It is sad (but not entirely surprising) to see the former Lord Advocate, Lord Boyd of Duncansby QC, in the House of Lords repeating the assertion that "... no fewer than eight judges of the High Court of Justiciary have similarly concluded on the evidence that he [Abdelbaset Megrahi] was guilty of the crimes".
The trial court at Zeist consisted of three (voting) judges. The appeal court at Zeist consisted of five. As has frequently been been pointed out on this blog, the five judges in Megrahi's first appeal stated in paragraph 369 of their Opinion:
“When opening the case for the appellant before this court Mr Taylor [senior counsel for Megrahi] stated that the appeal was not about sufficiency of evidence: he accepted that there was a sufficiency of evidence. He also stated that he was not seeking to found on section 106(3)(b) of the 1995 Act [verdict unreasonable on the evidence]. His position was that the trial court had misdirected itself in various respects. Accordingly in this appeal we have not required to consider whether the evidence before the trial court, apart from the evidence which it rejected, was sufficient as a matter of law to entitle it to convict the appellant on the basis set out in its judgment. We have not had to consider whether the verdict of guilty was one which no reasonable trial court, properly directing itself, could have returned in the light of that evidence.”
The factual position, as I have written elsewhere, is this:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
Perhaps Lord Boyd would wish to apologise to the House for his inaccuracy?
The "eight Judges" line (beloved by messrs.Marquise and Duggan) appears to be the "official line". Another "official line" is that the payment of monies to witnesses in British Courts pursuant to the US "Rewards for Justice" programme is not a matter of public concern but merely of private concern to Mr Megrahi.
ReplyDeleteI have not found any public statement by Mr. Marquise after the "payment-documents" were released by Mr. Megrahis legal representatives. In fact I am still waiting for one.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hlrecord.org/opinion/who-was-really-behind-lockerbie-1.632554
ReplyDelete"Richard A. Marquise
Sat Oct 10 2009 12:03
...There was no tampering with evidence. No witnesses were ever promised or given one dollar/pound in exchange for their testimony. Each witness got on the witness stand at trial and could say with a clear conscience, they had not been paid or promised to have been paid for their testimony."
I noticed Mr Marquise's comment as well. (I recall PM Blair's claims that there was no relationship between donations to party funds and the award of a peerage. It was just a coincidence!)
ReplyDeleteMarquise also wrote in the Harvard Law Record comment "there is no evidence the bomb went on the plane in London". There is copious evidence that it did which he does not wish to acknowledge.
I recognise the authorities have a duty to protect witnesses from retaliation and I am also aware how the promise of reward can affect testimony. The problem with Gauci was not necessarily that he was paid but that his confused recollection as to what was bought, when and by whom was taken as conclusive evidence of Mr Mwegrahi's guilt not just by the Court but by the investigators despite Marquise's admission the identification was "tenuous".
The issue of payments or promises of payments to Majid Giaka are of as much interest. I recall a CIA spokesman saying Giaka would not be paid not because he was lying but because he was not believed.
Giaka is now (supposedly) "in the programme". (Tony Soprano would explain the disappearance of people he had murdered by saying they were "in the programme"!)
I am not one for signing stupid petitions demanding an investigation into all and sundry. However I do think the question of payment to witnesses in the Lockerbie case through the US "Rewards for Justice" programme is a matter that demands an investigation and a statement by the Justice Secretary.
Thank you to Matt Berkley. I find it extremely disappointing that Mr. Marquise is not manly enough to deal with the revealed documents about Mr. Gauci - not only about the payment but also about Mr. Gauci´s rotating memory.
ReplyDelete