[What follows is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.]
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009.
The Commission announced today that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to reach agreement with the relevant parties to obtain their consent to the publication of the Statement of Reasons relating to the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in June 2007.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Permitted Disclosure of Information) Order 2009, which came into force on 1 February 2010, only permits the Commission to disclose such information with the consent of those who have, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
The Commission had agreed, in principle, that it would be prepared to consider the release and publication of the Statement of Reasons which were provided to the Appeal Court in Mr Megrahi`s case provided it could obtain the consent of the relevant parties.
Gerard Sinclair, the Commission’s Chief Executive, said:
“As I indicated at the time the above Order came into force, in order to release our Statement of Reasons the Commission would require the consent of those who had, either directly or indirectly, provided the information.
"Over the last nine months I have been in ongoing correspondence and, in some instances, discussion with a number of the main parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for providing information to the Commission. I asked them if they were prepared to provide their consent, in writing, to the disclosure of the information contained within our Statement of Reasons. This included Crown Office, the Foreign Office, the relevant police authorities, as well as Mr Al Megrahi and his legal representatives.
"It has become obvious that there is no likelihood of obtaining the unqualified consent required in terms of the 2009 Order, and consequently the Board decided at its last meeting to discontinue the discussions at this time.
"The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”
[As Mr Sinclair correctly indicates in the last sentence of his statement, the condition in the 2009 Order that the consent of suppliers of information had to be obtained is one which the Scottish Government in making the Order was under no legal obligation to impose. It CHOSE to do so -- one wonders why. Pressure should now be applied on the Scottish Government to vary the Order by removing this superfluous requirement.
The relevant portions of the primary legislation [Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended] under which the 2009 Order was made read as follows:]
194K Exceptions from obligation of non-disclosure
(1) The disclosure of information ... is excepted from section 194J [Offence of disclosure] of this Act by this section if the information is disclosed ... --
(f) in any circumstances in which the disclosure of information is permitted by an order made by the Scottish Ministers.
(4) Where the disclosure of information is excepted from section 194J of this Act by subsection (1) ... above, the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.
[The Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just posted a report on this matter on its website.
The Scottish Government has issued the following statement:]
The Scottish Government welcomes the efforts made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to secure the necessary consents to release its statement of reasons in the Megrahi case and has accepted that release has not been possible within the constraints of the current legislation. The Scottish Government has always wanted to be as open and transparent as possible, and so is now considering primary legislation to overcome the problems presented by the current consent provisions while retaining the necessary protection for any third parties potentially affected by the statement of reasons.
[As I have stated above, primary legislation is not necessary. All that is required is a further Statutory Instrument amending the 2009 Order. Is the Scottish Government resorting to delaying tactics in proposing primary legislation? Perish the thought!]
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteWhich deals and who is responsible for Mr Al Megrahi's release, only a second role plays ! Mr Abdelbaset Al Megrahi is innocent anyway and designation as "Lockerbie Bomber" is an enormous character assassination !
We are convinced of it, Mr Al Megrahi is indeed innocent.
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch
Have I understood you Robert? My original understanding was that the consents issue was about Data Protection Law. Are you saying the Scottish Government itself imposed the consents condition?
ReplyDelete"The Commission will be happy to revisit this matter if the 2009 Order is varied and the requirement to obtain the consent of parties is removed.”
ReplyDeleteCan this be done?
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeletefrom WikiLeaks, among other things: interesting part no.7
By: Charge d'Affaires Richard LeBaron, reasons 1.4 b, d
P 240645Z OCT 08 FM AMEMBASSY LONDON TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0179 INFO AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI PRIORITY DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
Status of Megrahi's Appeal
7. (C/NF) The Scottish High Courts October 15 decision to allow all grounds for appeal to be considered, including grounds that had been previously rejected by the Scottish Criminal Case Review commission (text sent to NEA/MAG and L/LEI), slows the whole appeal process down, according to Scottish Court Head of Policy John Logue. Logue and Dixon both estimate that the appeal itself probably wont begin until late 2009, and probably wont conclude until 2010, Dixon said. Under Scottish law, even if Megrahi dies before the appeal is completed, a third party with a legitimate interestcan continue the appeal on his behalf. The Scottish Crown is therefore proceeding with the case, Logue said.
ebol
Is Ebol`s contribution common knowledge? Does it imply that Logue deliberately added superfluous grounds to slow the process down? Or is that just the conclusion of the Americans? Does the use of the word "therefore" imply collusion between Logue, Dixon and the Americans? I know that some on this site had serious concerns about how long the appeal process was taking.
ReplyDeleteBy: Charge d'Affaires Richard LeBaron, reasons 1.4 b, d
ReplyDeleteP 240645Z OCT 08 FM AMEMBASSY LONDON TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0179 INFO AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI PRIORITY DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
Status of Megrahi's Appeal
I see that its dated Oct 08. This shows that the Americans were taking an active interest in what was going on re the appeal well before MacAskill`s decision to free al Megraghi and that there was contact with the legal authorities here in Scotland. It would be interesting to follow these communiques through to the release.It might reveal more about who was speaking to the Americans and just what was being said.I`ll be checking the Wikileaks site tonight.
MISSION LOCKERBIE,
ReplyDeletemore in this case, from WikiLeaks: By: Charge d'Affaires Richard LeBaron, reasons 1.4 b, d
P 240645Z OCT 08 FM AMEMBASSY LONDON TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0179 INFO AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI PRIORITY DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
Prisoner Transfer Agreement,part no.6
6. (C/NF) The second track that the Libyans are pursuing to obtain Megrahi's release is the UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement. The text of the PTA is not yet concluded between HMG and Libya, although the Libyans are now pushing for this process to be expedited, Dixon tells us. Once the two governments reach agreement on the text, HMG will proceed to clear it with the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. Salmond publicly expressed his ire to then-PM Tony Blair for not consulting with Scotland beforehand when HMG announced its intention to pursue a PTA with Libya in 2007; nonetheless, Dixon says the current draft PTA contains standard language that the Scottish have cleared for other countries. Once the three devolved governments agree to the text, Libyan and British officials will sign it. Dixon says the signing will probably take place before Christmas. Once it is signed, under British law the PTA needs to sit for 21 days before the House of Commons and in the Lords before it is enacted, meaning that late January 2009 is the earliest the PTA could come into effect. Megrahi cannot be transferred under the PTA while he has an appeal pending. Dixon says that Megrahi is not specifically mentioned in the text; however, there are no other prisoners currently in the UK prison system to which the PTA would apply.
by ebol
Jo and searles:
ReplyDeleteThe consent requirement derives entirely from the 2009 Order. Section 194K of the 1995 Act under which it was made does not require the imposition of any such condition. The effect of s194K(4)-- quoted in the above post -- is that an Order made under the 1995 Act overrides any obligation of confidentiality arising under any other enactment. That includes the data protection legislation.
All that needs to happen for the consent issue to cease to be a problem is for the Scottish Government to make a new Order amending the 2009 one by removing the consent requirement.
Grendal, the additional grounds of appeal were proposed by Megrahi's legal team, objected to by the Crown but allowed by the court. Logue is simply reporting that this has happened and predicting that the consequence will be the prolongation of the appeal proceedings.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Crown Office officials were briefing US diplomats about the proceedings. It would be fascinating to see more of these briefings and to compare them with the contemporaneous commentaries that I posted on this blog.
I recall that last year the "spin" was that MacAskill was powerless to authorise publication of the SCCRC because of Data Protection Law: that the other parties had to have their DP right observed. That was the spin. I say spin, I believed it at the time actually because it seemed possible. To discover now MacAskill protected himself from having to authorise the release is truly vomit-inducing stuff.
ReplyDelete