[This is the headline over a report recently published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
UK Families Flight 103, the relatives' campaign group, will use human rights laws in a bid to uncover the truth about the terrorist attack, which claimed 270 lives in December 1988.
The group has hired Gareth Peirce, the prominent human rights solicitor better known for her work representing terror suspects, to devise a legal strategy to secure the inquiry for which families have long campaigned.
It is the first time the families have formally hired lawyers to pursue an inquiry.
The development comes after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, rejected the group's latest demands for an independent review of the bombing. He informed them of his decision in a letter, dated Christmas Eve, which was received by the relatives last week.
In the letter, Mr Brown said: "All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry." (...)
Pamela Dix, whose brother Peter was killed in the atrocity, said: "We are arguing that our human rights have been transgressed by the failure to hold an inquiry.
"This is the first time we have hired lawyers to do this. We have until now relied on appealing to the good sense and good nature of our politicians, and that has been to no avail."
The Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, was among the victims when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, said: "I feel extremely positive about this development. For 21 years we have been asking the same questions and asking for an inquiry but I think we are nearer to getting it than we have ever been."
Legal tactics used by UK Families Flight 103 are likely to focus on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act, which details the right to life.
Previous legal cases have shown that any failure by the state to properly investigate a suspected murder may amount to a breach of the right to life of the victim.
Options open to the families include launching a judicial review of the Government's decision to refuse an inquiry, or using human rights laws to overturn Megrahi's conviction so that ministers are forced to act.
Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora died on the flight, said it was crucial to overturn Megrahi's guilty verdict so that "public outrage" left the Prime Minister with no choice but to allow in independent inquiry into the bombing.
Jean Berkley, who lost her 29-year-old son Alistair, said Mr Brown's letter "was not a well-considered reply" and added: "This is a kind of treatment we are used to receiving. Our perfectly-well thought out points were dismissed in a rather thoughtless way."
[The Prime Minister's letter, dated 24 December 2009, is in reply to the letter delivered by the UK relatives on 27 October 2009. It reads as follows:]
Thank you for your letter of 27 October.
As I said in my letter of 23 October, I am deeply aware of the pain and suffering caused to you and the other families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. You continue to have my deepest sympathies for your loss.
You referred in your previous letters to the need for a public inquiry into the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing and in your letter of 27 October you again referred to the Heathrow incident. As I said in my last letter, the Heathrow incident to which you refer was examined by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland, which concluded that it did not render the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe.
All of the matters which you have raised in support of the case for an inquiry are points which were raised at the original trial or the appeal in Scotland, and I do not see that it would be in the public interest to air them again at an inquiry.
I do appreciate that this answer is still not what you were looking for. Please be assured that my thoughts, and those of the Government, remain with you and the other families, especially at what must be a particularly difficult time of year for you all.
Excellent news but unfortunately judges are not independent in most government related cases.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pity that we don't have the full text of the PM's rejection sent on Christmas Eve.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there's virtually no chance of an ECHR Art 2 case succeeding this side of a General Election! And the Rt Hon. David Cameron is certain to give Gareth Peirce very short shrift, once hands have been kissed!
Still, if UK Families Flight 103 want to expend some cash to line the pockets of the second oldest profession - well, why not?
I managed not to get very far in my Art 10 (Freedom of Expression) case against the last Conservative Government ( http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=665945&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 ).
But that shouldn't discourage the relatives mentioned in the article: Jean Berkley, Pamela Dix, Rev John Mosey and Jim Swire from taking the best legal advice.
However, I can't help thinking that they would be much better off signing my petition: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BerntCarlsson/.
I've now posted the full text, Patrick.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the full text.
ReplyDeleteI note that the PM has not responded to the relatives' request for a meeting at Number 10. If, by avoiding the request, Gordon Brown is hoping to prevent Lockerbie becoming an issue at the forthcoming General Election, he should think again.
In my view, Lockerbie could be an amazing election winner for Mr Brown.
The Conservative administrations of Margaret Thatcher and John Major never wanted the truth about Lockerbie to come out, and David Cameron will do his utmost to hush matters up before the election.
Could you do me another favour, Robert? Any chance of your posting the e-mail I sent you yesterday entitled "Bernt Carlsson: the target on Pan Am Flight 103"?
Well good luck but the relevance of the Human Rights Act escapes me as it did not become law until 1998.
ReplyDeleteI presume the authorities will argue that the Fatal Accident Inquiry and the Camp Zeist trial both constituted a proper inquiry.
Incidentally one of the victims of Lockerbie, a British citizen, never had an inquest at all.
The relevance of the Human Rights Act is that, since its entry into force, the UK Government has repeatedly refused an inquiry (most recently in the Prime Minister's letter of 24 December 2009).
ReplyDeleteBut, in any event, even before 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights applied in the UK -- it simply could not be directly enforced in the UK courts. UK citizens, however, after exhausting local remedies, could raise proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. And that is what the UK relatives could still do if the UK courts dismissed their action (quite wrongly, in my opinion) on the basis that the Lockerbie deaths took place before the entry of the Act into force.
Baz is right, I think, in his anticipation of what the authorities' substantive arguments will be. There are, of course, answers to those arguments which the English court will have to adjudicate upon.
Thanks Professor Black. I was making a serious point. You refer in para.2 to the "UK Courts" and in para.3 to the "English court". Jurisdiction is going to be a headache.
ReplyDeleteIn respect of the further Lockerbie "victim" I mentioned the US authorities refused to supply Ian Spiro's post-mortem report to the FCO and his body was cremated. The 1996 inquest was into the death of his wife and children only.