The Lockerbie Case: Further question to Kenny MacAskill

Monday 2 April 2012

Further question to Kenny MacAskill

[In the course of his written answer to a recent question from Christine Grahame MSP about the conduct of the Crown Office in the Megrahi case, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, said “The Scottish Ministers have a general power under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005 which allows a Minister to hold an inquiry in relation to a case where it appears to him that particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern, or there is public concern that particular events may have occurred.”

Ms Grahame has now tabled a further question which reads as follows:]

Question S4W-06500: Christine Grahame, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 28/03/2012

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S4W-06179 by Kenny MacAskill on 27 March 2012, whether the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission are matters that have caused or are capable of causing public concern within the meaning of section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005.

Current Status: Expected Answer date 25/04/2012

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments

Readers are invited to comment on blog posts. All comments require to be pre-moderated by me, and I shall reject all (a) that are not related to the Lockerbie disaster or (b) that fail to meet my -- perhaps idiosyncratic -- standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Comments will not be rejected simply because I disagree with them or because I, or other contributors, find them irritating. But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. I am perfectly relaxed about being sued in respect of material which I personally have posted -- but not in respect of material that others wish to post as comments and which, in any case, I often strongly disagree with.

Particularly during my sojourns in South Africa, it may not be possible for me to perform the moderation function speedily. I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions.