[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
A 90-day deadline to decide the prison transfer request of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will not be met by the Scottish Government.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill told BBC Radio Scotland he needed more information before reaching a decision.
However, he stressed that the final outcome would not be affected by "political or economic" factors.
An application was received in May to let Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi complete his sentence in a Libyan jail.
Mr MacAskill is currently considering the transfer request as well as an application for release on compassionate grounds by the Libyan.
He told BBC Radio Scotland's Morning Extra programme: "There's a 90-day timescale within the PTA (prisoner transfer agreement) and that's due to end shortly.
"I won't be able to meet it precisely because of information still to come in and I will have to reflect upon what happens.
"But I will thereafter be seeking to act as expeditiously as possible and I think I will seek if I can to deal with questions of prisoner transfer and compassion together."
Mr MacAskill has spoken with the US Attorney General, the US families and British families of victims.
He will also meet with Megrahi next week and said today that his final decision will be taken on a variety of factors. (...)
Megrahi is currently appealing against his conviction and Mr MacAskill cannot grant a transfer while this is outstanding in the courts.
However, the justice secretary is able to consider the application from Libya and could refuse the transfer while the appeal is running.
It emerged earlier this month that no decision on the appeal against conviction will be reached until the autumn, after one of the judges involved underwent heart surgery.
[The Morning Extra programme on which Mr MacAskill was speaking was broadcast starting at 09.00, one hour after the publication of the previous post on this blog.
The two Scottish "heavy" newspapers cover the matter in their editions of 1 August. The Herald's report can be read here; and The Scotsman's here.]
Friday, 31 July 2009
Justice Secretary's visit to Megrahi
It was announced more than two weeks ago that Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, was to meet Abdelbaset Megrahi in the context of the Libyan Government's application for his repatriation under the Libya-UK prisoner transfer agreement. Presumably such a meeting would also be relevant to the application for compassionate release that has also now been lodged.
No such meeting has as yet taken place. The 90 day period within which, according to the prisoner transfer agreement, a decision should, if practicable, be reached, expires on 3 August. The Scottish Government did, however, make it clear when the PTA application was received that it might not be possible for a decision to be arrived at within this time scale.
No such meeting has as yet taken place. The 90 day period within which, according to the prisoner transfer agreement, a decision should, if practicable, be reached, expires on 3 August. The Scottish Government did, however, make it clear when the PTA application was received that it might not be possible for a decision to be arrived at within this time scale.
Monday, 27 July 2009
The waiting game
[This is the headline over my column in the July issue of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
It took three years for the SCCRC to conclude that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al- Megrahi may be the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and a further two years will have passed before his appeal is heard, by which time he may have died. Professor Robert Black QC calls on the Scottish authorities to show some courage before it is too late.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi should never have been convicted for the Lockerbie atrocity. His conviction, on the evidence led at the trial, was nothing short of astonishing. It constitutes the worst miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a Scottish criminal court since the conviction of Oscar Slater in 1909.
It should never be forgotten that one crucial ground on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in Megrahi’s case, was its view that no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the trial court did, on a matter absolutely central to its reasons for convicting.
The delay in bringing Megrahi’s current appeal to the hearing stage has been scandalous. Had a modicum of urgency been shown, it is entirely conceivable that the appeal could have been over before now and the appellant back with his wife and children in his own country, a free man. The SCCRC had his case under consideration for more than three years before referring it back to the High Court. But the issue of the trial court’s unreasonable findings is a very simple and straightforward one and required virtually no investigation other that a perusal of the relevant portions of the transcript of evidence. If the SCCRC decided early in its deliberations that the case was going to have to be referred back on this ground – and it is difficult to believe that it did not – then delaying taking that step for three years is hard to justify.
Then there is the delay that has occurred after the SCCRC referred the case to the High Court in June 2007, attributable in large part to the Fabian tactics of the Crown and the spurious public interest immunity claims of the UK Foreign Office. Two whole years have passed since the SCCRC reference. Eighteen months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court. And it was only at the end of April 2009 that the first tranche of the appeal was heard. On the leisurely timetable that the appeal court has set, it would require a minor miracle for the proceedings to be concluded by the twenty-first anniversary of the disaster in December 2009.
What makes all of this worse is that the appellant was diagnosed in October 2008 with terminal, late-stage prostate cancer. His condition has recently deteriorated to such an extent that he was unable to attend court for the first tranche of the appeal or, indeed, comfortably to follow the proceedings over the TV link that had been set up.
The recently lodged prisoner transfer application would enable him to return to Libya to spend his remaining weeks with his wife, children, aged mother and siblings, which is – understandably – now his overriding priority. But, for prisoner transfer to be granted by the Scottish Government, Megrahi would have to abandon his appeal. This, clearly, would bring joy to the hearts of the Crown Office and the Scottish Government Justice Department. The manifold concerns over the Lockerbie conviction could be gleefully swept under the carpet and the pretence maintained that the system had worked perfectly and a guilty man had been justly convicted.
However, there is another course of action open to the Scottish Government, if Ministers have the strength of will and character to withstand the pressure of civil servants assiduously punting the prisoner transfer option. That course of action is compassionate release. This would enable Megrahi to be freed on licence and return to Libya. His appeal would run to its natural conclusion. If he died before the appeal court reached its decision, the appeal could be transferred to his executor or any person having a legitimate interest.
The Scottish public interest demands nothing less than that the concerns over Megrahi’s conviction be ventilated fully in court. Compassionate release provides the only mechanism whereby this can be achieved alongside the humanitarian goal of allowing him to die at home. Have Scottish Ministers the wisdom and the courage to embrace it?
It took three years for the SCCRC to conclude that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al- Megrahi may be the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and a further two years will have passed before his appeal is heard, by which time he may have died. Professor Robert Black QC calls on the Scottish authorities to show some courage before it is too late.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi should never have been convicted for the Lockerbie atrocity. His conviction, on the evidence led at the trial, was nothing short of astonishing. It constitutes the worst miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a Scottish criminal court since the conviction of Oscar Slater in 1909.
It should never be forgotten that one crucial ground on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in Megrahi’s case, was its view that no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the trial court did, on a matter absolutely central to its reasons for convicting.
The delay in bringing Megrahi’s current appeal to the hearing stage has been scandalous. Had a modicum of urgency been shown, it is entirely conceivable that the appeal could have been over before now and the appellant back with his wife and children in his own country, a free man. The SCCRC had his case under consideration for more than three years before referring it back to the High Court. But the issue of the trial court’s unreasonable findings is a very simple and straightforward one and required virtually no investigation other that a perusal of the relevant portions of the transcript of evidence. If the SCCRC decided early in its deliberations that the case was going to have to be referred back on this ground – and it is difficult to believe that it did not – then delaying taking that step for three years is hard to justify.
Then there is the delay that has occurred after the SCCRC referred the case to the High Court in June 2007, attributable in large part to the Fabian tactics of the Crown and the spurious public interest immunity claims of the UK Foreign Office. Two whole years have passed since the SCCRC reference. Eighteen months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court. And it was only at the end of April 2009 that the first tranche of the appeal was heard. On the leisurely timetable that the appeal court has set, it would require a minor miracle for the proceedings to be concluded by the twenty-first anniversary of the disaster in December 2009.
What makes all of this worse is that the appellant was diagnosed in October 2008 with terminal, late-stage prostate cancer. His condition has recently deteriorated to such an extent that he was unable to attend court for the first tranche of the appeal or, indeed, comfortably to follow the proceedings over the TV link that had been set up.
The recently lodged prisoner transfer application would enable him to return to Libya to spend his remaining weeks with his wife, children, aged mother and siblings, which is – understandably – now his overriding priority. But, for prisoner transfer to be granted by the Scottish Government, Megrahi would have to abandon his appeal. This, clearly, would bring joy to the hearts of the Crown Office and the Scottish Government Justice Department. The manifold concerns over the Lockerbie conviction could be gleefully swept under the carpet and the pretence maintained that the system had worked perfectly and a guilty man had been justly convicted.
However, there is another course of action open to the Scottish Government, if Ministers have the strength of will and character to withstand the pressure of civil servants assiduously punting the prisoner transfer option. That course of action is compassionate release. This would enable Megrahi to be freed on licence and return to Libya. His appeal would run to its natural conclusion. If he died before the appeal court reached its decision, the appeal could be transferred to his executor or any person having a legitimate interest.
The Scottish public interest demands nothing less than that the concerns over Megrahi’s conviction be ventilated fully in court. Compassionate release provides the only mechanism whereby this can be achieved alongside the humanitarian goal of allowing him to die at home. Have Scottish Ministers the wisdom and the courage to embrace it?
Lockerbie -- bomber or victim?
The only man convicted of Britain’s worst ever terrorist outrage has asked to be released from prison on compassionate grounds. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, was jailed for 27 years for the Lockerbie bombing in 2001. His co-defendant was acquitted.
Al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal cancer, was alleged to have got the bomb onto PanAm Flight 103 in December 1988 via a connecting flight from Malta, though many people, including families of some of the 270 victims of the attack, are not convinced of his guilt, and believe he was the fall guy in a sordid stitch-up designed to end Libya’s diplomatic isolation.
In particular, sceptics have pointed to the fact that it was never mentioned at his trial that there had been a break-in at a Heathrow baggage store just 18 hours before flight 103 departed, and that someone could have smuggled a bag on board by getting it into this area.
Al-Megrahi is appealing against the verdict, and in June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said it feared he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. If his conviction were to be overturned it would, of course, raise some very inconvenient questions.
[This is the text of a post of today's date on John Withington's Disaster History blog.]
Al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal cancer, was alleged to have got the bomb onto PanAm Flight 103 in December 1988 via a connecting flight from Malta, though many people, including families of some of the 270 victims of the attack, are not convinced of his guilt, and believe he was the fall guy in a sordid stitch-up designed to end Libya’s diplomatic isolation.
In particular, sceptics have pointed to the fact that it was never mentioned at his trial that there had been a break-in at a Heathrow baggage store just 18 hours before flight 103 departed, and that someone could have smuggled a bag on board by getting it into this area.
Al-Megrahi is appealing against the verdict, and in June 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said it feared he may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. If his conviction were to be overturned it would, of course, raise some very inconvenient questions.
[This is the text of a post of today's date on John Withington's Disaster History blog.]
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Police consider prosecuting Crown Agent McFadyen
Lothian and Borders police have confirmed that they are considering whether to proceed to bring charges against Crown Agent Norman [McFadyen], more than a week after receiving information from MSP Christine Grahame in respect of his handling of the Lockerbie investigation.
[McFadyen] is presently on leave and cannot be contacted.
Lothian and Borders police said they were considering the content of Ms Grahame's letter, and would not rule out bringing charges against [McFadyen]. A police press officer said that they could not give any indication as to what will happen in the future.
The contents of Ms Grahame's letter are not known. However on 17 July the Crown Office took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement in defence of Mr [McFadyen], saying he was "a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.”
The Crown statement added that Ms Grahame's letter contained “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind,” although to date The Firm understands that no action for defamation is proceeding.
[The above is the text of a news item posted yesterday on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.
For an update from the magazine's website, click here.]
[McFadyen] is presently on leave and cannot be contacted.
Lothian and Borders police said they were considering the content of Ms Grahame's letter, and would not rule out bringing charges against [McFadyen]. A police press officer said that they could not give any indication as to what will happen in the future.
The contents of Ms Grahame's letter are not known. However on 17 July the Crown Office took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement in defence of Mr [McFadyen], saying he was "a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.”
The Crown statement added that Ms Grahame's letter contained “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind,” although to date The Firm understands that no action for defamation is proceeding.
[The above is the text of a news item posted yesterday on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.
For an update from the magazine's website, click here.]
How many judges thought the evidence warranted conviction?
Frank Duggan, President of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc, one of the US relatives' organisations, has recently been sending e-mails contending that eight Scottish judges regarded the evidence led at the Zeist trial as warranting the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi, namely the three judges at the original trial and the five judges at the first appeal. This is, of course, wholly false. As the appeal judges state 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 true 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."
“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 true 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."
Saturday, 25 July 2009
Megrahi requests release from jail on compassionate grounds
[This is the headline over Lucy Adams's coverage in The Herald of the story that was broken yesterday on this blog. Her article can be read here. The following are extracts:]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has applied to Scottish ministers for release on compassionate grounds, a move which if granted would allow him to return to Libya without dropping his appeal.
Ministers received the application yesterday from Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer last year.
As with the case of prisoner transfer, the decision rests with Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary. Unlike prisoner transfer, compassionate release does not require the prisoner to abandon any ongoing legal proceedings.
The Justice Secretary is thought to have released three terminally ill patients on compassionate grounds last year. Traditionally, only applications from those with three months to live are granted.
In May the Libyan government applied for prisoner transfer of Megrahi, the 57-year-old serving 27 years in Greenock prison for the bombing which killed 270 people in December 1988. (...)
Mr MacAskill is expected to make a decision on the transfer in the first week in August, but there has been some confusion about how the prisoner transfer agreement works. One legal expert said that ministers must give Megrahi a decision "in principle" before he drops proceedings, but officials say that is not the case.
It is thought that some of the US relatives of the victims of the tragedy would push for a judicial review if Mr MacAskill agrees to Megrahi's transfer back to Libya. Many of them are angry that the transfer is even being considered.
The families have taken legal advice in both London and Scotland. Judicial review could significantly delay Megrahi's return to Libya, but compassionate release is not subject to judicial review.
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of Megrahi's trial in the Netherlands, said: "Compassionate release seems to achieve the humanitarian objective of allowing Megrahi to die in his homeland among his extended family, along with the public interest and criminal justice objectives of allowing a court to rule upon the validity of an appeal in the case of a conviction that has been increasingly called into question."
[The Scotsman also covers the story. Its article reads in part:]
An e-mail sent yesterday from the Crown Office to relatives of those who died said: "It has been confirmed that the Scottish Government has today received an application for compassionate release on behalf of Megrahi.
"We understand that this application will now be considered by the Scottish Government in tandem with the previous application for Prisoner Transfer."
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: "We can confirm an application for compassionate release has been made by Mr al-Megrahi, and forwarded by the Libyan government to the Scottish ministers.
"Scottish ministers will not comment on the content of the application and will now seek advice on the application."
[The BBC News website has now picked up the story, which can be read here.]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has applied to Scottish ministers for release on compassionate grounds, a move which if granted would allow him to return to Libya without dropping his appeal.
Ministers received the application yesterday from Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer last year.
As with the case of prisoner transfer, the decision rests with Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary. Unlike prisoner transfer, compassionate release does not require the prisoner to abandon any ongoing legal proceedings.
The Justice Secretary is thought to have released three terminally ill patients on compassionate grounds last year. Traditionally, only applications from those with three months to live are granted.
In May the Libyan government applied for prisoner transfer of Megrahi, the 57-year-old serving 27 years in Greenock prison for the bombing which killed 270 people in December 1988. (...)
Mr MacAskill is expected to make a decision on the transfer in the first week in August, but there has been some confusion about how the prisoner transfer agreement works. One legal expert said that ministers must give Megrahi a decision "in principle" before he drops proceedings, but officials say that is not the case.
It is thought that some of the US relatives of the victims of the tragedy would push for a judicial review if Mr MacAskill agrees to Megrahi's transfer back to Libya. Many of them are angry that the transfer is even being considered.
The families have taken legal advice in both London and Scotland. Judicial review could significantly delay Megrahi's return to Libya, but compassionate release is not subject to judicial review.
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of Megrahi's trial in the Netherlands, said: "Compassionate release seems to achieve the humanitarian objective of allowing Megrahi to die in his homeland among his extended family, along with the public interest and criminal justice objectives of allowing a court to rule upon the validity of an appeal in the case of a conviction that has been increasingly called into question."
[The Scotsman also covers the story. Its article reads in part:]
An e-mail sent yesterday from the Crown Office to relatives of those who died said: "It has been confirmed that the Scottish Government has today received an application for compassionate release on behalf of Megrahi.
"We understand that this application will now be considered by the Scottish Government in tandem with the previous application for Prisoner Transfer."
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: "We can confirm an application for compassionate release has been made by Mr al-Megrahi, and forwarded by the Libyan government to the Scottish ministers.
"Scottish ministers will not comment on the content of the application and will now seek advice on the application."
[The BBC News website has now picked up the story, which can be read here.]
Friday, 24 July 2009
Application for compassionate release
I understand from an impeccable source that an application on behalf of Abdelbaset Megrahi for compassionate release has this morning been received by the Scottish Government Justice Department. As with the case of prisoner transfer, the decision rests with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill. Unlike prisoner transfer, compassionate release does not require the prisoner to abandon any ongoing legal proceedings.
Confirmation came in the form of an e-mail sent this afternoon by the Crown Office to relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103.
Confirmation came in the form of an e-mail sent this afternoon by the Crown Office to relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Crown defamation decision on hold
The Crown Office will not confirm if any action for defamation is to be taken in respect of claims made about Crown agent Norman MacFadyen, despite issuing an unprecedented statement which purports that “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind” had been made against him.
The Crown issued the statement on 17 July, but did not state what allegations they were referring to. They did however state that they had been made by MSP Christine Grahame in relation her inquires into the Lockerbie proceedings.
The Crown Office had been asked to clarify whether an action for defamation would follow from Mr McFadyen, given the unprecedented nature of the statement they had issued which not only robustly defended Mr MacFadyen, but suggested Ms Grahame, a former solicitor, had failed to understand the judicial process she was referring to.
“Norman McFadyen is a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers,” the Crown statement said.
“Not only is the allegation false in itself but Mrs Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because the documents which she has referred to were not part of and had absolutely nothing to do with it."
The Crown Office as an organisation is not permitted to raise an action for defamation following the decision in the 1984 Derbyshire County Council case. McFadyen himself is presently on leave. The Crown Office has advised that any decision on whether to raise such an action would be a private matter for him.
[The above is the text of a news item posted today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
The Crown issued the statement on 17 July, but did not state what allegations they were referring to. They did however state that they had been made by MSP Christine Grahame in relation her inquires into the Lockerbie proceedings.
The Crown Office had been asked to clarify whether an action for defamation would follow from Mr McFadyen, given the unprecedented nature of the statement they had issued which not only robustly defended Mr MacFadyen, but suggested Ms Grahame, a former solicitor, had failed to understand the judicial process she was referring to.
“Norman McFadyen is a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers,” the Crown statement said.
“Not only is the allegation false in itself but Mrs Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because the documents which she has referred to were not part of and had absolutely nothing to do with it."
The Crown Office as an organisation is not permitted to raise an action for defamation following the decision in the 1984 Derbyshire County Council case. McFadyen himself is presently on leave. The Crown Office has advised that any decision on whether to raise such an action would be a private matter for him.
[The above is the text of a news item posted today on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]
Harris book sheds new light on Lockerbie bombing case
[This is the heading over a press release intimating the publication of a new book by Paul Harris. The release reads as follows:]
A book, written by former journalist and intelligence analyst Paul Harris, produces new evidence that the Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. This information comes as the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill is poised to intervene in the case.
The author of More Thrills than Skills: Adventures in Journalism, War & Terrorism says that the evidence of the key witness in the 2001 Camp Zeist trial must be regarded as “deeply suspect”. Swiss businessman Edwin Bollier testified that a piece of electronic circuit board found later at the crash site near Lockerbie was made by his company and supplied to the Libyans. Harris reveals that he investigated Bollier for MI6, the British intelligence agency, in the early 1970s, long before the Lockerbie bombing.
Harris regards the circuit board evidence as unreliable. Far more convincing, he says, is other evidence found at the crash site indicating that a Toshiba cassette recorder, planted by the Damascus-based terror group PFLP-GC, was responsible for the explosion aboard Pan Am 103.
Harris’s personal experiences in relation to the case are recounted in More Thrills than Skills, pages 39-47 (published by Kennedy & Boyd, Glasgow/amazon.co.uk).
Bio note: Paul Harris worked as Specialist Contributor Terrorism & Counter Insurgency for Janes Intelligence Review 1993-2003. He was also a contributing foreign correspondent for Sky News, The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday, and Colombo correspondent for The Daily Telegraph (2001-2).
The book launch takes place at 10 London Street, Edinburgh, on July 22 at 1830 hours ...
[A short press release cannot be expected to descend into minutiae; but the sentence about Ed Bollier's evidence is hardly an accurate reflection of his testimony at Zeist.]
A book, written by former journalist and intelligence analyst Paul Harris, produces new evidence that the Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. This information comes as the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill is poised to intervene in the case.
The author of More Thrills than Skills: Adventures in Journalism, War & Terrorism says that the evidence of the key witness in the 2001 Camp Zeist trial must be regarded as “deeply suspect”. Swiss businessman Edwin Bollier testified that a piece of electronic circuit board found later at the crash site near Lockerbie was made by his company and supplied to the Libyans. Harris reveals that he investigated Bollier for MI6, the British intelligence agency, in the early 1970s, long before the Lockerbie bombing.
Harris regards the circuit board evidence as unreliable. Far more convincing, he says, is other evidence found at the crash site indicating that a Toshiba cassette recorder, planted by the Damascus-based terror group PFLP-GC, was responsible for the explosion aboard Pan Am 103.
Harris’s personal experiences in relation to the case are recounted in More Thrills than Skills, pages 39-47 (published by Kennedy & Boyd, Glasgow/amazon.co.uk).
Bio note: Paul Harris worked as Specialist Contributor Terrorism & Counter Insurgency for Janes Intelligence Review 1993-2003. He was also a contributing foreign correspondent for Sky News, The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday, and Colombo correspondent for The Daily Telegraph (2001-2).
The book launch takes place at 10 London Street, Edinburgh, on July 22 at 1830 hours ...
[A short press release cannot be expected to descend into minutiae; but the sentence about Ed Bollier's evidence is hardly an accurate reflection of his testimony at Zeist.]
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Libyan prodigal
There must still be suspicions over Gaddafi’s past involvement with Lockerbie. But it is right to deal with those who renounce terrorism, however distasteful
Nothing can heal the wound left by a child, a parent or a loved one lost to terrorism. And for the relatives of the victims murdered aboard Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, the past 21 years have been especially hard. For a long time they had no idea who had carried out the atrocity. When finally the suspects were named, they suffered the frustration of Libya’s refusal to extradite the men for trial. And even after the conviction in The Hague of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, there are many who believe that the 270 victims were not killed by one man acting alone: that a conspiracy involved many others, not least the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
To see Colonel Gaddafi received with full honours at the United Nations in September will therefore be particularly galling. Lockerbie families have voiced shock and outrage at the news that this former supporter of global terrorism will address the General Assembly on the opening day, immediately after President Obama. To them, he is still a murderer, the man who ordered the outrage; his visit has left the president of the victims’ families group “speechless”.
[From a leader in The Times of 23 July 2009.
The leader writer might also have mentioned that there are many who believe that the 270 victims were not killed by Abdelbaset Megrahi at all; and that his conviction is currently under appeal, on a reference from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. But expecting accuracy and even-handedness on the part of The Times over Lockerbie is a forlorn hope.
The news story that seemingly prompted the leader can be read here. It is interesting that the newspaper reports comments only from American relatives of Pan Am 103 victims, not from UK relatives, at least some of whom have very different views.]
Nothing can heal the wound left by a child, a parent or a loved one lost to terrorism. And for the relatives of the victims murdered aboard Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, the past 21 years have been especially hard. For a long time they had no idea who had carried out the atrocity. When finally the suspects were named, they suffered the frustration of Libya’s refusal to extradite the men for trial. And even after the conviction in The Hague of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, there are many who believe that the 270 victims were not killed by one man acting alone: that a conspiracy involved many others, not least the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
To see Colonel Gaddafi received with full honours at the United Nations in September will therefore be particularly galling. Lockerbie families have voiced shock and outrage at the news that this former supporter of global terrorism will address the General Assembly on the opening day, immediately after President Obama. To them, he is still a murderer, the man who ordered the outrage; his visit has left the president of the victims’ families group “speechless”.
[From a leader in The Times of 23 July 2009.
The leader writer might also have mentioned that there are many who believe that the 270 victims were not killed by Abdelbaset Megrahi at all; and that his conviction is currently under appeal, on a reference from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. But expecting accuracy and even-handedness on the part of The Times over Lockerbie is a forlorn hope.
The news story that seemingly prompted the leader can be read here. It is interesting that the newspaper reports comments only from American relatives of Pan Am 103 victims, not from UK relatives, at least some of whom have very different views.]
More from a former student
I watched a documentary on the Lockerbie bombing this evening on you tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnEmsgBzLxw
and found out some more information about the case.
The Libyan man convicted, Abdelbaset Megrahi, is appealing again at the moment, and an MSP, Christine Grahame, is being threatened with legal action for questioning the actions of the Advocate General in securing his imprisonment. This is still a hugely contentious issue even twenty years on from the event, with many in Scotland, including Professor Robert Black, the legal expert who set up the special trial in Holland, feeling that Megrahi's conviction is unsound.
The documentary did not however question his guilt, pointing to CIA evidence which linked a tiny scrap of a bomb timer's motherboard being the same model as that found on some Libyan terrorists caught trying to travel with it through customs somewhere in Africa, years earlier. This, along with the fact that Megrahi had once had contact with the Swiss firm which made the devices, was held against him, seemingly justifiably. In addition was the fact that a Maltese shopkeeper, in whose shop the clothes in the suitacase which contained the bomb wer bought, recalled having sold them to 'a man with a Libyan accent'. It was not however mentioned that this shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, failed to identify Megrahi numerous times before finally doing so. Professor Black, in his scepticism about the conviction, focuses on this as the key weakness in the prosecution case. Absence of any kind of id would make the evidence against Megrahi purely circumstantial: he was stationed in Malta, where the clothes were bought, and worked as an intelligence officer for the country under suspicion. THis does not however mean that he is the man who carried out that horrendous deed of packing the case and putting it on the plane in Frankfurt, bound for New York via Heathrow, on December 21st 1988.
The subsequent compeensation payout of 8 million dollars per victim by Libya to the families seems to be an acknowledgement of guilt. But whose? Does Libya and Colonel Gadaffi implicitly accept responsibility for Megrahi's actions? Or is it simply a grace payment designed to smooth the way for a removal of sanctions. What would happen if, unlikely as it may be, Megrahi wins his appeal? We would be left with the farcical situation of Libya having paid out for a crime none of its agents were ever found responsible for in a court of law. The convenient response would be to say 'end of story': for pragmatic purposes, a country cannot be put on trial, and compensation should be accepted instead. But Saddam Hussein might argue, it's a pity the same rule didn't apply to him.
What if, on the other hand, Libya was not responsible for Lockerbie, but it suited certain international interests to frame them, or rather Megrahi, for the crime? And here we come back to the evidence: the CIA discovery of the match with the timer device previously found in Africa. Can anyone say that this evidence was genuine? Given the CIA's past record, it's hardly implausible that they produced evidence to suit a story they wanted to create. And what about the fact that, 6 months prior to Lockerbie, the US Navy had accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing even more people than died in Pan Am 103. For this, Iran declared that it would get revenge, so isn't it strange that Libya should be the ones to down the jet?
The families, the vast majority anyway, seem opposed to the appeal, or the idea that Megrahi should be allowed back to Libya becuase he is dying of cancer. They want to see him die in a Scottish jail, as the man who perpetrated a horrific mass murder, one of the most callous acts it is possible to imagine. But, it seems to me, it would be to the discredit of the Scottish legal system to keep him there, as we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, that he was the man responsible for this atrocity. Surely, if ever there was a need for sanctions threat by the US, it is against Gadaffi again, if he doesn not make public the documents which must still exist relating to Libyan security service operations in 1988. If he cannot produce these documents, serious doubts must arise as to whether his country was responsible at all, and Megrahi would have to go free, at least for the last few years before he dies of cancer.
[The above is a post dated 21 July 2009 on the tinoscandle blog. For an earlier related post from the same blog, click here.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnEmsgBzLxw
and found out some more information about the case.
The Libyan man convicted, Abdelbaset Megrahi, is appealing again at the moment, and an MSP, Christine Grahame, is being threatened with legal action for questioning the actions of the Advocate General in securing his imprisonment. This is still a hugely contentious issue even twenty years on from the event, with many in Scotland, including Professor Robert Black, the legal expert who set up the special trial in Holland, feeling that Megrahi's conviction is unsound.
The documentary did not however question his guilt, pointing to CIA evidence which linked a tiny scrap of a bomb timer's motherboard being the same model as that found on some Libyan terrorists caught trying to travel with it through customs somewhere in Africa, years earlier. This, along with the fact that Megrahi had once had contact with the Swiss firm which made the devices, was held against him, seemingly justifiably. In addition was the fact that a Maltese shopkeeper, in whose shop the clothes in the suitacase which contained the bomb wer bought, recalled having sold them to 'a man with a Libyan accent'. It was not however mentioned that this shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, failed to identify Megrahi numerous times before finally doing so. Professor Black, in his scepticism about the conviction, focuses on this as the key weakness in the prosecution case. Absence of any kind of id would make the evidence against Megrahi purely circumstantial: he was stationed in Malta, where the clothes were bought, and worked as an intelligence officer for the country under suspicion. THis does not however mean that he is the man who carried out that horrendous deed of packing the case and putting it on the plane in Frankfurt, bound for New York via Heathrow, on December 21st 1988.
The subsequent compeensation payout of 8 million dollars per victim by Libya to the families seems to be an acknowledgement of guilt. But whose? Does Libya and Colonel Gadaffi implicitly accept responsibility for Megrahi's actions? Or is it simply a grace payment designed to smooth the way for a removal of sanctions. What would happen if, unlikely as it may be, Megrahi wins his appeal? We would be left with the farcical situation of Libya having paid out for a crime none of its agents were ever found responsible for in a court of law. The convenient response would be to say 'end of story': for pragmatic purposes, a country cannot be put on trial, and compensation should be accepted instead. But Saddam Hussein might argue, it's a pity the same rule didn't apply to him.
What if, on the other hand, Libya was not responsible for Lockerbie, but it suited certain international interests to frame them, or rather Megrahi, for the crime? And here we come back to the evidence: the CIA discovery of the match with the timer device previously found in Africa. Can anyone say that this evidence was genuine? Given the CIA's past record, it's hardly implausible that they produced evidence to suit a story they wanted to create. And what about the fact that, 6 months prior to Lockerbie, the US Navy had accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing even more people than died in Pan Am 103. For this, Iran declared that it would get revenge, so isn't it strange that Libya should be the ones to down the jet?
The families, the vast majority anyway, seem opposed to the appeal, or the idea that Megrahi should be allowed back to Libya becuase he is dying of cancer. They want to see him die in a Scottish jail, as the man who perpetrated a horrific mass murder, one of the most callous acts it is possible to imagine. But, it seems to me, it would be to the discredit of the Scottish legal system to keep him there, as we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, that he was the man responsible for this atrocity. Surely, if ever there was a need for sanctions threat by the US, it is against Gadaffi again, if he doesn not make public the documents which must still exist relating to Libyan security service operations in 1988. If he cannot produce these documents, serious doubts must arise as to whether his country was responsible at all, and Megrahi would have to go free, at least for the last few years before he dies of cancer.
[The above is a post dated 21 July 2009 on the tinoscandle blog. For an earlier related post from the same blog, click here.]
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
MSP asks police to investigate Crown Agent
[The Scottish edition of the Sunday Express ran the following story by Meg Milne on 19 July. It does not seem to feature on the newspaper's website. A number of other Scottish Sunday newspapers apparently decided to spike the story because of the Crown Office statement mentioned below.]
Police will decide this week if one of Scotland's most senior prosecutors is to be investigated over allegations about the Lockerbie trial.
The move comes after SNP backbencher Christine Grahame raised serious concerns in a letter to Lothian and Borders Chief Constable David Strang.
Ms Grahame wants to investigate Crown Agent Norman McFadyen, who led the 2000 prosecution of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who is appealing his conviction.
Ms Grahame, who said she has concerns about Mr McFadyen's role, said y esterday: "After considerable deliberation I have decided to report this matter to Lothian and Borders Police.
"It is becoming increasingly apparent that the case against Mr Megrahi, w ho is terminally ill, does not, in my view, stand up to thorough examination."
However, in an unprecedented step, the Crown Office issued a statement rebuking Ms Grahame for making "defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations".
A spokesman said: "We have been made aware of serious allegations made by Christine Grahame.
"These are defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind. Norman McFadyen is a man of utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers."
A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said:
"If there is a statement from the Chief Constable, it will be on Monday".
Details of the allegations made by Ms Grahame - which have been seen by the Scottish Sunday Express - cannot be repeated for legal reasons.
However, the South of Scotland MSP also claims to have copies of secret US intelligence documents that show Iran may have been responsible for the terrorist outrage.
One document, dated September 24, 1989, states:
"The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar [Montashemi], the former Iranian Minister of Interior.
"The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jabril, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command leader, for a sum of 1,000,000 US dollars.
"One hundred thousand dollars of this money was given to Jabril up front in Damascus, by the Iranian Ambassador to Sy (Syria) Muhammad Hussan for initial expenses.
"The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission."
As the Sunday Express first revealed in 2004, it also states that analysis of materials confiscated in a raid of a PFLP-GC cell in Germany in October 1988 provided strong circumstantial evidence linking the cell to the bombing and that Iran had reportedly made a large payment to the PFLP-GC following the bombing.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is currently considering a prisoner transfer request from Libya for Megrahi, 57, who is terminally ill with prostrate cancer in Greenock Prison.
Yesterday, it emerged that some of the families of the American victims are planning to block his repatriation, if it is approved, by applying for a judicial review of the decision.
Ms Grahame claims that such a move would ensure that Megrahi dies in prison and she repeated her calls for the former Libyan agent to be released on compassionate grounds.
Police will decide this week if one of Scotland's most senior prosecutors is to be investigated over allegations about the Lockerbie trial.
The move comes after SNP backbencher Christine Grahame raised serious concerns in a letter to Lothian and Borders Chief Constable David Strang.
Ms Grahame wants to investigate Crown Agent Norman McFadyen, who led the 2000 prosecution of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who is appealing his conviction.
Ms Grahame, who said she has concerns about Mr McFadyen's role, said y esterday: "After considerable deliberation I have decided to report this matter to Lothian and Borders Police.
"It is becoming increasingly apparent that the case against Mr Megrahi, w ho is terminally ill, does not, in my view, stand up to thorough examination."
However, in an unprecedented step, the Crown Office issued a statement rebuking Ms Grahame for making "defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations".
A spokesman said: "We have been made aware of serious allegations made by Christine Grahame.
"These are defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind. Norman McFadyen is a man of utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers."
A Lothian and Borders Police spokeswoman said:
"If there is a statement from the Chief Constable, it will be on Monday".
Details of the allegations made by Ms Grahame - which have been seen by the Scottish Sunday Express - cannot be repeated for legal reasons.
However, the South of Scotland MSP also claims to have copies of secret US intelligence documents that show Iran may have been responsible for the terrorist outrage.
One document, dated September 24, 1989, states:
"The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar [Montashemi], the former Iranian Minister of Interior.
"The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jabril, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command leader, for a sum of 1,000,000 US dollars.
"One hundred thousand dollars of this money was given to Jabril up front in Damascus, by the Iranian Ambassador to Sy (Syria) Muhammad Hussan for initial expenses.
"The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission."
As the Sunday Express first revealed in 2004, it also states that analysis of materials confiscated in a raid of a PFLP-GC cell in Germany in October 1988 provided strong circumstantial evidence linking the cell to the bombing and that Iran had reportedly made a large payment to the PFLP-GC following the bombing.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is currently considering a prisoner transfer request from Libya for Megrahi, 57, who is terminally ill with prostrate cancer in Greenock Prison.
Yesterday, it emerged that some of the families of the American victims are planning to block his repatriation, if it is approved, by applying for a judicial review of the decision.
Ms Grahame claims that such a move would ensure that Megrahi dies in prison and she repeated her calls for the former Libyan agent to be released on compassionate grounds.
Monday, 20 July 2009
Editor of The Firm asks for clarification
[What follows is an e-mail sent today by Steven Raeburn, the editor of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, to various officials of the Scottish Government and the Crown Office.]
The Scottish Government advise that the news release below was sent by Crown Office.
As an editor, I am concerned at the covert nature of this, which does appear to constitute something of an off record whispering campaign, or a conscious effort to traduce Ms Grahame, who is an elected member of Parliament. Whilst not every editor may be familiar with the specific point Ms Grahame has made, which you claim is defamatory, I can advise you that the same point was made to me directly by Lhamin Khalifa Fhimah's former defence team in 2004, in terms far from less circumspect and a good deal more critical than the published claims of Ms Grahame. If her claims are true, which we must accept is a possibility, they cannot be defamatory, and accordingly Mr McFadyen may potentially have some legitimate questions to answer. The full picture may not prove to be as definitive as the release presently claims.
Hence, it is appropriate that we tread carefully. Therefore, would you be able to advise:
- Is this release attributable, and if so, to whom?
- Is this for publication?
- If the comments made my Ms Grahame are defamatory as claimed, is an action for defamation being pursued?
- If the "defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind" have been published, is any action being taken against the publication(s) in question?
- And do you have any additional statement to make in respect of this?
I do await hearing from you.
---------
From: THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT
NOTE TO EDITORS
We have been made aware of serious allegations made by Christine Grahame against the Crown Agent, Norman McFadyen, in relation to the Lockerbie trial.
These are defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind. Norman McFadyen is a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.
Not only is the allegation false in itself but Mrs Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because the documents which she has referred to were not part of and had absolutely nothing to do with it.
The whole process was fully considered by the trial court which thanked the then Lord Advocate for the Crown s efforts to bring as much information as possible before the Court.
By the end of the process information made available to the Crown by the US authorities was made available to the defence, the trial court and also the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in the form in which it was received from the US authorities.
The Commission extensively and fully investigated the process. The Commission concluded that there was no basis to refer the issue to the appeal court.
[According to a report dated 21 July on The Firm's website, the Crown Office is refusing to answer Mr Raeburn's queries.]
The Scottish Government advise that the news release below was sent by Crown Office.
As an editor, I am concerned at the covert nature of this, which does appear to constitute something of an off record whispering campaign, or a conscious effort to traduce Ms Grahame, who is an elected member of Parliament. Whilst not every editor may be familiar with the specific point Ms Grahame has made, which you claim is defamatory, I can advise you that the same point was made to me directly by Lhamin Khalifa Fhimah's former defence team in 2004, in terms far from less circumspect and a good deal more critical than the published claims of Ms Grahame. If her claims are true, which we must accept is a possibility, they cannot be defamatory, and accordingly Mr McFadyen may potentially have some legitimate questions to answer. The full picture may not prove to be as definitive as the release presently claims.
Hence, it is appropriate that we tread carefully. Therefore, would you be able to advise:
- Is this release attributable, and if so, to whom?
- Is this for publication?
- If the comments made my Ms Grahame are defamatory as claimed, is an action for defamation being pursued?
- If the "defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind" have been published, is any action being taken against the publication(s) in question?
- And do you have any additional statement to make in respect of this?
I do await hearing from you.
---------
From: THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT
NOTE TO EDITORS
We have been made aware of serious allegations made by Christine Grahame against the Crown Agent, Norman McFadyen, in relation to the Lockerbie trial.
These are defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind. Norman McFadyen is a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the Law Officers.
Not only is the allegation false in itself but Mrs Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because the documents which she has referred to were not part of and had absolutely nothing to do with it.
The whole process was fully considered by the trial court which thanked the then Lord Advocate for the Crown s efforts to bring as much information as possible before the Court.
By the end of the process information made available to the Crown by the US authorities was made available to the defence, the trial court and also the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in the form in which it was received from the US authorities.
The Commission extensively and fully investigated the process. The Commission concluded that there was no basis to refer the issue to the appeal court.
[According to a report dated 21 July on The Firm's website, the Crown Office is refusing to answer Mr Raeburn's queries.]
Cancer care expert voices concern for al Megrahi
An eminent psychologist and expert in cancer support who assessed the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has spoken for the first time about his fears for the Libyan.
Dr James Brennan, consultant clinical psychologist at the Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, warned that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is so culturally isolated that it is almost impossible for him to come to terms with his terminal illness.
In an exclusive interview with The Herald, Dr Brennan, who is also a senior lecturer in palliative medicine at Bristol University, said that Megrahi was "desperate", partly because he cannot spend his remaining time with his family. (...)
Dr Brennan said: "Physically he is deteriorating, and emotionally he will deteriorate further without suitable support. It would seem to me that the best form of support would be from his family in his own country.
"Human beings can only cope and conceptualise the end of life through language and it is impossible to imagine how to do this in isolation or through occasional telephone calls with family."
In May, the Libyan government applied for prisoner transfer of Megrahi and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has 90 days to make a decision. The transfer cannot go ahead while legal proceedings are live.
Megrahi has signed a document saying he would drop proceedings, but the move has led to an international political impasse as Mr MacAskill says he cannot complete the transfer until Megrahi has dropped the appeal.
Supporters, including Christine Graham MSP, are pushing for his "compassionate release" as a preferable alternative. Others, including many of the relatives in the US, are furious that the transfer is even under consideration.
"What struck me is just how isolated he is," said Dr Brennan. "He has got so few people he can talk to or relate to. He is cut off from natural systems of support and there is no-one there of a similar cultural background.
"The most important thing when we are facing our mortality is the opportunity to talk about it with friends and family. I have worked in cancer for 17 years and have worked with a lot of people facing the end of their lives and the way they prepare themselves for death is through talking.
"As someone who works in the NHS, it seems inhumane to tell someone they have a fatal illness and then just take them back to their cell. He cannot attend to the things that most people would want to - including preparing their children for the fact he is going to die."
Dr Brennan added: "He seemed very motivated to get his appeal heard. Nonetheless, he seemed desperate and I felt he was very much heading for a major depression.
"He has not made friends in prison. There was someone who worked in the kitchen from India that he got to know, but he has left. This is an educated man and he is pretty offended by the language and blasphemy he hears there.
"To me, he felt very genuine and open. Even though he knows I have no power, he wanted me to know that he is not the monster he has been portrayed as, but a father and husband.
[From an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. The full text can be read here.]
Dr James Brennan, consultant clinical psychologist at the Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, warned that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is so culturally isolated that it is almost impossible for him to come to terms with his terminal illness.
In an exclusive interview with The Herald, Dr Brennan, who is also a senior lecturer in palliative medicine at Bristol University, said that Megrahi was "desperate", partly because he cannot spend his remaining time with his family. (...)
Dr Brennan said: "Physically he is deteriorating, and emotionally he will deteriorate further without suitable support. It would seem to me that the best form of support would be from his family in his own country.
"Human beings can only cope and conceptualise the end of life through language and it is impossible to imagine how to do this in isolation or through occasional telephone calls with family."
In May, the Libyan government applied for prisoner transfer of Megrahi and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has 90 days to make a decision. The transfer cannot go ahead while legal proceedings are live.
Megrahi has signed a document saying he would drop proceedings, but the move has led to an international political impasse as Mr MacAskill says he cannot complete the transfer until Megrahi has dropped the appeal.
Supporters, including Christine Graham MSP, are pushing for his "compassionate release" as a preferable alternative. Others, including many of the relatives in the US, are furious that the transfer is even under consideration.
"What struck me is just how isolated he is," said Dr Brennan. "He has got so few people he can talk to or relate to. He is cut off from natural systems of support and there is no-one there of a similar cultural background.
"The most important thing when we are facing our mortality is the opportunity to talk about it with friends and family. I have worked in cancer for 17 years and have worked with a lot of people facing the end of their lives and the way they prepare themselves for death is through talking.
"As someone who works in the NHS, it seems inhumane to tell someone they have a fatal illness and then just take them back to their cell. He cannot attend to the things that most people would want to - including preparing their children for the fact he is going to die."
Dr Brennan added: "He seemed very motivated to get his appeal heard. Nonetheless, he seemed desperate and I felt he was very much heading for a major depression.
"He has not made friends in prison. There was someone who worked in the kitchen from India that he got to know, but he has left. This is an educated man and he is pretty offended by the language and blasphemy he hears there.
"To me, he felt very genuine and open. Even though he knows I have no power, he wanted me to know that he is not the monster he has been portrayed as, but a father and husband.
[From an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. The full text can be read here.]
Stretched to the limit
In the courts, the second appeal by the man convicted of planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, appeared to stumble earlier this month. A decision was expected on grounds 1 and 2 of Megrahi's appeal on 7 July. Instead the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, stunned everyone present when he announced that one of the five judges, Lord Wheatley, had undergone heart surgery and would not be able to participate further until September.
Lord Hamilton was asked by defence counsel Maggie Scott, QC, to consider appointing a "shadow" judge to the bench in consideration of Megrahi's deteriorating health. It is understood he will nominate a "shadow" shortly.
The problem has been that even with 36 Senators of the College of Justice, its highest-ever membership, it is difficult to find another judge who has not been "cup tied" by participation in a previous Lockerbie-related case – the original Camp Zeist trial, the five-judge bench that rejected Megrahi's first appeal, a role in the original prosecution or involvement in the 1990-91 fatal accident inquiry.
Professor Robert Black says there is an alternative solution available to the Lord President founded in normal Scots law: "The statutory quorum of judges for hearing criminal appeals is normally three. There was never any technical reason why Megrahi's new appeal had to be heard before five judges. They obviously chose to do so because the original trial was before three judges and the first appeal before a bench of five. That was in itself unusual because the number was specified in terms of a special Order in Council. But that Order in Council no longer applies. It expired at the end of the first appeal."
Prof Black's solution is to nominate the junior of the remaining four judges on the bench as the "shadow" in case of further misfortune, allowing the original schedule to be resumed. In parallel to the appeal, there is a separate process initiated by the application lodged by the government of Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement signed with the UK government in November 2008.
Scottish ministers are bound by the agreement and required to consider transfer applications made under it. Megrahi is the only known Libyan presently in jail in the UK. The Scottish Government received an application from the Libyan government in respect of Megrahi on 5 May. Responsibility for considering the application has fallen to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has to carry out a quasi-judicial role in assessing the merits of the competing arguments.
As part of the exercise, MacAskill invited families of the US victims to take part in a video link consultation last week. The president of US Victims of Pan Am 103, retired lawyer Frank Duggan, says about eight family representatives were present in Washington and a similar number in New York. (...)
[Mr Duggan said] "It was very, very difficult and we were all blubbering. I got the impression Mr MacAskill was listening very carefully. Of course, he couldn't make comments, as that would compromise his role, but he was clearly going about his job properly."
Stephanie Bernstein, a recently-ordained Rabbi in Washington, says: "This decision for Mr MacAskill is very difficult, but very important."
Mr Duggan dismisses stories that said the US families had taken legal advice that would underpin an application for immediate judicial review should Mr MacAskill decided to grant the Libyan government application. "That is completely wrong," he says. "We haven't sought such legal opinion, nor do we intend to. There's no suggestion of us raising judicial review – as a group we don't have standing in the Scots jurisdiction. It's not an option.
"Don't get me wrong: if Megrahi is sent back, we will raise hell. It was clear in all the correspondence between the US, UK and the United Nations, if anyone was convicted (at Camp Zeist], they would serve the whole sentence in Scotland. That was the deal."
In terms of the prisoner transfer agreement, Mr MacAskill has 90 days from the date of the Libyan application, 5 May, to reach a decision. The application cannot proceed while legal proceedings continue; Megrahi would have to abandon his appeal to activate the transfer.
The key decision might not be a legal one, however. Megrahi's medical condition might cut across both the appeal and prisoner transfer agreement. If medical opinion were to establish that he is seriously ill and close to death, Mr MacAskill could order his release on compassionate grounds. On that basis, Megrahi would be deemed to have served his sentence in terms of Scots law.
Mr Duggan says: "There are thousands of prisoners in US jails with cancer who serve many years with it. We don't want a horrible death in jail for anyone, but at his bail hearing, it was said he could live for another five years. I think we have more faith in the Scottish legal system than you appear to over there."
[From an article by John Forsyth in today's edition of The Scotsman. The full text can be read here.]
Lord Hamilton was asked by defence counsel Maggie Scott, QC, to consider appointing a "shadow" judge to the bench in consideration of Megrahi's deteriorating health. It is understood he will nominate a "shadow" shortly.
The problem has been that even with 36 Senators of the College of Justice, its highest-ever membership, it is difficult to find another judge who has not been "cup tied" by participation in a previous Lockerbie-related case – the original Camp Zeist trial, the five-judge bench that rejected Megrahi's first appeal, a role in the original prosecution or involvement in the 1990-91 fatal accident inquiry.
Professor Robert Black says there is an alternative solution available to the Lord President founded in normal Scots law: "The statutory quorum of judges for hearing criminal appeals is normally three. There was never any technical reason why Megrahi's new appeal had to be heard before five judges. They obviously chose to do so because the original trial was before three judges and the first appeal before a bench of five. That was in itself unusual because the number was specified in terms of a special Order in Council. But that Order in Council no longer applies. It expired at the end of the first appeal."
Prof Black's solution is to nominate the junior of the remaining four judges on the bench as the "shadow" in case of further misfortune, allowing the original schedule to be resumed. In parallel to the appeal, there is a separate process initiated by the application lodged by the government of Libya under the prisoner transfer agreement signed with the UK government in November 2008.
Scottish ministers are bound by the agreement and required to consider transfer applications made under it. Megrahi is the only known Libyan presently in jail in the UK. The Scottish Government received an application from the Libyan government in respect of Megrahi on 5 May. Responsibility for considering the application has fallen to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has to carry out a quasi-judicial role in assessing the merits of the competing arguments.
As part of the exercise, MacAskill invited families of the US victims to take part in a video link consultation last week. The president of US Victims of Pan Am 103, retired lawyer Frank Duggan, says about eight family representatives were present in Washington and a similar number in New York. (...)
[Mr Duggan said] "It was very, very difficult and we were all blubbering. I got the impression Mr MacAskill was listening very carefully. Of course, he couldn't make comments, as that would compromise his role, but he was clearly going about his job properly."
Stephanie Bernstein, a recently-ordained Rabbi in Washington, says: "This decision for Mr MacAskill is very difficult, but very important."
Mr Duggan dismisses stories that said the US families had taken legal advice that would underpin an application for immediate judicial review should Mr MacAskill decided to grant the Libyan government application. "That is completely wrong," he says. "We haven't sought such legal opinion, nor do we intend to. There's no suggestion of us raising judicial review – as a group we don't have standing in the Scots jurisdiction. It's not an option.
"Don't get me wrong: if Megrahi is sent back, we will raise hell. It was clear in all the correspondence between the US, UK and the United Nations, if anyone was convicted (at Camp Zeist], they would serve the whole sentence in Scotland. That was the deal."
In terms of the prisoner transfer agreement, Mr MacAskill has 90 days from the date of the Libyan application, 5 May, to reach a decision. The application cannot proceed while legal proceedings continue; Megrahi would have to abandon his appeal to activate the transfer.
The key decision might not be a legal one, however. Megrahi's medical condition might cut across both the appeal and prisoner transfer agreement. If medical opinion were to establish that he is seriously ill and close to death, Mr MacAskill could order his release on compassionate grounds. On that basis, Megrahi would be deemed to have served his sentence in terms of Scots law.
Mr Duggan says: "There are thousands of prisoners in US jails with cancer who serve many years with it. We don't want a horrible death in jail for anyone, but at his bail hearing, it was said he could live for another five years. I think we have more faith in the Scottish legal system than you appear to over there."
[From an article by John Forsyth in today's edition of The Scotsman. The full text can be read here.]
Saturday, 18 July 2009
US relatives push for review that could keep Megrahi in jail
[This is the headline over a story by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
American relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103 are expected to push for a judicial review if Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill agrees to transfer the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The families have taken legal advice in both London and Scotland and will seek the move if Mr MacAskill agrees to a request already submitted by the Libyan government made under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by Tony Blair in 2007.
It could significantly delay the return to Libya of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, 57, who is currently serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing and is receiving treatment for advanced stage prostate cancer.
SNP MSP Christine Grahame, who has visited Megrahi twice in prison recently, said this could effectively seal his fate, ensuring he dies here in prison. (...)
She is also to contact Mr MacAskill with concerns about the Crown Office signing a non-disclosure agreement with the US government in June 2000.
Frank Mulholland, the solicitor-general, recently wrote to Ms Grahame to explain that Norman McFadyen, the Crown Agent and now chief executive of the Crown Office, signed the document that allowed him to see certain documents but not share them with the defence. (...)
Ms Grahame believes that this failure to pass on the information poses very serious questions about the manner in which Crown officials conducted themselves.
Some redacted parts of the documents were later released to the court and subsequently discredited a Crown witness.
Senior Scottish Prison Service officials have said that there is nowhere within the prison estate properly suited to managing Megrahi's condition.
Ms Grahame said: "This makes the case for compassionate release absolutely imperative.
"That option is not subject to judicial review and is the only sensible compromise position in light of the fresh evidence and Mr Megrahi's deteriorating health.
"The weight of evidence which has emerged combined with the serious doubts raised over the original evidence that was led at the trial have left me in no doubt of Mr Megrahi's innocence.
"The likelihood of a drawn-out process resulting from a judicial review launched by US relatives would effectively condemn Mr Megrahi to die in prison. There has already been considerable delay which means he will not live to see the end of the appeal he has ongoing against his conviction.
"Senior officials in the Scottish Prison Service have already told me that there is nowhere within the prison estate suitable for Mr Megrahi as he undergoes his treatment.
"If he is allowed to die in prison and it is subsequently established he was innocent then many people will be looking at the reasons why the Scottish justice system failed so dramatically."
[An article by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Families of Lockerbie victims in the United States might apply for a judicial review if the Scottish Government decides Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should be sent home to Libya.
The possibility will be raised by the US-based organisation Victims of Pan Am 103 Group when its board meets next week in New Jersey.
Its president, Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer, said there would be "uproar" if justice secretary Kenny MacAskill let Megrahi return home under a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya. (...)
Mr Duggan confirmed that a judicial review would be on the agenda when the group's board meets on Monday.
He said families of the US victims were assuming that MacAskill would "do the right thing" and decide that Megrahi should serve out his life sentence in a Scottish jail.
But he added: "The board is going to meet next Monday in New Jersey, and we could take a vote at the board on this issue." (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said it "would not be appropriate to comment" while Mr MacAskill was considering representations on the prisoner transfer agreement.
A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "The decision in relation to prison transfer application from the Libyan authorities is wholly a matter for the Scottish ministers. The Crown has no role in this process."
[The Times publishes an article focusing on the furious reaction by the Crown Office to Christine Grahame MSP's
criticism of the Crown's having accepted access to evidence in the course of the Lockerbie trial under conditions that disabled it from passing that material on to the defence without the consent of the United States authorities. The article reads in part:]
The Crown Office last night took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement slapping down a Nationalist politician for making “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind”.
The rebuke came in a strongly worded statement after Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP, made serious allegations against Crown Office agent Norman McFadyen in relation to the handling of evidence in the Lockerbie trial.
A Crown Office spokesman said: “Norman McFadyen is a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the law officers. Not only is the allegation false in itself but Ms Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because she has referred to documents which were not part of it.” The Crown Office made it clear that it had made all the material it held available to the trial court and also the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
[Note by RB: Whether the Crown Office made available to the defence and to the court all the material that it held is a highly contentious issue and is a matter that will be explored in some depth in future tranches of the current appeal by Abdelbaset Megrahi, assuming that his state of health does not compel him to abandon that appeal in order to benefit from prisoner transfer. It is also noteworthy that, as reported by The Times, the Crown Office statement refers only to "material that it held" and does not address the issue of material which it did not hold, but to which it was given access under terms that prevented the Crown from disclosing it to the defence.]
American relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103 are expected to push for a judicial review if Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill agrees to transfer the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The families have taken legal advice in both London and Scotland and will seek the move if Mr MacAskill agrees to a request already submitted by the Libyan government made under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by Tony Blair in 2007.
It could significantly delay the return to Libya of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, 57, who is currently serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing and is receiving treatment for advanced stage prostate cancer.
SNP MSP Christine Grahame, who has visited Megrahi twice in prison recently, said this could effectively seal his fate, ensuring he dies here in prison. (...)
She is also to contact Mr MacAskill with concerns about the Crown Office signing a non-disclosure agreement with the US government in June 2000.
Frank Mulholland, the solicitor-general, recently wrote to Ms Grahame to explain that Norman McFadyen, the Crown Agent and now chief executive of the Crown Office, signed the document that allowed him to see certain documents but not share them with the defence. (...)
Ms Grahame believes that this failure to pass on the information poses very serious questions about the manner in which Crown officials conducted themselves.
Some redacted parts of the documents were later released to the court and subsequently discredited a Crown witness.
Senior Scottish Prison Service officials have said that there is nowhere within the prison estate properly suited to managing Megrahi's condition.
Ms Grahame said: "This makes the case for compassionate release absolutely imperative.
"That option is not subject to judicial review and is the only sensible compromise position in light of the fresh evidence and Mr Megrahi's deteriorating health.
"The weight of evidence which has emerged combined with the serious doubts raised over the original evidence that was led at the trial have left me in no doubt of Mr Megrahi's innocence.
"The likelihood of a drawn-out process resulting from a judicial review launched by US relatives would effectively condemn Mr Megrahi to die in prison. There has already been considerable delay which means he will not live to see the end of the appeal he has ongoing against his conviction.
"Senior officials in the Scottish Prison Service have already told me that there is nowhere within the prison estate suitable for Mr Megrahi as he undergoes his treatment.
"If he is allowed to die in prison and it is subsequently established he was innocent then many people will be looking at the reasons why the Scottish justice system failed so dramatically."
[An article by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Families of Lockerbie victims in the United States might apply for a judicial review if the Scottish Government decides Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should be sent home to Libya.
The possibility will be raised by the US-based organisation Victims of Pan Am 103 Group when its board meets next week in New Jersey.
Its president, Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer, said there would be "uproar" if justice secretary Kenny MacAskill let Megrahi return home under a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya. (...)
Mr Duggan confirmed that a judicial review would be on the agenda when the group's board meets on Monday.
He said families of the US victims were assuming that MacAskill would "do the right thing" and decide that Megrahi should serve out his life sentence in a Scottish jail.
But he added: "The board is going to meet next Monday in New Jersey, and we could take a vote at the board on this issue." (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said it "would not be appropriate to comment" while Mr MacAskill was considering representations on the prisoner transfer agreement.
A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "The decision in relation to prison transfer application from the Libyan authorities is wholly a matter for the Scottish ministers. The Crown has no role in this process."
[The Times publishes an article focusing on the furious reaction by the Crown Office to Christine Grahame MSP's
criticism of the Crown's having accepted access to evidence in the course of the Lockerbie trial under conditions that disabled it from passing that material on to the defence without the consent of the United States authorities. The article reads in part:]
The Crown Office last night took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement slapping down a Nationalist politician for making “defamatory and entirely unfounded allegations of the most serious kind”.
The rebuke came in a strongly worded statement after Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP, made serious allegations against Crown Office agent Norman McFadyen in relation to the handling of evidence in the Lockerbie trial.
A Crown Office spokesman said: “Norman McFadyen is a man of the utmost integrity who is held in the highest regard by the law officers. Not only is the allegation false in itself but Ms Grahame appears to have misunderstood the process because she has referred to documents which were not part of it.” The Crown Office made it clear that it had made all the material it held available to the trial court and also the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
[Note by RB: Whether the Crown Office made available to the defence and to the court all the material that it held is a highly contentious issue and is a matter that will be explored in some depth in future tranches of the current appeal by Abdelbaset Megrahi, assuming that his state of health does not compel him to abandon that appeal in order to benefit from prisoner transfer. It is also noteworthy that, as reported by The Times, the Crown Office statement refers only to "material that it held" and does not address the issue of material which it did not hold, but to which it was given access under terms that prevented the Crown from disclosing it to the defence.]
Friday, 17 July 2009
Lockerbie judicial review claim
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims could demand a judicial review to stop Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi being returned to Libya, it has been claimed.
SNP MSP Christine Grahame said the possibility would prevent the terminally ill Megrahi returning to Libya in the short term.
It would effectively ensure Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 bombing, died in Greenock prison, she said. (...)
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said earlier this week that no decision on the prisoner transfer could be made while Megrahi pursued a second appeal against his conviction for the bombing. (...)
South of Scotland MSP Ms Grahame said she understood US relatives of the victims had taken legal advice in both London and Scotland, and would seek an immediate judicial review if Mr MacAskill agreed to the Libyan Government request.
The request was made under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by then Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2007. (...)
Megrahi is currently being held in Greenock prison where he is receiving treatment for advanced stage prostate cancer.
Ms Grahame, who has met Megrahi twice in recent months, said Scottish Prison Service officials had already informed her there was nowhere within the prison estate properly suited to managing Megrahi's condition.
"This makes the case for compassionate release absolutely imperative. That option is not subject to judicial review and is the only sensible compromise position in light of the fresh evidence and Mr Megrahi's deteriorating health," she said.
"The weight of evidence which has emerged combined with the serious doubts raised over the original evidence that was led at the trial have left me in no doubt of Mr Megrahi's innocence.
"The likelihood of a drawn-out process resulting from a judicial review launched by US relatives would effectively condemn Mr Megrahi to die in prison. There has already been considerable delay which means that Mr Megrahi will not live to see the end of the appeal he has ongoing against his conviction.
Ms Grahame said that if Megrahi was allowed to die in prison but it was later established he was innocent, people would question why the Scottish justice system "failed so dramatically".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The justice secretary is still considering the application and it would be wrong to comment on any hypothetical situation which may arise from any decision still to be made."
She added that any judicial review would be a matter for the courts.
Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims could demand a judicial review to stop Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi being returned to Libya, it has been claimed.
SNP MSP Christine Grahame said the possibility would prevent the terminally ill Megrahi returning to Libya in the short term.
It would effectively ensure Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 bombing, died in Greenock prison, she said. (...)
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said earlier this week that no decision on the prisoner transfer could be made while Megrahi pursued a second appeal against his conviction for the bombing. (...)
South of Scotland MSP Ms Grahame said she understood US relatives of the victims had taken legal advice in both London and Scotland, and would seek an immediate judicial review if Mr MacAskill agreed to the Libyan Government request.
The request was made under a prisoner transfer agreement signed by then Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2007. (...)
Megrahi is currently being held in Greenock prison where he is receiving treatment for advanced stage prostate cancer.
Ms Grahame, who has met Megrahi twice in recent months, said Scottish Prison Service officials had already informed her there was nowhere within the prison estate properly suited to managing Megrahi's condition.
"This makes the case for compassionate release absolutely imperative. That option is not subject to judicial review and is the only sensible compromise position in light of the fresh evidence and Mr Megrahi's deteriorating health," she said.
"The weight of evidence which has emerged combined with the serious doubts raised over the original evidence that was led at the trial have left me in no doubt of Mr Megrahi's innocence.
"The likelihood of a drawn-out process resulting from a judicial review launched by US relatives would effectively condemn Mr Megrahi to die in prison. There has already been considerable delay which means that Mr Megrahi will not live to see the end of the appeal he has ongoing against his conviction.
Ms Grahame said that if Megrahi was allowed to die in prison but it was later established he was innocent, people would question why the Scottish justice system "failed so dramatically".
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The justice secretary is still considering the application and it would be wrong to comment on any hypothetical situation which may arise from any decision still to be made."
She added that any judicial review would be a matter for the courts.
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Release al-Megrahi
[This is the heading over a letter by John Dobbins published today in The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
The integrity and human decency shown by Jim Swire and John Mosey (your report, 8 July) are truly remarkable, given the ongoing trauma they face in the aftermath of the Lockerbie atrocity and ensuing legal fiasco.
Disappointing, though understandable, is the blinkered position taken by some of the American relatives, whose vain search for justice has, sadly, led them to settle for revenge as mitigation for their loss through the continued punishment of an innocent man.
Their personal tragedy is compounded by the betrayal of their unquestioning belief in their country's professed moral principles and their inability to accept they have been lied to by the US and UK governments
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill now has the opportunity to repair the damage done to the Scottish legal system's international reputation, by agreeing to Jim Swire's proposal that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi be immediately released and returned home to Libya. It is imperative he does not hide behind jargon and shows the moral courage needed to see off pressure from "friendly" foreign or home-grown powers to drop the appeal.
The integrity and human decency shown by Jim Swire and John Mosey (your report, 8 July) are truly remarkable, given the ongoing trauma they face in the aftermath of the Lockerbie atrocity and ensuing legal fiasco.
Disappointing, though understandable, is the blinkered position taken by some of the American relatives, whose vain search for justice has, sadly, led them to settle for revenge as mitigation for their loss through the continued punishment of an innocent man.
Their personal tragedy is compounded by the betrayal of their unquestioning belief in their country's professed moral principles and their inability to accept they have been lied to by the US and UK governments
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill now has the opportunity to repair the damage done to the Scottish legal system's international reputation, by agreeing to Jim Swire's proposal that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi be immediately released and returned home to Libya. It is imperative he does not hide behind jargon and shows the moral courage needed to see off pressure from "friendly" foreign or home-grown powers to drop the appeal.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Editor of The Firm writes to Kenny MacAskill
[What follows is the text of a letter sent today to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice by Steven Raeburn, editor of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The full account on the magazine's website can be read here.]
The Firm magazine recently ran a poll of its readers, which found that 86% of respondents supported a public inquiry into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.
A copy of the news story which ran in the July issue of the Magazine is appended below for your reference, and a copy of the magazine is enclosed.
I can add that solicitors and advocates, in addition to the general public, have frequently and consistently expressed to me their despair at the damage that has been inflicted upon the law of Scotland by this case. No doubt you are already aware that the Scots legal system was once rightly regarded as among the best and most effective in the world. Regardless of its present efficacy, it is now regarded both domestically and (especially) internationally as an embarrassment, principally because of the damning reflection cast upon it by the passage of the Lockerbie case through it.
On behalf of the readers of The Firm – including over 10,000 solicitors and 500 or so advocates who wish to see the reputation of Scots law restored and be certain the legal system they work for and within is a source of pride to them, and not of shame- I am duty bound to ask for you to address their wishes for a public inquiry. Like them, it is my fervent wish that the legal system of Scotland, and those who work within it, can be certain that the law which is applied in their name is done so honourably and with full accountability, devoid of the stains and shadows that this case has thrown upon it.
The reason this case refuses to go away is simply because the answers provided by the judicial process have failed to satisfy the public interest on one hand, and those directly affected by these events on the other. Whilst one bad case cannot be fairly described as representative of all that goes on in Scots law, that one bad case is nevertheless a valid reflection of what our legal system is capable of achieving, and there is a large constituency of the public who are not satisfied with that conclusion.
For my own part, I will simply state that the first step to repairing any damage is to understand how it was caused. A full inquiry may begin to shed the necessary light that will allow repairs to be effected. In the interests of accountability, and on behalf of the readers of The Firm, I ask you to let me have your response and proposals for action.
As a journalist, I constantly remind myself of the words of the great Edward R Murrow, who noted that just because my voice is amplified to the degree that it reaches from one end of the country to the other, it does not confer upon me greater wisdom or understanding than I possessed when it reached only from one end of the bar to the other. What my journalistic reach does impose upon me however, is a correspondingly amplified duty to use my free speech responsibly, and I therefore cannot in good conscience offer any voice to the readers of The Firm if I do not take forward their legitimate concerns and, where necessary, act upon them. If I felt otherwise, I should simply publish cartoons instead. Justice must be done, even tho’ the heavens may fall. If you and I cannot do our best to achieve that, then both of us are in the wrong jobs.
I, and those 86%, look forward to hearing from you.
The Firm magazine recently ran a poll of its readers, which found that 86% of respondents supported a public inquiry into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.
A copy of the news story which ran in the July issue of the Magazine is appended below for your reference, and a copy of the magazine is enclosed.
I can add that solicitors and advocates, in addition to the general public, have frequently and consistently expressed to me their despair at the damage that has been inflicted upon the law of Scotland by this case. No doubt you are already aware that the Scots legal system was once rightly regarded as among the best and most effective in the world. Regardless of its present efficacy, it is now regarded both domestically and (especially) internationally as an embarrassment, principally because of the damning reflection cast upon it by the passage of the Lockerbie case through it.
On behalf of the readers of The Firm – including over 10,000 solicitors and 500 or so advocates who wish to see the reputation of Scots law restored and be certain the legal system they work for and within is a source of pride to them, and not of shame- I am duty bound to ask for you to address their wishes for a public inquiry. Like them, it is my fervent wish that the legal system of Scotland, and those who work within it, can be certain that the law which is applied in their name is done so honourably and with full accountability, devoid of the stains and shadows that this case has thrown upon it.
The reason this case refuses to go away is simply because the answers provided by the judicial process have failed to satisfy the public interest on one hand, and those directly affected by these events on the other. Whilst one bad case cannot be fairly described as representative of all that goes on in Scots law, that one bad case is nevertheless a valid reflection of what our legal system is capable of achieving, and there is a large constituency of the public who are not satisfied with that conclusion.
For my own part, I will simply state that the first step to repairing any damage is to understand how it was caused. A full inquiry may begin to shed the necessary light that will allow repairs to be effected. In the interests of accountability, and on behalf of the readers of The Firm, I ask you to let me have your response and proposals for action.
As a journalist, I constantly remind myself of the words of the great Edward R Murrow, who noted that just because my voice is amplified to the degree that it reaches from one end of the country to the other, it does not confer upon me greater wisdom or understanding than I possessed when it reached only from one end of the bar to the other. What my journalistic reach does impose upon me however, is a correspondingly amplified duty to use my free speech responsibly, and I therefore cannot in good conscience offer any voice to the readers of The Firm if I do not take forward their legitimate concerns and, where necessary, act upon them. If I felt otherwise, I should simply publish cartoons instead. Justice must be done, even tho’ the heavens may fall. If you and I cannot do our best to achieve that, then both of us are in the wrong jobs.
I, and those 86%, look forward to hearing from you.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
MacAskill to meet Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Aberdeen-based newspaper The Press and Journal. It reads in part:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is to meet Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Libyan authorities have applied for 57-year-old al Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, to be moved to Libya under a prisoner-transfer treaty between Libya and the UK. Ministers received “formal notification” last Friday that al Megrahi wants to meet Mr MacAskill, a Scottish Government spokesman confirmed yesterday.
The spokesman added: “As part of the process the justice secretary has met UK relatives, he has linked up by video conference to Eric Holder, the US attorney general and the US relatives.
“He has also received a delegation from the Libyan government and will now meet Mr al Megrahi.”
No decision on the prisoner transfer can be made by Mr McAskill while al Megrahi pursues a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 bombing.
The government is also to seek medical advice as to whether al Megrahi is fit to leave Greenock Prison where he is being held. His lawyer, Tony Kelly, said yesterday: “My client would welcome a meeting so that he can have the opportunity to put his case to Mr MacAskill.”
Although the meeting might not need to be staged in the prison, the lawyer said his client is “ill and in some considerable discomfort”.
Mr Kelly also declined to comment on weekend reports that al Megrahi has handed over a signed document to the Libyan Government agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if Mr MacAskill allows him home to Libya. (...)
Lib Dem justice spokesman Robert Brown said the move was unprecedented.
He said: “Nothing like this seems to have happened in the case of the Great Train Robber or the Moors Murders, for example. I fail to see what possible purpose this visit will serve.”
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is to meet Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Libyan authorities have applied for 57-year-old al Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, to be moved to Libya under a prisoner-transfer treaty between Libya and the UK. Ministers received “formal notification” last Friday that al Megrahi wants to meet Mr MacAskill, a Scottish Government spokesman confirmed yesterday.
The spokesman added: “As part of the process the justice secretary has met UK relatives, he has linked up by video conference to Eric Holder, the US attorney general and the US relatives.
“He has also received a delegation from the Libyan government and will now meet Mr al Megrahi.”
No decision on the prisoner transfer can be made by Mr McAskill while al Megrahi pursues a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 bombing.
The government is also to seek medical advice as to whether al Megrahi is fit to leave Greenock Prison where he is being held. His lawyer, Tony Kelly, said yesterday: “My client would welcome a meeting so that he can have the opportunity to put his case to Mr MacAskill.”
Although the meeting might not need to be staged in the prison, the lawyer said his client is “ill and in some considerable discomfort”.
Mr Kelly also declined to comment on weekend reports that al Megrahi has handed over a signed document to the Libyan Government agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if Mr MacAskill allows him home to Libya. (...)
Lib Dem justice spokesman Robert Brown said the move was unprecedented.
He said: “Nothing like this seems to have happened in the case of the Great Train Robber or the Moors Murders, for example. I fail to see what possible purpose this visit will serve.”
Monday, 13 July 2009
Justice, compassion, integrity
[What follows is the text of an article by Christine Grahame MSP in the Scottish edition of yesterday's Sunday Express. As far as I can discover, the article does not appear on the newspaper's website.]
He is the face of an atrocity which remains the worst act of terrorism ever perpetrated on UK soil, but soon, within a few months, the man convicted of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing will be dead. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has advanced stage terminal prostate cancer. On the two occasions when I visited him at Greenock Prison his constant discomfort was clearly evident. For almost 10 years since his conviction he has fought relentlessly to clear his name, but his degenerative terminal illness has changed his focus. Now he is a man desperate to see his family before he dies.
When the UK Government learned of Megrahi’s imminent second appeal following a lengthy four year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded there may have been a miscarriage of justice, Tony Blair hastily put in place a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with the Libyan Government. It was two years before that appeal began.
Many in the UK Government and elsewhere who do not want this second appeal by Mr Megrahi to go ahead. Why?
The reputation of the Scottish legal system would be on the line if Mr Megrahi were successful, yet with every week that goes by another significant piece of new evidence undermines the Crown’s case. There are professional reputations in the Scottish legal establishment and in the US that are being challenged here.
Robert Black, the highly respected Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh who knows this case inside out has concluded: “I am satisfied that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction.” That in itself is a serious indictment of the Scottish legal system.
Megrahi’s appeal has been plagued by delay and takes no account whatsoever of his terminal condition. Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal announced a further delay due to the ill health of one of the Appeal Judges, Lord Wheatley. This additional delay puts the process back a further four months at least. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Megrahi’s defence lawyer said when the Court announcement was made. The latest hold-up ensures, beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi will not live to see the end of the appeal process, regardless of what legal choices he makes in the next few weeks.
He has a very stark decision to make either continue with the appeal and at the point of his death a family member can take it forward to its conclusion on his behalf. This option means Megrahi will die in prison in an environment that senior prison officials have already told me are not suitable for a terminally ill man. Or alternatively he can abandon his appeal and hope that he is granted a Prisoner Transfer back to Libya, but this is by no means guaranteed.
There is however a third way; compassionate release to Libya which would allow him to die near to his close knit family, including his elderly parents and allow the appeal to proceed to a determination.
This can be granted unilaterally by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and would reflect the principles of Scots law based on justice and compassion. This option is supported by legal experts and relatives of victims such as the redoubtable Dr Jim Swire who has campaigned tirelessly to expose the truth behind the bombing which claimed the life of his daughter Flora. Many are opposed to such a compromise of course, including a significant number, but not all, of the US relatives of Pan Am 103 as are senior officials in the Scottish Justice Department, some of whom built their careers on the Lockerbie case.
A Prisoner Transfer may be seen as conveniently ending the matter. That would be naïve. Such is the weight of fresh evidence indicating Megrahi’s innocence combined with significant doubt over the original material used to convict in the first place, that calls for a public inquiry are likely to increase and denying one, indefensible. It is vital that the truth is exposed, for all involved, and most particularly victims families. Compassionate release offers the only compromise which would exhaust due legal process, demonstrate compassion and prove the integrity of the Scottish judicial system. Justice, compassion, integrity, three words engraved on the Scottish Parliament’s Mace. Let’s hope and trust this nation lives up to them.
He is the face of an atrocity which remains the worst act of terrorism ever perpetrated on UK soil, but soon, within a few months, the man convicted of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing will be dead. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has advanced stage terminal prostate cancer. On the two occasions when I visited him at Greenock Prison his constant discomfort was clearly evident. For almost 10 years since his conviction he has fought relentlessly to clear his name, but his degenerative terminal illness has changed his focus. Now he is a man desperate to see his family before he dies.
When the UK Government learned of Megrahi’s imminent second appeal following a lengthy four year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded there may have been a miscarriage of justice, Tony Blair hastily put in place a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with the Libyan Government. It was two years before that appeal began.
Many in the UK Government and elsewhere who do not want this second appeal by Mr Megrahi to go ahead. Why?
The reputation of the Scottish legal system would be on the line if Mr Megrahi were successful, yet with every week that goes by another significant piece of new evidence undermines the Crown’s case. There are professional reputations in the Scottish legal establishment and in the US that are being challenged here.
Robert Black, the highly respected Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh who knows this case inside out has concluded: “I am satisfied that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction.” That in itself is a serious indictment of the Scottish legal system.
Megrahi’s appeal has been plagued by delay and takes no account whatsoever of his terminal condition. Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal announced a further delay due to the ill health of one of the Appeal Judges, Lord Wheatley. This additional delay puts the process back a further four months at least. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Megrahi’s defence lawyer said when the Court announcement was made. The latest hold-up ensures, beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi will not live to see the end of the appeal process, regardless of what legal choices he makes in the next few weeks.
He has a very stark decision to make either continue with the appeal and at the point of his death a family member can take it forward to its conclusion on his behalf. This option means Megrahi will die in prison in an environment that senior prison officials have already told me are not suitable for a terminally ill man. Or alternatively he can abandon his appeal and hope that he is granted a Prisoner Transfer back to Libya, but this is by no means guaranteed.
There is however a third way; compassionate release to Libya which would allow him to die near to his close knit family, including his elderly parents and allow the appeal to proceed to a determination.
This can be granted unilaterally by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and would reflect the principles of Scots law based on justice and compassion. This option is supported by legal experts and relatives of victims such as the redoubtable Dr Jim Swire who has campaigned tirelessly to expose the truth behind the bombing which claimed the life of his daughter Flora. Many are opposed to such a compromise of course, including a significant number, but not all, of the US relatives of Pan Am 103 as are senior officials in the Scottish Justice Department, some of whom built their careers on the Lockerbie case.
A Prisoner Transfer may be seen as conveniently ending the matter. That would be naïve. Such is the weight of fresh evidence indicating Megrahi’s innocence combined with significant doubt over the original material used to convict in the first place, that calls for a public inquiry are likely to increase and denying one, indefensible. It is vital that the truth is exposed, for all involved, and most particularly victims families. Compassionate release offers the only compromise which would exhaust due legal process, demonstrate compassion and prove the integrity of the Scottish judicial system. Justice, compassion, integrity, three words engraved on the Scottish Parliament’s Mace. Let’s hope and trust this nation lives up to them.
MacAskill to meet Lockerbie bomber over jail transfer
Sunday, 12 July 2009
MacAskill in offer to meet Megrahi
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has offered to meet the Lockerbie bomber in prison as he decides if the convicted mass murderer ought to be allowed home to Libya.
The Justice Minister has indicated he is willing to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in HMP Greenock, where he is serving life for murdering 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
The invitation has been extended by MacAskill at a time Libya is trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain to have the bomber repatriated.
The visit has been suggested by MacAskill as he carries out a consultation exercise with those involved in the case. He has met American and British relatives as well as Libyan Government officials.
A Scottish Justice Department spokeswoman said: "Mr MacAskill has offered to hear representations from Mr Megrahi. That offer only went this week, but it could be by letter or in person."
Megrahi's solicitor Tony Kelly said his client had not decided whether to take up the offer.
Yesterday it was reported Megrahi has signed a document agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if MacAskill allows him home to Libya. Megrahi was said to have handed the document to the Libyan Government, telling them not to hand it over until Scottish ministers have agreed to his transfer back home.
Kelly said: "I'm not going to say [anything] about the document at all. All I can say is that there is no impasse and I don't think that if the document exists, it would create an impasse." He claimed the correct chronology was for Scottish ministers to decide if the transfer should go ahead in principle before dealing with the conditions of the transfer.
Under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between Britain and Libya, a move would only happen if Megrahi dropped his appeal. MacAskill is expected to decide in August if Megrahi should be returned.
If Megrahi leaves Scotland, there would be an outcry in the United States, where the overwhelming majority of the families of the 189 US victims believe he is guilty of the atrocity and should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.
But the prospect of a MacAskill visit was welcomed by those who believe Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
[From a report by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. The full text can be read here. The Sunday Times runs a similar report. It reads in part:
'[Kenny MacAskill's] decision to meet a convicted terrorist has provoked a backlash among American relatives of those who died in the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people. The justice secretary has said he wants to talk to all parties affected by the tragedy before deciding Megrahi’s fate.
'Bob Monetti, from New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Rick was among the victims, accused MacAskill of giving the convicted murderer preferential treatment. “I don’t understand why they would treat this man as special compared to everyone else who has been convicted of murder,” he said.
'“Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to give him everything. The things that have been done for Megrahi treat him as though he were a person. I have a problem with that because, if he did the things he has been convicted of, he is not much of a person.”
'However, Jim Swire, the former GP whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, said the meeting was “an important and sensible step”, which he hopes will lead to Megrahi’s transfer or release. “As far as I’m concerned he is an innocent man dying in considerable pain,” he said. “It seems an unchristian and brutal punishment to keep him in prison away from his family.” (...)
'MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi, agreed last week, is expected to take place at Greenock prison as early as this week.
'The Scottish government said: “We have received confirmation that Mr Megrahi does want to make representations to the cabinet secretary so we will take that forward. If we are asking anyone who can make relevant representations to do so, Mr MacAskill feels it would seem unfair if we didn’t hear representations from the man who this is all about.”
'Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “He has expressed a willingness to meet Mr MacAskill to make his position known.”
'A Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times last month inidicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.' ]
The Justice Minister has indicated he is willing to visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in HMP Greenock, where he is serving life for murdering 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
The invitation has been extended by MacAskill at a time Libya is trying to exert diplomatic pressure on Britain to have the bomber repatriated.
The visit has been suggested by MacAskill as he carries out a consultation exercise with those involved in the case. He has met American and British relatives as well as Libyan Government officials.
A Scottish Justice Department spokeswoman said: "Mr MacAskill has offered to hear representations from Mr Megrahi. That offer only went this week, but it could be by letter or in person."
Megrahi's solicitor Tony Kelly said his client had not decided whether to take up the offer.
Yesterday it was reported Megrahi has signed a document agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if MacAskill allows him home to Libya. Megrahi was said to have handed the document to the Libyan Government, telling them not to hand it over until Scottish ministers have agreed to his transfer back home.
Kelly said: "I'm not going to say [anything] about the document at all. All I can say is that there is no impasse and I don't think that if the document exists, it would create an impasse." He claimed the correct chronology was for Scottish ministers to decide if the transfer should go ahead in principle before dealing with the conditions of the transfer.
Under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement between Britain and Libya, a move would only happen if Megrahi dropped his appeal. MacAskill is expected to decide in August if Megrahi should be returned.
If Megrahi leaves Scotland, there would be an outcry in the United States, where the overwhelming majority of the families of the 189 US victims believe he is guilty of the atrocity and should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison.
But the prospect of a MacAskill visit was welcomed by those who believe Megrahi has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
[From a report by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. The full text can be read here. The Sunday Times runs a similar report. It reads in part:
'[Kenny MacAskill's] decision to meet a convicted terrorist has provoked a backlash among American relatives of those who died in the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people. The justice secretary has said he wants to talk to all parties affected by the tragedy before deciding Megrahi’s fate.
'Bob Monetti, from New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son Rick was among the victims, accused MacAskill of giving the convicted murderer preferential treatment. “I don’t understand why they would treat this man as special compared to everyone else who has been convicted of murder,” he said.
'“Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to give him everything. The things that have been done for Megrahi treat him as though he were a person. I have a problem with that because, if he did the things he has been convicted of, he is not much of a person.”
'However, Jim Swire, the former GP whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing, said the meeting was “an important and sensible step”, which he hopes will lead to Megrahi’s transfer or release. “As far as I’m concerned he is an innocent man dying in considerable pain,” he said. “It seems an unchristian and brutal punishment to keep him in prison away from his family.” (...)
'MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi, agreed last week, is expected to take place at Greenock prison as early as this week.
'The Scottish government said: “We have received confirmation that Mr Megrahi does want to make representations to the cabinet secretary so we will take that forward. If we are asking anyone who can make relevant representations to do so, Mr MacAskill feels it would seem unfair if we didn’t hear representations from the man who this is all about.”
'Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer, said: “He has expressed a willingness to meet Mr MacAskill to make his position known.”
'A Cello MRUK poll for The Sunday Times last month inidicated that while 49% of Scots wanted Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 40% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya and 11% said he should be freed.' ]
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Col Gadaffi lobbies Gordon Brown for Lockerbie bomber release
[The following are excerpts from a report under this headline in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It is of particular importance because of the reported comments of Abdelbaset Megrahi's solicitor, Tony Kelly, and because of the (belated) recognition by the Scottish Government Justice Department that compassionate release does not require an application to have been made by the prisoner concerned. The complete article can be read here.]
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has urged Gordon Brown to release the Lockerbie bomber from prison and allow him to return home.
Col Gadaffi made the plea at a meeting with the Prime Minister on the fringes of the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy.
Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 atrocity, is terminally ill with prostrate cancer.
Earlier this week it was revealed there is a "very real risk" he will die before his ongoing appeal against his conviction ends because of his deteriorating condition and further delays to the legal proceedings.
But Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the latest postpontment changes nothing, and did not mean his client would automatically drop his case. (...)
Col Gaddafi used his first meeting with Mr Brown to call for Megrahi to be returned home but aides said the Prime Minister told him that the case was "a matter for the Scottish government".
The Libyan government made an application under a prisoner transfer agreement two months ago to move Megrahi from Greenock Prison to the North African country.
This is currently being considered by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, who has held discussions with Libyan and US government officials, as well as victims' families.
However, Megrahi, 57, would have to drop all legal proceedings for a decision to be made, thereby losing his last chance to clear his name.
A further delay has been announced as one of judges hearing the case at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh is recovering from heart surgery.
The case is not expected to resume until September, by which time Megrahi may have passed away.
However, Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the delay "does not change anything really".
He added that Mr MacAskill could unilaterally release his client on compassionate grounds, without an application being made by Megrahi or a third party.
A Scottish Executive spokesman said this was technically possible, but it was normal procedure for an application to be made.
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has urged Gordon Brown to release the Lockerbie bomber from prison and allow him to return home.
Col Gadaffi made the plea at a meeting with the Prime Minister on the fringes of the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy.
Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 atrocity, is terminally ill with prostrate cancer.
Earlier this week it was revealed there is a "very real risk" he will die before his ongoing appeal against his conviction ends because of his deteriorating condition and further delays to the legal proceedings.
But Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the latest postpontment changes nothing, and did not mean his client would automatically drop his case. (...)
Col Gaddafi used his first meeting with Mr Brown to call for Megrahi to be returned home but aides said the Prime Minister told him that the case was "a matter for the Scottish government".
The Libyan government made an application under a prisoner transfer agreement two months ago to move Megrahi from Greenock Prison to the North African country.
This is currently being considered by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, who has held discussions with Libyan and US government officials, as well as victims' families.
However, Megrahi, 57, would have to drop all legal proceedings for a decision to be made, thereby losing his last chance to clear his name.
A further delay has been announced as one of judges hearing the case at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh is recovering from heart surgery.
The case is not expected to resume until September, by which time Megrahi may have passed away.
However, Tony Kelly, Megrahi's solicitor, told The Daily Telegraph that the delay "does not change anything really".
He added that Mr MacAskill could unilaterally release his client on compassionate grounds, without an application being made by Megrahi or a third party.
A Scottish Executive spokesman said this was technically possible, but it was normal procedure for an application to be made.
Megrahi to drop appeal if Libya transfer is agreed
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has signed a secret document agreeing to drop legal proceedings if Scottish ministers allow him to return home to Tripoli.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is appealing his conviction, has given the document to the Libyan government on the instruction that they cannot hand it over until Scottish ministers agree to his transfer.
His decision has led to an international political impasse as Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, cannot complete the transfer until Megrahi has dropped the appeal. Supporters are pushing for the "compassionate release" of Megrahi as a preferable alternative.
Legal experts say the minister could agree to such a move without an application from the Libyan, who is suffering terminal prostate cancer and whose condition has deteriorated.
There is confusion about how the prisoner transfer agreement works. One legal expert said that ministers have to give Megrahi a decision "in principle" before he drops proceedings, but officials say that is not the case.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi urged Gordon Brown to allow the repatriation of Megrahi at the G8 summit in Italy. The UK and Libyan governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement earlier this year, and Mr MacAskill is consulting all of the parties concerned before making a decision.
[The above is the text of a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. This story has now been picked up by the Sunday Mail and the Sunday Express.]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is appealing his conviction, has given the document to the Libyan government on the instruction that they cannot hand it over until Scottish ministers agree to his transfer.
His decision has led to an international political impasse as Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, cannot complete the transfer until Megrahi has dropped the appeal. Supporters are pushing for the "compassionate release" of Megrahi as a preferable alternative.
Legal experts say the minister could agree to such a move without an application from the Libyan, who is suffering terminal prostate cancer and whose condition has deteriorated.
There is confusion about how the prisoner transfer agreement works. One legal expert said that ministers have to give Megrahi a decision "in principle" before he drops proceedings, but officials say that is not the case.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi urged Gordon Brown to allow the repatriation of Megrahi at the G8 summit in Italy. The UK and Libyan governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement earlier this year, and Mr MacAskill is consulting all of the parties concerned before making a decision.
[The above is the text of a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. This story has now been picked up by the Sunday Mail and the Sunday Express.]
Friday, 10 July 2009
Gaddafi demands return of Lockerbie bomber in first meeting with Brown
In his first face to face meeting with Gordon Brown, Muammar Gaddafi today demanded the return of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The Libyan leader was told by the prime minister that it was a matter for the Scottish courts.
Gaddafi, wearing a flowing black and white silken robe and protected by female bodyguards, is at the G8 summit in Italy as the rotating president of the African Union. (...)
In a 40-minute meeting between the two leaders, conducted in Arabic and English, Brown insisted he could not intervene in the Megrahi case.
Scottish judges this week delayed completing an appeal into Megrahi's conviction until at least September, even though he has prostate cancer and faces a risk of dying in prison.
The bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 killed 270 people on the aircraft and the ground.
Gaddafi's demand for the return of Megrahi was countered by Brown urging him to do more to cooperate with the Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.
Her murder led to the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries for a decade, but Gaddafi subsequently worked to improve relations with the west, so much so that Tony Blair went to Tripoli to meet him in 2004.
The Libyans have admitted responsibility for Fletcher's killing by embassy staff and have paid compensation, but Britain is complaining that Libya is not producing witnesses, meaning the inquiry has stalled for more than a year.
[From a report by Patrick Wintour on the website of The Guardian. There is a similar report on The Herald's website; and a shorter report on the BBC News website.]
The Libyan leader was told by the prime minister that it was a matter for the Scottish courts.
Gaddafi, wearing a flowing black and white silken robe and protected by female bodyguards, is at the G8 summit in Italy as the rotating president of the African Union. (...)
In a 40-minute meeting between the two leaders, conducted in Arabic and English, Brown insisted he could not intervene in the Megrahi case.
Scottish judges this week delayed completing an appeal into Megrahi's conviction until at least September, even though he has prostate cancer and faces a risk of dying in prison.
The bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 killed 270 people on the aircraft and the ground.
Gaddafi's demand for the return of Megrahi was countered by Brown urging him to do more to cooperate with the Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.
Her murder led to the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries for a decade, but Gaddafi subsequently worked to improve relations with the west, so much so that Tony Blair went to Tripoli to meet him in 2004.
The Libyans have admitted responsibility for Fletcher's killing by embassy staff and have paid compensation, but Britain is complaining that Libya is not producing witnesses, meaning the inquiry has stalled for more than a year.
[From a report by Patrick Wintour on the website of The Guardian. There is a similar report on The Herald's website; and a shorter report on the BBC News website.]
Obama shakes hands with Gaddafi
Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, who former president Ronald Reagan once denounced as a "mad dog," supped on pasta just two seats away from President Obama at the Group of Eight summit today and even secured a handshake with the U.S. president. (...)
As Obama was shaking hands with Gaddafi, families of Pan Am 103 victims were gathered at the British Embassy in Washington and the British consulate in New York, speaking via video conference with Kenneth MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, and pleading that the convicted Lockerbie bomber not be returned to Libya.
Stephanie Bernstein of Bethesda, whose husband, Michael, was killed in the Pan Am bombing, said the video conference was a "wrenching" experience, as victims' families made heartfelt pleas that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi not be returned to Libya even though he is said to be suffering from prostate cancer. She said that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has supported the families' position, but the reports of Obama's handshake was a blow.
"I was shocked, absolutely dumbfounded," she said tonight. "I think it sent the wrong signal. This has undermined our efforts to make sure Megrahi is never released." If he is returned to Libya, she said, families believe he will be quickly freed from jail, rather than finish serving a sentence of at least 27 years. He was convicted in 2001.
Under a 2007 deal struck between Libya and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, it is up to MacAskill and Scottish First Secretary Alex Salmond to decide whether Megrahi, 57, is returned to Libya to serve out his sentence. Salmond and MacAskill have insisted the decision will be made on "judicial" grounds, not political or economic concerns with the oil-rich country.
[From the website of The Washington Post. The complete report can be read here.
The New York Daily News also carries a report. The following are excerpts:]
President Obama and Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy shook hands Thursday, infuriating families of victims in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan intelligence agents. (...)
The encounter came as families who lost loved ones aboard the doomed plane met with officials in Washington and the British Consulate in Manhattan to protest the potential release of the lone terrorist convicted in the bombing.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is jailed in Scotland. But he has prostate cancer and could be turned over to Khadafy.
"This thing with Obama happened on the same day that we spilled our guts to his own administration that this killer should not be released! I'm disgusted and disappointed. Obama sent the wrong message," said Stephanie Bernstein, 58, of Bethesda, Md., who lost her husband, Michael, 36, a lawyer who hunted Nazis for the Justice Department.
"I just hope this was a superficial 'hello and goodbye,' and not a show of support for a bad man who should have been taken out years ago," said Jack Flynn, 71, of Montville, N.J., who lost his son John Patrick, a 21-year-old student at Colgate.
"It will be a real horror show now if they release Megrahi," added Flynn, who broke down in a conversation with the Daily News. Both Bernstein and Flynn voted for Obama. Although Libya is no longer on the State Department list of terrorist nations, Khadafy is still hated for protecting Megrahi.
Flight 103, a Boeing 747, was en route from London's Heathrow Airport to JFK when it blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland. The terrorist bombing killed all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground.
As Obama was shaking hands with Gaddafi, families of Pan Am 103 victims were gathered at the British Embassy in Washington and the British consulate in New York, speaking via video conference with Kenneth MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, and pleading that the convicted Lockerbie bomber not be returned to Libya.
Stephanie Bernstein of Bethesda, whose husband, Michael, was killed in the Pan Am bombing, said the video conference was a "wrenching" experience, as victims' families made heartfelt pleas that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi not be returned to Libya even though he is said to be suffering from prostate cancer. She said that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has supported the families' position, but the reports of Obama's handshake was a blow.
"I was shocked, absolutely dumbfounded," she said tonight. "I think it sent the wrong signal. This has undermined our efforts to make sure Megrahi is never released." If he is returned to Libya, she said, families believe he will be quickly freed from jail, rather than finish serving a sentence of at least 27 years. He was convicted in 2001.
Under a 2007 deal struck between Libya and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, it is up to MacAskill and Scottish First Secretary Alex Salmond to decide whether Megrahi, 57, is returned to Libya to serve out his sentence. Salmond and MacAskill have insisted the decision will be made on "judicial" grounds, not political or economic concerns with the oil-rich country.
[From the website of The Washington Post. The complete report can be read here.
The New York Daily News also carries a report. The following are excerpts:]
President Obama and Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy shook hands Thursday, infuriating families of victims in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan intelligence agents. (...)
The encounter came as families who lost loved ones aboard the doomed plane met with officials in Washington and the British Consulate in Manhattan to protest the potential release of the lone terrorist convicted in the bombing.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is jailed in Scotland. But he has prostate cancer and could be turned over to Khadafy.
"This thing with Obama happened on the same day that we spilled our guts to his own administration that this killer should not be released! I'm disgusted and disappointed. Obama sent the wrong message," said Stephanie Bernstein, 58, of Bethesda, Md., who lost her husband, Michael, 36, a lawyer who hunted Nazis for the Justice Department.
"I just hope this was a superficial 'hello and goodbye,' and not a show of support for a bad man who should have been taken out years ago," said Jack Flynn, 71, of Montville, N.J., who lost his son John Patrick, a 21-year-old student at Colgate.
"It will be a real horror show now if they release Megrahi," added Flynn, who broke down in a conversation with the Daily News. Both Bernstein and Flynn voted for Obama. Although Libya is no longer on the State Department list of terrorist nations, Khadafy is still hated for protecting Megrahi.
Flight 103, a Boeing 747, was en route from London's Heathrow Airport to JFK when it blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland. The terrorist bombing killed all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Final session of appeal scheduled for February 2010
The appeal by dying former Libyan agent Abdel Basset al-Megrahi against his life sentence for the 1988 Lockerbie aircraft bombing, will not be decided until next year.
Lord Hamilton today told the Scottish Appeal Court at the end of a two-day procedural hearing that the final two substantive appeal sessions would run from November 2 to December 11, and January 12 to February 26, 2010.
A total of 270 people were killed when the Pan Am jumbo jet exploded over Lockerbie.
One of the five judges hearing the appeal is recovering from recent heart surgery and Lord Hamilton said this, combined with the pressure of other business on the court, meant it was not practical to hold earlier sessions.
The illness of Lord Wheatley has already meant a deferment in considering appeal arguments heard so far, and Megrahi's lawyer Maggie Scott expressed dismay at the delays.
Yesterday she said: "There is a very serious danger that my client will die before the case is determined."
She added his health "is deteriorating with a relentless onset of symptoms".
Megrahi, 57, has terminal prostate cancer and is currently in Greenock prison.
After a trial in a special Scottish court meeting in The Netherlands in 2001, he was sentenced to 27 years' in prison.
An appeal the following year was rejected, but a review gave the go-ahead in 2007 for a second appeal on the grounds that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
In the first part of the appeal through May, his lawyers questioned whether the trial court had been correct in accepting evidence relating to his identification, the type of fuse in the bomb and how it was consigned to the Pan Am flight.
In the next hearings, legal sources said the appeal lawyers were expected to introduce fresh evidence and question the competence of his previous lawyers.
The Libyan and British governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement this year and Tripoli has sought Megrahi's return.
Scotland's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill is currently consulting all parties concerned, including the US and Libyan governments and families of the victims of the bombing before deciding whether to accede to Libya's request.
[The above is the text of The Herald's report on the two-day procedural hearing that ended on Wednesday. The Reuters news agency report, as reproduced on the STV website, can be read here.
While the illness of one of the judges would inevitably cause a measure of delay, the Appeal Court's clear failure to take effective steps to minimise that delay is nothing short of disgraceful. Their Lordships should be utterly ashamed of themselves.]
Lord Hamilton today told the Scottish Appeal Court at the end of a two-day procedural hearing that the final two substantive appeal sessions would run from November 2 to December 11, and January 12 to February 26, 2010.
A total of 270 people were killed when the Pan Am jumbo jet exploded over Lockerbie.
One of the five judges hearing the appeal is recovering from recent heart surgery and Lord Hamilton said this, combined with the pressure of other business on the court, meant it was not practical to hold earlier sessions.
The illness of Lord Wheatley has already meant a deferment in considering appeal arguments heard so far, and Megrahi's lawyer Maggie Scott expressed dismay at the delays.
Yesterday she said: "There is a very serious danger that my client will die before the case is determined."
She added his health "is deteriorating with a relentless onset of symptoms".
Megrahi, 57, has terminal prostate cancer and is currently in Greenock prison.
After a trial in a special Scottish court meeting in The Netherlands in 2001, he was sentenced to 27 years' in prison.
An appeal the following year was rejected, but a review gave the go-ahead in 2007 for a second appeal on the grounds that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
In the first part of the appeal through May, his lawyers questioned whether the trial court had been correct in accepting evidence relating to his identification, the type of fuse in the bomb and how it was consigned to the Pan Am flight.
In the next hearings, legal sources said the appeal lawyers were expected to introduce fresh evidence and question the competence of his previous lawyers.
The Libyan and British governments signed a prisoner transfer agreement this year and Tripoli has sought Megrahi's return.
Scotland's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill is currently consulting all parties concerned, including the US and Libyan governments and families of the victims of the bombing before deciding whether to accede to Libya's request.
[The above is the text of The Herald's report on the two-day procedural hearing that ended on Wednesday. The Reuters news agency report, as reproduced on the STV website, can be read here.
While the illness of one of the judges would inevitably cause a measure of delay, the Appeal Court's clear failure to take effective steps to minimise that delay is nothing short of disgraceful. Their Lordships should be utterly ashamed of themselves.]
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Lockerbie bomber could die before appeal outcome
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Scotsman's website. It reads as follows:]
The cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber could die before a decision is made on his appeal after new delays in the case, his lawyer warned today.
It was revealed that one of the judges hearing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's long-running appeal against conviction has had heart surgery.
Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, told the High Court in Edinburgh that Lord Wheatley's recuperation may be "protracted" and it is thought he will not be fit to resume judicial duties until mid-September.
Lord Hamilton said the situation "complicates matters".
The court has already heard full submissions on two grounds of appeal, but the court will not now be able to give its decision on those grounds until the autumn.
Al Megrahi's QC, Margaret Scott, expressed dismay at the situation, but acknowledged it arose out of "unforeseen and unexpected" circumstances.
She told the court the defence wished to see a decision reached as soon as possible.
"My Lord will appreciate in this court justice delayed is justice denied," she said. "There is a very real risk my client will die before this appeal is adjudicated."
She added that it was difficult to conceive of "more pressing circumstances".
Al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year.
Ms Scott told the court that her client's health was deteriorating and he was experiencing a "relentless onset of symptoms".
[A somewhat more informative report has just been posted on the BBC News website. It can be read here.]
The cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber could die before a decision is made on his appeal after new delays in the case, his lawyer warned today.
It was revealed that one of the judges hearing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's long-running appeal against conviction has had heart surgery.
Scotland's top judge, the Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, told the High Court in Edinburgh that Lord Wheatley's recuperation may be "protracted" and it is thought he will not be fit to resume judicial duties until mid-September.
Lord Hamilton said the situation "complicates matters".
The court has already heard full submissions on two grounds of appeal, but the court will not now be able to give its decision on those grounds until the autumn.
Al Megrahi's QC, Margaret Scott, expressed dismay at the situation, but acknowledged it arose out of "unforeseen and unexpected" circumstances.
She told the court the defence wished to see a decision reached as soon as possible.
"My Lord will appreciate in this court justice delayed is justice denied," she said. "There is a very real risk my client will die before this appeal is adjudicated."
She added that it was difficult to conceive of "more pressing circumstances".
Al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year.
Ms Scott told the court that her client's health was deteriorating and he was experiencing a "relentless onset of symptoms".
[A somewhat more informative report has just been posted on the BBC News website. It can be read here.]
Monday, 6 July 2009
Lockerbie bomber move discussed
[This is the headline over a story on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has met Libyan government officials to discuss their bid to have the Lockerbie bomber transferred from Scotland.
He has already met some UK relatives of those who died in the bombing and spoken to the US attorney general.
Libyan authorities applied two months ago to move Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from Greenock Prison to a Libyan jail.
The Scottish Government said the talks were part of the "ongoing process" of considering that application.
A spokesman also revealed that Mr MacAskill will listen to representations from US victims' families later this week.
Last month Mr MacAskill stressed that he wanted to have all the relevant information before making a decision on the application. (...)
The prisoner transfer application was received early in May, and a decision would normally be made within 90 days - although this could take longer if further information is required.
[The full text can be read here. Further relevant reports are to be found in The Scotsman and The Times. The report in The Times contains, with regard to the possibility of compassionate release, rather than prisoner transfer, the following sentence:
"A Scottish government spokeswoman said that al-Megrahi's legal team had not submitted a request for his release on compassionate grounds."
If the Scottish Government Justice Department believes that the Justice Secretary cannot consider or grant compassionate release without an application by the prisoner (and a recent letter to me from an official of the Department adopts the same stance) it is seriously in error in law. The relevant statutory provision contains no such requirement. It provides (Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c 9), section 3):
'Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds
'(1) The [Scottish Ministers] may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
'(2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the [Scottish Ministers] shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.']
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has met Libyan government officials to discuss their bid to have the Lockerbie bomber transferred from Scotland.
He has already met some UK relatives of those who died in the bombing and spoken to the US attorney general.
Libyan authorities applied two months ago to move Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi from Greenock Prison to a Libyan jail.
The Scottish Government said the talks were part of the "ongoing process" of considering that application.
A spokesman also revealed that Mr MacAskill will listen to representations from US victims' families later this week.
Last month Mr MacAskill stressed that he wanted to have all the relevant information before making a decision on the application. (...)
The prisoner transfer application was received early in May, and a decision would normally be made within 90 days - although this could take longer if further information is required.
[The full text can be read here. Further relevant reports are to be found in The Scotsman and The Times. The report in The Times contains, with regard to the possibility of compassionate release, rather than prisoner transfer, the following sentence:
"A Scottish government spokeswoman said that al-Megrahi's legal team had not submitted a request for his release on compassionate grounds."
If the Scottish Government Justice Department believes that the Justice Secretary cannot consider or grant compassionate release without an application by the prisoner (and a recent letter to me from an official of the Department adopts the same stance) it is seriously in error in law. The relevant statutory provision contains no such requirement. It provides (Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c 9), section 3):
'Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds
'(1) The [Scottish Ministers] may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
'(2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the [Scottish Ministers] shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.']
Sunday, 5 July 2009
Thirteenth procedural hearing
A procedural hearing in the current appeal by Abdelbaset Megrahi has been scheduled for the four days commencing Tuesday, 7 July. Here is what the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton, said at the close of the first tranche of the appeal on 19 May:
'The court is much obliged to counsel on either hand for the careful and comprehensive submissions which have been made at this stage of the appeal. We will now, of course, require to give these submissions detailed and careful consideration. A question will arise as to whether it is appropriate to decide grounds 1 and 2 [insufficient evidence in law; unreasonableness of the verdict on that evidence] at this stage or, alternatively, to defer that decision until we have heard argument on other grounds, which are or may be closely related to them.
'We appreciate that having regard to, among other things, the appellant's state of health there will be concern that we deal with these matters as expeditiously as possible. But having regard to their importance to all concerned, we cannot and must not rush to judgment.
'Time has been set aside towards the end of this term for a procedural hearing in relation to further grounds of appeal. And in terms of the interlocutor of 18 March of this year, days were set aside in the week commencing 29 June for that purpose. For reasons which it is not necessary to go into, we intend to change that date or dates to dates in the week following that, that is the week commencing 6 July. We expect that by that time we will have reached a decision as to whether or not we should decide grounds 1 and 2 at this stage and to be able to intimate which course of action, either deciding them at this stage or deferring them, we have decided upon.
'But [at] this time, we shall simply continue the appeal to the first of the dates which are now substituted for the procedural matters which we have referred to, that is to Tuesday 7 July of this year.'
'The court is much obliged to counsel on either hand for the careful and comprehensive submissions which have been made at this stage of the appeal. We will now, of course, require to give these submissions detailed and careful consideration. A question will arise as to whether it is appropriate to decide grounds 1 and 2 [insufficient evidence in law; unreasonableness of the verdict on that evidence] at this stage or, alternatively, to defer that decision until we have heard argument on other grounds, which are or may be closely related to them.
'We appreciate that having regard to, among other things, the appellant's state of health there will be concern that we deal with these matters as expeditiously as possible. But having regard to their importance to all concerned, we cannot and must not rush to judgment.
'Time has been set aside towards the end of this term for a procedural hearing in relation to further grounds of appeal. And in terms of the interlocutor of 18 March of this year, days were set aside in the week commencing 29 June for that purpose. For reasons which it is not necessary to go into, we intend to change that date or dates to dates in the week following that, that is the week commencing 6 July. We expect that by that time we will have reached a decision as to whether or not we should decide grounds 1 and 2 at this stage and to be able to intimate which course of action, either deciding them at this stage or deferring them, we have decided upon.
'But [at] this time, we shall simply continue the appeal to the first of the dates which are now substituted for the procedural matters which we have referred to, that is to Tuesday 7 July of this year.'
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Lockerbie relatives to demand Megrahi stays in Scots jail
Kenny MacAskill is to be put under intense pressure to keep the Lockerbie bomber behind bars in Scotland this week when he takes part in discussions with the families of the American victims.
The justice secretary will hear a heartfelt plea from Americans who lost loved ones in the atrocity and who firmly believe that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should die in a Scottish prison.
MacAskill will hear that American families are "shocked and horrified" that Scottish ministers are considering whether Megrahi should be sent back home to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck by Tony Blair and Muammar Gaddaffi.
MacAskill will speak with the relatives during a video conference that will link Edinburgh with the British Embassy in Washington.
MacAskill has already been in touch with the US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is understood to have informed the justice secretary that Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer, should stay in HMP Greenock.
That message will be rammed home on Thursday by the American families, who firmly believe Megrahi was responsible for the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
Last night Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, said: "The American relatives have never had the opportunity to make victim impact statements. It will be very emotional. They will talk about what their loss means to them – 20 years of missed grandchildren, missed weddings, all of the things that go on in life. It is especially distressing for those who lost young people – so many of them would have made a difference.
"He should stay in prison in Scotland. That was the agreement. The position of the US government is that he should serve his sentence in Scotland and that will be the overwhelming message to MacAskill."
A letter to MacAskill written by Kathleen Flynn, a mother who lost her son John Patrick Flynn on the night that the aircraft exploded, sums up the families' attitude.
"We are shocked and horrified that the convicted bomber of this horrific crime is being considered for a prisoner-transfer agreement to his native country, Libya," she said.
"I would hope that you would include the (views] of the majority of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing – the 189 Americans lost on the flight."
MacAskill and Alex Salmond face one of the most taxing dilemmas of the SNP's reign as they decide what to do with the former Libyan intelligence agent who was convicted of the atrocity in the Scottish courts.
There is a vocal body of opinion who believe that Megrahi has been the victim of a huge miscarriage of justice. He is currently appealing against his conviction.
Among those convinced of his innocence is Jim Swire, a retired British GP who lost his daughter in the bombing.
Swire said: "Of course the Americans are saying that he is guilty. Their administration has told them that he is guilty. But I don't think they have questioned the quality of the evidence."
[The above is the text of an article in the Scotland on Sunday edition of 5 July.]
The justice secretary will hear a heartfelt plea from Americans who lost loved ones in the atrocity and who firmly believe that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should die in a Scottish prison.
MacAskill will hear that American families are "shocked and horrified" that Scottish ministers are considering whether Megrahi should be sent back home to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck by Tony Blair and Muammar Gaddaffi.
MacAskill will speak with the relatives during a video conference that will link Edinburgh with the British Embassy in Washington.
MacAskill has already been in touch with the US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is understood to have informed the justice secretary that Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer, should stay in HMP Greenock.
That message will be rammed home on Thursday by the American families, who firmly believe Megrahi was responsible for the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
Last night Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, said: "The American relatives have never had the opportunity to make victim impact statements. It will be very emotional. They will talk about what their loss means to them – 20 years of missed grandchildren, missed weddings, all of the things that go on in life. It is especially distressing for those who lost young people – so many of them would have made a difference.
"He should stay in prison in Scotland. That was the agreement. The position of the US government is that he should serve his sentence in Scotland and that will be the overwhelming message to MacAskill."
A letter to MacAskill written by Kathleen Flynn, a mother who lost her son John Patrick Flynn on the night that the aircraft exploded, sums up the families' attitude.
"We are shocked and horrified that the convicted bomber of this horrific crime is being considered for a prisoner-transfer agreement to his native country, Libya," she said.
"I would hope that you would include the (views] of the majority of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing – the 189 Americans lost on the flight."
MacAskill and Alex Salmond face one of the most taxing dilemmas of the SNP's reign as they decide what to do with the former Libyan intelligence agent who was convicted of the atrocity in the Scottish courts.
There is a vocal body of opinion who believe that Megrahi has been the victim of a huge miscarriage of justice. He is currently appealing against his conviction.
Among those convinced of his innocence is Jim Swire, a retired British GP who lost his daughter in the bombing.
Swire said: "Of course the Americans are saying that he is guilty. Their administration has told them that he is guilty. But I don't think they have questioned the quality of the evidence."
[The above is the text of an article in the Scotland on Sunday edition of 5 July.]
Friday, 3 July 2009
Poll of Scottish lawyers finds 86% back inquiry into Lockerbie
[The following is the text of a press release issued by the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The magazine's website can be accessed here.]
A poll of solicitors in Scotland calling for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie incident has received Parliamentary backing and international support.
86% of respondents to the poll which ran during Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al-Megrahi’s appeal called for the inquiry, which has been blocked since Labour took office in 1997, despite their pledge to hold one whilst in opposition.
Christine Grahame MSP, who has met Mr Megrahi several times in jail said there were many unanswered questions.
"I have said that if the appeal by Mr Megrahi is dropped then I would want to see a full public inquiry. That remains my position. I believe that Mr Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence that was led against him and that there appears to have been a miscarriage of justice. A public inquiry would go a considerable way towards resolving that if Mr Megrahi drops his appeal to make himself eligible for transfer back to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by the UK Government.”
The UN appointed special observer Hans Kochler said the poll result was “encouraging,” and accused authorities of a scandalous cover up.
"A full public inquiry is long overdue. Since April 2002 I have repeatedly called for such a measure,” he said.
“So far, neither the British nor Scottish political and judicial establishment has shown any genuine interest in finding out the real causes of the Lockerbie tragedy. To the contrary, the course of justice has been obstructed in numerous instances. It is high time that the public demands its right to full and uncensored disclosure of all the evidence of the Lockerbie case and all facts of the scandalous cover-up and delaying tactics we have seen since the first appeal decision.”
Professor Robert Black, instrumental in brokering the Zeist trial said he “wholeheartedly supports the call for a public enquiry into the Lockerbie case.
“There are so many grave concerns about the trial and the verdict that it is difficult to see how the Scottish criminal justice system can have its legitimacy restored without one,” he added.
A poll of solicitors in Scotland calling for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie incident has received Parliamentary backing and international support.
86% of respondents to the poll which ran during Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al-Megrahi’s appeal called for the inquiry, which has been blocked since Labour took office in 1997, despite their pledge to hold one whilst in opposition.
Christine Grahame MSP, who has met Mr Megrahi several times in jail said there were many unanswered questions.
"I have said that if the appeal by Mr Megrahi is dropped then I would want to see a full public inquiry. That remains my position. I believe that Mr Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence that was led against him and that there appears to have been a miscarriage of justice. A public inquiry would go a considerable way towards resolving that if Mr Megrahi drops his appeal to make himself eligible for transfer back to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by the UK Government.”
The UN appointed special observer Hans Kochler said the poll result was “encouraging,” and accused authorities of a scandalous cover up.
"A full public inquiry is long overdue. Since April 2002 I have repeatedly called for such a measure,” he said.
“So far, neither the British nor Scottish political and judicial establishment has shown any genuine interest in finding out the real causes of the Lockerbie tragedy. To the contrary, the course of justice has been obstructed in numerous instances. It is high time that the public demands its right to full and uncensored disclosure of all the evidence of the Lockerbie case and all facts of the scandalous cover-up and delaying tactics we have seen since the first appeal decision.”
Professor Robert Black, instrumental in brokering the Zeist trial said he “wholeheartedly supports the call for a public enquiry into the Lockerbie case.
“There are so many grave concerns about the trial and the verdict that it is difficult to see how the Scottish criminal justice system can have its legitimacy restored without one,” he added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)