Friday 9 May 2014

Let Lockerbie appeal go ahead

[This is the heading over a letter from Justice for Megrahi stalwart Mrs Jo Greenhorn published in today’s edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

I hope I am not alone in feeling disturbed by comments made by the chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC), Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity ("Families in bid to overturn Megrahi conviction", The Herald, May 7).

Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.

Why? Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans have denied us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie?

Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to address the fact that Megrahi dropped his last appeal. I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that, for it has been claimed the Scottish authorities told the Libyan authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. He was a dying man. Did he have a choice?

As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it. Dr Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.

As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal, is he ignorant of the situation in Libya? Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in? Is he aware of their financial position? So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal?

What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as chief executive of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference", is justice. That should answer another question he posed, as to whether it was in the interests of justice to allow this appeal. The SCCRC had already found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since. 

[The above is the published version of the letter.  As submitted it read as follows:]

I hope I am not alone in feeling disturbed by public comments made by the Chief Executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdel Basset Al Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity. (...)   Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.  Why?  Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans denied all of us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie.

Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to "address" the fact that Megahi dropped his last appeal.  I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that for it has been claimed the Scottish Authorities told the Libyan Authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. (This advice was given despite the fact that an existing appeal can continue even when a person has been released on compassionate grounds.  Why did the Scottish Authorities do that?)  He was a dying man.  Did he have a choice?

As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it.   Jim Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.   I wonder what age Mr Sinclair is.   Jim Swire was in his early fifties when this terrible thing happened.   He has spent his life since going after justice and the truth.   Scots Law didn't deliver either.   It allowed itself to be caught up in dirty, filthy politics so that we really didn't get the truth about Lockerbie, or justice.  Scotland should be ashamed of that.   

As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal is he ignorant of the situation in Libya?   Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in?  Is he aware of their financial position?  So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal? 

What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as CE of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference" is justice.  That should answer another question he posed as to whether it was "in the interests of justice" to allow this appeal.  Why would it not be?  The SCCRC already had found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since.  Why would Mr Sinclair want the SCCRC to kill this new appeal? Why would he want to play down the significance of this new appeal and any hopes of taking it forward?   I think he should explain himself and soon.  The SCCRC, we are told, functions "without political or judicial interference". Maybe Mr Sinclair should therefore drop the politics. The dead at Lockerbie deserve better.

2 comments:

  1. Everyone and their dog know the US/UK and Scottish political establishments support the Lockerbie cover-up.

    And in the interests of job security those in the system know they are expected to support the cover-up, or else!

    And they maintain the cover-up by alleging there is an on-going live criminal investigation that was promoted to avoid a public enquiry.

    Of course they can’t admit to this, but it explains Gerald Sinclair’s shocking comments made to obstruct an appeal, despite his official duty being to support a valid appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If there's any further evidence, if anyone's got any concern about it, they should make it known to the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission" Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland BBC Interview 16/12/13.

    Well I tested this claim and found it to be untrue.

    I do not note that at least four persons other than Mr Megrahi's Legal representatives (and what a wonderful job they did!) made submissions to the SCCRC. (Depending on whether John Ashton's submission was as a part of Megrahi's defence team or some semi-detatched effort.)

    ReplyDelete