Friday 18 September 2009

Press release regarding publication of appeal documents

Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who has returned to his homeland, Libya, today commences the release of information which he hopes will establish his innocence. Through the website megrahimystory.net he will release details of Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2 of his challenge to the conviction for involvement in the Lockerbie bombing.

Grounds 1 and 2 dealt with the challenge to the conviction on the grounds of legal sufficiency and reasonableness.

The detailed written submissions lodged by Mr Megrahi’s defence team insupport of the grounds, also published today, break down the various steps in the reasoning of the Trial Court it said led to the conclusion that it was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of Mr Megrahi.

In publishing this material Mr Megrahi made the following statement:

“I have returned to Tripoli with my unjust conviction still in place. As a resultof the abandonment of my appeal I have been deprived of the opportunity to clear my name through the formal appeal process. I have vowed to continue my attempts to clear my name. I will do everything in my power to persuade the public, and in particular the Scottish public, of my innocence.

Through my website I have published the material which featured in the first full hearing of my appeal namely the challenges under Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2 to the legal sufficiency and reasonableness of the Court’s findings. I hope that this can assist in the understanding of my case, especially for those who have been most profoundly affected by it. As can be seen from the documents released today some of the challenges mounted before the Court are supported by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Argument was heard upon these challenges but unfortunately the Court was not, by the time of my abandonment, in a position to provide its opinion. Thus, there is no Court judgement or adjudication upon these challenges”.

Mr Megrahi hopes to continue to publish details of his appeal challenge in the course of the forthcoming weeks.

[The above is the text of a press release issued at noon today by Abdelbaset Megrahi's Scottish solicitor, Tony Kelly. The Scotsman's report on the matter can be read here and The Times's here. The Times of Malta website contains a report focussing on what the documents have to say about the identification evidence of Tony Gauci and the evidence relating to ingestion of the bomb at Malta's Luqa Airport.

The Lord Advocate has issued a press release commenting on this development it reads:

'The Lord Advocate, the Right Honourable Elish Angiolini QC, has criticised the publication of selected material relating to his appeal by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber.

'Mrs Angiolini said:

'“I deplore the efforts by Abdelbaset Megrahi to challenge his conviction through selective publication of his view of the evidence in the media after he has abandoned his second appeal against conviction.

'“The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court. Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously by three senior judges following trial and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges, in an Appeal Court presided over by the Lord Justice General, Scotland’s most senior judge. Mr Megrahi remains convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in UK history .

'“The Crown has supported the conviction vigorously and stood ready, willing and able to do so throughout the appeal process which Mr Megrahi abandoned.

'“As he and his legal team have made clear, the decision to discontinue the appeal proceedings was taken voluntarily by Mr Megrahi himself. He did not require to abandon his appeal. Having done so, he now seeks to retry his case in the media and criticise the evidence against him. Mr Megrahi exercised his right of silence throughout the judicial proceedings.

'“The only evidence that the trial court ever heard from Mr Megrahi was in the television interview which he gave, after publication of the criminal charges in 1991, to the veteran journalist Pierre Salinger. In that interview, which was played to the trial court by the prosecution, Mr Salinger put to him the detailed allegations and his responses on many important matters were disproved and discredited in the trial.”'

This is a bit rich coming from the person whose office was responsible for the lion's share of the outrageous delay in getting Mr Megrahi's second appeal to the stage of argument. This had the consequence that, given his terminal illness, there was no chance of his surviving until its conclusion and also ultimately led to his regrettable, but entirely understandable, decision to abandon the appeal to maximise his chances of repatriation by keeping open the prisoner transfer option. At the end of the day the Cabinet Secretary for Justice chose another option -- compassionate release -- but Megrahi had no way of knowing that that was going to happen.

Here is what I wrote on this blog almost a year ago, on 26 October 2008:

"More than sixteen months have passed since then. More than thirteen months have passed since the first procedural hearing in the new appeal was held. More than ten months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court. Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?

"The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze is not in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). These tactics include, to name but a few, raising difficulties about allowing the appellant access to productions used at the original trial; seeking to overturn previous appeal court decisions on the scope of the appeal in SCCRC references; and claiming public interest immunity on “national security” grounds in respect of documents which have been in the hands of the Crown for more than twelve years and which have been seen by the SCCRC. The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done little, if anything, meaningful to curb it."]

6 comments:

  1. '“The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court..."
    This is fundamentally untrue when it comes to cases sensitive to the government. Here judges are handpicked to produce the desired result. Much better to open up your case to the public and let them decide.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MISSION LOCKERBIE:

    The MEBO document, brings the 100% proof. The dresses purchase in "Marys House" by Gauci, took certainly place on 23 November 1988. Mr. Megrahi was not in Malta on this date!

    Document no. 498

    Since August 1990, definitely a wrong date was created (7th of December, 1988) in order to accuse deliberately the libyan official Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi as the buyer of the cloths in "Mary's House".

    A further proof from MEBO that the sale of dresses in Anhony Gauci "Mary's House" took undoubtedly place on Wednesday, 23th of November 1988 by a supposedly Libyan buyer:

    Tony Gauci told Bollier on 25.01.2008 in Malta, that the 2 pieces of pyjamas, label "John Mallia", were the last two pyjamas he had sold to a Libyan in his shop. On the other day, the 24th of November 1988, Gauci by phon ordered at the company "John Mallia" additionally 8 pieces of the same pyjamas. The 8 pyjamas were delivered on the 25th of November 1988 with the calculation/delivery note, dated 25th of November 1988 to Gauci' s Mary' s House at Sliema Malta. Prod. 477-1.

    The day after Wednesday, December 7, December 8, 1988 was an official public holiday (Immaculate Conception Day) and the "John Mallia" company was closed. But the day after November 23, November 24, 1988 was not an official public holiday, the company "John Mallia" was open.

    see continuation of document no.498, on website: http://www.lockerbie.ch

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  3. In today's issue (9/20) of Asharq Al-Awsat, Megrahi's brother Mohamed says he has no knowledge of who is behind the publishing of this web site. Mohamed adds that he was in contact with his brother and confirmed that while he is able to speak, his health condition does not allow him to be busy with details of the appeal, etc. Mohamed could only say that he "thinks" Abdel Baset's lawyers or others (unnamed) may be behind this web site. The above press release attributes all sorts of statements and actions to the released Megrahi, none of which were confirmed by his brother.

    Is Mr. Megrahi really the one who released this web site, or did others (named and unnamed) do it to advance their own political/commercial agenda, or to clear their own guilt-laden conscience for misleading the Libyan government?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The first question should be what game "Suliman" is playing. It was announced several times in the past weeks that Mr. Megrahi and his lawyers intend to publish all relevant documents to his case. On 29 August in an interview with the Herald Mr. Megrahi expressed his intention to clear his name and even to write a book. The interview can be read in this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am sorry, playing a game? Do you think everyone who does not buy your story is playing games? Or do you think only European press is worth quoting? FYI: Asharq al-Awsat comes out of London. And thanks for pointing out the news from a month ago. The news item I mentioned is from today, and I bet even people on your side would admit this is a fast moving case, OK? I will wait for you to tell me why Megrahi's brother did not simply say, "Yes, my brother is behind the launching of that site." He said--after speaking to his brother--that he had no knowledge who is behind this site. I am just trying to understand who is calling the shots. If Mr. Megrahi is comatose or otherwise incapable of calling his own shots, does it not raise the question of authority? Maybe not with you, I understand, but we don't have the same point of view. From my point of view, the Libyans were fooled (given false assurances)in the service of British Business interests. The record is quite clear on that, even on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To Suliman:
    You are right tht from time to time very strange things happen in this case. And I have no idea what role Mr. Megrahi´s brother is playing. Maybe he is simply not really involved. Maybe Mr. Megrahi is too ill to understand the question. Maybe....

    ReplyDelete