[This is the headline over a report posted earlier today on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]
MSPs on justice committee unable to agree on key questions regarding Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya
An influential Holyrood committee has failed to reach any firm conclusions about the Scottish government's handling of the Lockerbie affair after it split down party lines.
MSPs on the justice committee were unable to agree on key questions at the heart of the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite its becoming the biggest political and legal controversy in the 10-year history of the devolved government.
The committee was divided on whether the Libyan government was legally able to apply for Megrahi to be repatriated under a prisoner transfer deal because legal cases were outstanding, and it failed to agree on whether Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, was right to meet Megrahi in Greenock prison.
It also was split on whether MacAskill had properly listened to the views of the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing in 1988, and on whether the minister correctly interpreted the Scottish prison service rules on compassionate release.
On the crucial issue of the quality of the medical evidence that Megrahi had only three months to live – he is still alive but is said to be very weak – the three Labour members and Tory chair of the committee said MacAskill should have had a second opinion.
The three Scottish National party members disagreed. (...)
After Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat members of the committee outvoted the SNP's three members, the committee was able to conclude that MacAskill was wrong to visit Megrahi in Greenock prison, to criticise his handling of the prisoner transfer application and to question his judgement on compassionate release.
Bill Aitken, the Tory MSP and committee convenor, said: "This has been an unusual exercise for the justice committee, and it is fair to say it has been quite a divisive one.
"[There] were some points on which we could all agree, including the need for greater clarity about the status of the Scottish prison service guidance that sets out the criteria for compassionate release.
"I believe this is a useful report that sets out fairly the arguments on all the main issues that arose in the inquiry. It will now be for MSPs and others with an interest in this issue to read the report and make up their own minds."
[The account in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here, that in The Scotsman can be read here, that in The Times here and that in The Daily Telegraph here.
The full report of the Justice Committee is available here.]
Pure party politics. If the SNP contrived to turn Scotland into Utopia, the other parties would still use it to censure them, if they thought they could.
ReplyDeleteI'd still like to know what Kenny said to Megrahi on the subject of dropping that appeal though. I have my suspicions.
Apropos the appeal-matters - in the radio interview Dr. Swire mentioned the option of one of Megrahi's sons taking up the appeal.
ReplyDeleteApart from the fact that the Scottish system of "justice" will fight the idea with beak and claws, and also try to drag it out until until a certain place gets cold - what are the legal options here?
I have a feeling that such an obvious must have been discussed already. Sorry if I missed it, a link would be much appreciated.
The Sam Sheppard case seems to have closed for the option for children in US to exonerate parents:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard
"On February 22, 2002, the Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the case should not have gone to the jury, as a wrongful imprisonment claim could be made only by the person actually imprisoned, and not by a family member such as Sam Reese Sheppard. Legal standing to bring such a claim, the court of appeals found, died with the person who had been imprisoned. In August 2002, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appeals court's decision."
If the appeal had still been underway, it could have been continued after the appelant's death by someone else with an interest in the case. Megrahi's eldest son would be an obvious candidate, but I think Jim Swire even hinted that he +/- other relatives could have and would have done it if necessary. However, Megrahi withdrawing the appeal closes that door. His legal representative said he'd been persuaded that his chances of getting home would be increased if he withdrew the appeal, so he reluctantly did that. The timing of all this was pretty much bang on to suggest Kenny had a hand in that decision. I can only assume that Kenny, as a lawyer, was averse to seeing the Scottish justice system shown up.
ReplyDeleteAt the weekend after Mr Megrahi was released, I realised there was nothing in law stopping the SCCRC from sending the case for a third appeal if they so wished. I told various journalists and others about it.
ReplyDeleteThe details are at
http://www.mattberkley.com/secondreferral.htm .
Rolfe, I´m not sure Mr MacAskill needed to do anything much to increase the likelihood of Mr Megrahi dropping his appeal other than wait (and give him the kind of partial information on his options reported in the official record of their meeting).
I met Mr MacAskill twice in the summer. The second time was to warn him that the prisoner would be likely to give up his appeal for no good reason if Mr MacAskill went on without giving an indication of a likely refusal.
At the first meeting I had been surprised by how laid back they were considering the imminent possibility of abandonment.
I also put this during telephone calls to his adviser Dr Burgess, whose decision to classify the priority as "routine" despite the prior discussions with the Libyans about expediting it, I criticised in a submission to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee:
http://www.mattberkley.com/scotjustcom.htm
or
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/Megrahi/20090928MattBerkley.pdf
In relation to the "waiting" by Mr MacAskill, we might consider that, for instance, his department failed to contact the FCO on the matter he later considered as crucial, for 48 days out of the 90.
Taking over 90 days for no obvious good reason might well have been expected to increase frustration for an ill prisoner far from home.
This is the kind of thing that I was warning Mr MacAskill about in my letter of 6 July.
There is more detail in the submission mentioned above.
Something the Justice Committee has failed to note is that had Mr MacAskill kept to the 90 days, the appeal would still have been ongoing.
The other thing I went into detail about for the Justice Committee was the apparently partial nature of the information to the prisoner.
Thank you, Rolfe & Matt.
ReplyDeleteIf an appeal should ever get on track the outcome is obvious. How it would still be possible to refuse the relatives the needed inquiry is hard to see.