered by campaigners angered by any decision to free him. (...)
'It is understood that extensive contingency plans are being drawn up involving Strathclyde Police, the Scottish Prison Service and other authorities. (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the attack, said he hoped to be at the High Court on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile to witness the decision.
'He said: “At a recent meeting of the UK families group the overwhelming opinion was that this man should not be tortured by being kept in prison for his last days, even though many are not sure whether he is guilty or not.
'“Some people on the Internet make comments saying keep him in prison or withdraw his drugs and I find that shocking. I thought the concept of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ went out long ago.”
'He added: “When his family was living in Scotland they had to be moved to a house with enhanced security and CCTV cameras because some people were throwing stones.
'“That was just his family. If he is released from prison I think he would need protection, which in turn will convey to those still grieving that he is being punished, that he is still under guard.
'“I do have concerns for his safety after what happened to his family. We have a duty to protect him.”
'Professor Robert Black, the former University of Edinburgh legal expert who helped set up Megrahi’s trial, said: “The court will have to be satisfied about where he is going and the safety arrangements, both from the point of view of him not absconding and his personal safety because there are nutcases in the world that would like to kill him.”'
The full text can be read here.
'A massive security operation will be launched to protect the Lockerbie bomber from revenge attacks if he is released from prison this week.
'Experts believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is at risk of assault or even being murdered by campaigners angered by any decision to free him. (...)
'It is understood that extensive contingency plans are being drawn up involving Strathclyde Police, the Scottish Prison Service and other authorities. (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the attack, said he hoped to be at the High Court on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile to witness the decision.
'He said: “At a recent meeting of the UK families group the overwhelming opinion was that this man should not be tortured by being kept in prison for his last days, even though many are not sure whether he is guilty or not.
'“Some people on the Internet make comments saying keep him in prison or withdraw his drugs and I find that shocking. I thought the concept of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ went out long ago.”
'He added: “When his family was living in Scotland they had to be moved to a house with enhanced security and CCTV cameras because some people were throwing stones.
'“That was just his family. If he is released from prison I think he would need protection, which in turn will convey to those still grieving that he is being punished, that he is still under guard.
'“I do have concerns for his safety after what happened to his family. We have a duty to protect him.”
'Professor Robert Black, the former University of Edinburgh legal expert who helped set up Megrahi’s trial, said: “The court will have to be satisfied about where he is going and the safety arrangements, both from the point of view of him not absconding and his personal safety because there are nutcases in the world that would like to kill him.”'
The full text can be read here.
Scotland on Sunday
Scotland on Sunday has two articles and an editorial on Abdelbaset Megrahi's application for interim liberation. One of the articles, by Marcello Mega, deals mainly with Mr Megrahi's medical condition and prognosis. The other article, headlined "Judgment will resonate round the world" by David Leask, reads in part:
'Few would relish the decision. Three of Scotland's most senior judges must decide whether to free on bail the man convicted of the biggest single act of mass murder in Scottish history.
'Their job is to decide whether the grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's current appeal against conviction are so compelling that they outweigh the horrors of the Lockberie bombing.
'The law in the case is straightforward. An appellant seeking release on bail has to show that the grounds of his appeal would, if sustained, lead to his conviction being quashed.
'Professor Robert Black, a leading expert in the Lockerbie case, believes the Libyan has more than enough grounds.
'He has stressed the appeal stems from a report from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which warned his conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice. But there are other, perhaps more compelling factors facing Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge, and two colleagues at Edinburgh's High Court who must decide later this week whether releasing Megrahi poses any danger to the public – or any risk of flight.
'Here Megrahi's supporters can be confident. The 56-year-old faces a painful death from cancer within 12 months. Is he fit to flee the jurisdiction of Scottish justice? No. Is he likely to kill if freed?
'As his conviction was for a politically motivated act of terror, a repeat attack hardly seems plausible, particularly in his physical state. (...)
'The Crown will have to decide whether to oppose bail, which it has in the past, arguing it should only be granted to convicted prisoners in 'exceptional' circumstances. A denial would leave Megrahi's lawyers with just once option: to put their application before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. It is not a decision he will relish either.'
The editorial is headlined "Megrahi must stay in prison" and contains the following:
'There are good reasons why consideration is being given to the release from prison of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. On Thursday, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will ask the High Court to grant him bail pending next year's appeal against his conviction. Megrahi's defence believes he has a strong case, given serious doubts about key aspects of the evidence that convicted him. (...)
'But it would be wrong for ... the High Court ... to free the Libyan. However ill he is, Megrahi remains convicted of the worst crime ever committed in Scotland. A Scottish court – albeit sitting in the Netherlands – decided he ended 259 lives on flight Pan Am 103, and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie. This was brutal mass murder, and unless Megrahi is found innocent by the same judicial system, many Scots and the relatives of the American victims will continue to consider him guilty. It would be particularly insensitive to free him in the weeks before the 20th anniversary of the atrocity.
'Megrahi must stay in prison, where ways must be found to provide the best possible medical care. We hope his appeal comes quickly, and that he lives to see the outcome. Only that way will justice be served.'
'Few would relish the decision. Three of Scotland's most senior judges must decide whether to free on bail the man convicted of the biggest single act of mass murder in Scottish history.
'Their job is to decide whether the grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's current appeal against conviction are so compelling that they outweigh the horrors of the Lockberie bombing.
'The law in the case is straightforward. An appellant seeking release on bail has to show that the grounds of his appeal would, if sustained, lead to his conviction being quashed.
'Professor Robert Black, a leading expert in the Lockerbie case, believes the Libyan has more than enough grounds.
'He has stressed the appeal stems from a report from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which warned his conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice. But there are other, perhaps more compelling factors facing Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge, and two colleagues at Edinburgh's High Court who must decide later this week whether releasing Megrahi poses any danger to the public – or any risk of flight.
'Here Megrahi's supporters can be confident. The 56-year-old faces a painful death from cancer within 12 months. Is he fit to flee the jurisdiction of Scottish justice? No. Is he likely to kill if freed?
'As his conviction was for a politically motivated act of terror, a repeat attack hardly seems plausible, particularly in his physical state. (...)
'The Crown will have to decide whether to oppose bail, which it has in the past, arguing it should only be granted to convicted prisoners in 'exceptional' circumstances. A denial would leave Megrahi's lawyers with just once option: to put their application before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. It is not a decision he will relish either.'
The editorial is headlined "Megrahi must stay in prison" and contains the following:
'There are good reasons why consideration is being given to the release from prison of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. On Thursday, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will ask the High Court to grant him bail pending next year's appeal against his conviction. Megrahi's defence believes he has a strong case, given serious doubts about key aspects of the evidence that convicted him. (...)
'But it would be wrong for ... the High Court ... to free the Libyan. However ill he is, Megrahi remains convicted of the worst crime ever committed in Scotland. A Scottish court – albeit sitting in the Netherlands – decided he ended 259 lives on flight Pan Am 103, and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie. This was brutal mass murder, and unless Megrahi is found innocent by the same judicial system, many Scots and the relatives of the American victims will continue to consider him guilty. It would be particularly insensitive to free him in the weeks before the 20th anniversary of the atrocity.
'Megrahi must stay in prison, where ways must be found to provide the best possible medical care. We hope his appeal comes quickly, and that he lives to see the outcome. Only that way will justice be served.'
Judges call for Lord Advocate to be stripped of powers
In the Greshornish House Accord of 16 September 2008, Professor Hans Köchler and I said this:
"It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998."
It appears that the judges of Scotland's supreme court have come to share this view. In today's Sunday Herald it is reported that in their submission to a commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommend that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. The Sunday Herald's article reads in part:
'In their report, the judges say the Lord Advocate's dual roles have generated scores of [human rights] challenges, gumming up the justice system. The opportunity "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction." (...)
'The judiciary offer three possible solutions to the problem, but do not come down in favour of any particular one.
'They write: "Her responsibilities as the public prosecutor could be transferred to an independent Director of Public Prosecutions' in Scotland, who would be responsible for the prosecution system, but who would not be a member of the Scottish Executive (sic).
"Such a change would rob the Lord Advocate of most of her functions, but would leave the Scottish Executive with a Lord Advocate who was a general legal adviser to the Executive."
'They also suggest Westminster could amend the Scotland Act to explicitly exempt the Lord Advocate's actions as a prosecutor from compliance with ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights].
'A third possibility would be changing the law on criminal appeals, although they warn "such a radical nature would be likely to generate considerable controversy".'
The full article can be read here.
[I am grateful to Tony Kelly for drawing my attention to http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/engage/submissions-received.php where the judges' full submission can be accessed ("Judiciary in the Court of Session" just over half way down the list headed "Miscellaneous Submissions").
A letter from the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, clarifying the judges' position is published in Scotland on Sunday's 9 November edition. It can be read here.]
"It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998."
It appears that the judges of Scotland's supreme court have come to share this view. In today's Sunday Herald it is reported that in their submission to a commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommend that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. The Sunday Herald's article reads in part:
'In their report, the judges say the Lord Advocate's dual roles have generated scores of [human rights] challenges, gumming up the justice system. The opportunity "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction." (...)
'The judiciary offer three possible solutions to the problem, but do not come down in favour of any particular one.
'They write: "Her responsibilities as the public prosecutor could be transferred to an independent Director of Public Prosecutions' in Scotland, who would be responsible for the prosecution system, but who would not be a member of the Scottish Executive (sic).
"Such a change would rob the Lord Advocate of most of her functions, but would leave the Scottish Executive with a Lord Advocate who was a general legal adviser to the Executive."
'They also suggest Westminster could amend the Scotland Act to explicitly exempt the Lord Advocate's actions as a prosecutor from compliance with ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights].
'A third possibility would be changing the law on criminal appeals, although they warn "such a radical nature would be likely to generate considerable controversy".'
The full article can be read here.
[I am grateful to Tony Kelly for drawing my attention to http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/engage/submissions-received.php where the judges' full submission can be accessed ("Judiciary in the Court of Session" just over half way down the list headed "Miscellaneous Submissions").
A letter from the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, clarifying the judges' position is published in Scotland on Sunday's 9 November edition. It can be read here.]
Saturday, 1 November 2008
Briefing on the U.S-Libya Comprehensive Claims Settlement Agreement
The press briefing by C David Welch, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, given on the occasion of the final payment by Libya into the compensation fund for US and Libyan victims of actions by the other party (including the Lockerbie disaster) can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
