[The following are comments posted by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, on the group’s Facebook page, following his recent report on, and the press release about, meetings with the police officers investigating JFM's complaints of criminal conduct in the Lockerbie investigation and in the subsequent prosecution and trial:]
I quote Len Murray, hailed as the greatest criminal solicitor of his generation: "This is the most insidious and most frightening scandal in the judicial process of Scotland in living memory. And that is not just a hysterical outburst. It is quite unbelievable that Crown Office should act this way." Need I say more?
What the hell, let's say more, why not? Here from Mr Ian Hamilton QC: "I think you [JFM] are doing a splendid job in exposing what is a running sore in the body politic of Scotland. The Lord Advocate must be seen to be independent of the government whom it is his duty to prosecute should it traverse any law. Parliament makes the law; not the government and the latter is bound by the law like the rest of us. Neither the Justice Minister nor the Lord Advocate have proved themselves fit to hold office and the sooner this is referred to the international body the better."
I ought to add that the international body that Ian Hamilton refers to is the UN's International Association of Prosecutors, whose tenets the Crown Office is only too keen to boast its adherence to. JFM is considering lodging a complaint against the COPFS with said body under sections 2 and 3 of the UN body's Standards of Professional Responsibilities and Statement of Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors. http://www.iap-association.org/ressources/Standards_English.pdf . See also:http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/report-on-meetings-with-investigators.html
I quote Len Murray, hailed as the greatest criminal solicitor of his generation: "This is the most insidious and most frightening scandal in the judicial process of Scotland in living memory. And that is not just a hysterical outburst. It is quite unbelievable that Crown Office should act this way." Need I say more?
What the hell, let's say more, why not? Here from Mr Ian Hamilton QC: "I think you [JFM] are doing a splendid job in exposing what is a running sore in the body politic of Scotland. The Lord Advocate must be seen to be independent of the government whom it is his duty to prosecute should it traverse any law. Parliament makes the law; not the government and the latter is bound by the law like the rest of us. Neither the Justice Minister nor the Lord Advocate have proved themselves fit to hold office and the sooner this is referred to the international body the better."
I ought to add that the international body that Ian Hamilton refers to is the UN's International Association of Prosecutors, whose tenets the Crown Office is only too keen to boast its adherence to. JFM is considering lodging a complaint against the COPFS with said body under sections 2 and 3 of the UN body's Standards of Professional Responsibilities and Statement of Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors. http://www.iap-association.org/ressources/Standards_English.pdf . See also:http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/report-on-meetings-with-investigators.html
It is an old adage that Justice delayed is Justice denied but I have never heard it stated before as official policy. It seems curious that the Lord Advocate has so little faith that the conclusions of the SCCRC in respect of PT/35(b) will stand up to scrutiny even by the Scottish Police! Still their evidence would have to withstand the scrutiny of the Crown Office before proceeding.
ReplyDeleteFollowing John Major's claim to the House of Commons in 1996 inviting people with relevant information to "come forward".
I wrote to the PM pointing out that the Police had made a colossal blunder in "eliminating" Heathrow. In reply the Aviation Security Branch of the DoT drew my attention to the conclusions of the Fatal Accident Inquiry (that the primary suitcase arrived unaccompanied on PA103A) but suggested I approach the Crown Office to find out on what evidence this conclusion was based.(i.e.the Aviation Security Branch responsible for Heathrow claimed not to know!) As far as I was aware this conclusion was based on no evidence whatsoever!
Nonetheless I was assured the investigation was open (but apparently only if you agreed with the official fantasy.)
I wonder if in response to the PM's appeal anybody came forward with information that actually supported the official version of events?