[A report in today’s edition of the Sunday Herald contains the following:]
The Scottish Government
was told three months ago that the publication of the highly controversial
Lockerbie report was not necessarily held back by data protection legislation.
The
revelation brings into question the repeated assurances from ministers that
they were doing everything possible to get the report published.
After
five years of secrecy the Sunday Herald published the report online last
weekend as it believed it was in the public interest, and it had permission
from Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie
bombing.
Last
month, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill wrote to his Westminster counterpart
asking for an exemption under the Data Protection Act. This followed a similar
request in December. MacAskill did not have the report, but was trying to
smooth the way for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to
publish it.
It
has now emerged that the Ministry of Justice wrote to MacAskill on December 13
to say there was "no provision for a general exception" under the Act
but equally that there was no blanket ban on publication of the report under
data protection.
The
Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the regulator of the Data Protection
Act in the UK, wrote to The Herald to deny claims that the report was held back
by data-protection laws. It also said the ICO had told ministers that
publication was not prohibited by the Data Protection Act.
A
spokesman for the ICO said: "The ICO has always been clear that it was the
restrictive nature of the legislation governing the operation of SCCRC and not
the Data Protection Act that resulted in the release of this information,
relating to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, being blocked.
"We
have consistently advised the Scottish Parliament and Government that the Act
would not stand in the way of openness, providing the other legal requirements
for disclosure could be satisfied."
Ministers
have said since 2009 that they were doing everything in their power to get the
full report into the public domain, but said it was still bound by data
protection legislation.
[I, of course, have said from the
outset that the Scottish Government’s data protection excuse was a complete red
herring.]
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012, doc. nr. 7113.rtf.
ReplyDeleteFor the Scottish Parliament to think and act!
Governmental interference, political intrigues and
suppression instead of civil and human rights...
SCCRC CHAPTER 25...25.1 In 2006 Crown Office: Undisclosed protectively marked documents:
In 2006 Crown Office informed the Commission of the existence of two protectively marked documents in its possession. These documents *(inkl.PII) were madeavaiblable for viewing by a member of the Commission's enquiry team on 21 September 2006 at Dumfries police station on the condition that they would be treated as if they had been suppled under the minute of agreement between the Commission an D&G.
+++
*13. Sept. 1996, the Crown Office received a Document (PII) from an unknown state under national security.
The secret documents which could prove the innocence of the man Abdelbaset al Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, are being hold by a secret government.
The Appeal Court in Edinburgh was reported on (20.2.2008) that Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC had agreed to open the secret text in the document under "national security" which can relieves Libya and its official Mr Megrahi. But the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson QC, blocked the progress and has argued that it is not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed: "The national security was at stake"!
Entitled question:
Was the ex security "BUPO" in Switzerland the unknown state which had delivered 1996, under national security, a document to the Crown Office, about the clear facts over the MEBO MST-13 Timerfragment ? Facts pointing in this direction...
Clancy said the document had not come from the United States or its agencies like the CIA, although he did not disclose the country involved.
Parts of Statement by Dr Hans Koechler, International Observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie Trial), on the withholding of supposedly secret evidence from the Defense by order of the Government of the United Kingdom
The invocation of “Public Interest Immunity” (PII) – unprecedented in the history of Scottish criminal justice – is tantamount to political interference into the Appeal Court’s conduct. It is obvious that criminal proceedings cannot be fair if the Defense is denied access to a piece of evidence (document) which has been revealed to the Prosecution.
Under the highly politicized circumstances of the Lockerbie Trial, the issuing of a PII certificate by the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom appears to be a rather desperate measure to influence the conduct of the court in a manner favorable to the British Government; it further strains the constitutional relations between Scotland and the United Kingdom.
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012, doc. nr. 7113.rtf.
ReplyDeleteFor the Scottish Parliament to think and act!
Governmental interference, political intrigues and
suppression instead of civil and human rights...
SCCRC CHAPTER 25....25.1 In 2006 Crown Office: Undisclosed protectively marked documents:
In 2006 Crown Office informed the Commission of the existence of two protectively marked documents in its possession. These documents *(inkl.PII) were madeavaiblable for viewing by a member of the Commission's enquiry team on 21 September 2006 at Dumfries police station on the condition that they would be treated as if they had been suppled under the minute of agreement between the Commission an D&G.
+++
*13. Sept. 1996, the Crown Office received a Document (PII) from an unknown state under national security.
The secret documents which could prove the innocence of the man Abdelbaset al Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, are being hold by a secret government.
The Appeal Court in Edinburgh was reported on (20.2.2008) that Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC had agreed to open the secret text in the document under "national security" which can relieves Libya and its official Mr Megrahi. But the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson QC, blocked the progress and has argued that it is not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed: "The national security was at stake"!
continued below >>>
resumption >>>
ReplyDeleteEntitled question:
Was the ex security "BUPO" in Switzerland the unknown state which had delivered 1996, under national security, a document to the Crown Office, about the clear facts over the MEBO MST-13 Timerfragment ? Facts pointing in this direction...
Clancy said the document had not come from the United States or its agencies like the CIA, although he did not disclose the country involved.
Parts of Statement by Dr Hans Koechler, International Observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie Trial), on the withholding of supposedly secret evidence from the Defense by order of the Government of the United Kingdom
The invocation of “Public Interest Immunity” (PII) – unprecedented in the history of Scottish criminal justice – is tantamount to political interference into the Appeal Court’s conduct. It is obvious that criminal proceedings cannot be fair if the Defense is denied access to a piece of evidence (document) which has been revealed to the Prosecution.
Under the highly politicized circumstances of the Lockerbie Trial, the issuing of a PII certificate by the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom appears to be a rather desperate measure to influence the conduct of the court in a manner favorable to the British Government; it further strains the constitutional relations between Scotland and the United Kingdom.
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch