[What follows is the text of a press release issued by Aamer Anwar & Co in response to today’s announcement from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:]
It was extremely disappointing for the victim’s families to hear of the latest decision by the SCCRC through the media.
We understand that the Commission has now petitioned the High Court, in terms of s194D(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to establish whether Dr Jim Swire or another member of the victims’ families might be classed as a person with a legitimate interest to pursue an appeal on behalf of Mr Al-Megrahi in the event that the Commission was to refer the case back to the High Court.
On 5 June 2014, the Commission received an application for a further review of Mr Megrahi’s conviction from my office. This application was lodged on behalf of two separate groups: the family members of the deceased victims of the Lockerbie bombing and 6 immediate family members of Mr Al-Megrahi.
The Commission stated today that since June it has:
It was extremely disappointing for the victim’s families to hear of the latest decision by the SCCRC through the media.
We understand that the Commission has now petitioned the High Court, in terms of s194D(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to establish whether Dr Jim Swire or another member of the victims’ families might be classed as a person with a legitimate interest to pursue an appeal on behalf of Mr Al-Megrahi in the event that the Commission was to refer the case back to the High Court.
On 5 June 2014, the Commission received an application for a further review of Mr Megrahi’s conviction from my office. This application was lodged on behalf of two separate groups: the family members of the deceased victims of the Lockerbie bombing and 6 immediate family members of Mr Al-Megrahi.
The Commission stated today that since June it has:
“proceeded on the basis that Mr Megrahi’s family are involved in the present application. However, despite the Commission’s repeated requests, the members of the Megrahi family have failed to provide appropriate evidence to support this position. The Commission has now reached the conclusion that the current application is being actively supported only by the members of the victims’ families, who would no doubt be prepared to pursue an appeal if allowed to do so.”
With respect, we would submit that the Commission are wrong and that we remain instructed by members of the Megrahi family as well as the British relatives.
We have been in communication with the Megrahi family, both via intermediaries and directly. Communication is hampered by an extremely dangerous situation in Libya, a situation referred to yesterday by the Lord Advocate, by way of an explanation for lack of any progress in relation to investigations into the Lockerbie atrocity.
Put simply, if the Lord Advocate with all the resources of the state cannot make progress, then it is highly unlikely that we can to travel to Libya in the near future to obtain the necessary documentation. Nor will we expect the Megrahi family to put their lives unnecessarily at risk to provide the required documentation in what can be termed as a ‘failed state’.
The Al-Megrahi family have advised of the risks that they face and that they will try to provide the documentation as soon as is possible. We will continue in our efforts to obtain what the SCCRC requires and in the meantime we will prepare for petition that has been lodged.
If the documents that are required by the SCCRC from the Megrahi family are provided in advance of the petition being heard, this will render the petition unnecessary and academic, as the SCCRC will be able to assure itself that the instruction does come directly from the Megrahi family.
Clearly the Court is unlikely to entertain a purely academic petition.
With regards to the rights of the victims’ families to pursue an appeal, we would submit that there is a fundamental duty on the State to protect the rights of victims of crime, which includes the national courts responsibility for the administration of justice.
If the long struggle of Dr Jim Swire, Rev’d John Mosey and many of the British relatives has indicated anything, then it is that they should not have to go through unyielding confrontations with the police and Crown Office just to get the necessary information in their fight for justice.
The families of the victims should not now be denied a referral to the Appeal court when the SCCRC had already considered there was a significant basis for doing so.
It is submitted that the families of the victims have as much right to make an application for referral as the family of Mr Al-Megrahi.
Finality and certainty in the Megrahi case is unlikely ever to be achieved unless a referral is made to the Appeal Court.
Indeed, the Scottish Government has itself stated that this is the appropriate course to be followed (see http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/cia-interfered-in-police-probe-into-lockerbie.22954217?):
"Any issues raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law - Mr Al- Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.
As was made clear by the Justice Secretary in his statement to the Scottish Parliament last year, it remains open for relatives of Mr Al- Megrahi, or others, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the court for a further posthumous appeal which Ministers would be entirely comfortable with."
Over the years the case of Abdelbasset Al- Megrahi has been described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history.
A reversal of the verdict would of course mean that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stand exposed as having lived a monumental lie for 26 years by imprisoning a man they knew to be innocent.
There is also a very strong argument that, if there is a miscarriage of justice in a case, such circumstances ought not, for public policy reasons, to be exclusively for the Appellant or (their family members in the event of death) to determine as to whether or not the Court of Appeal gets to hear an appeal and decide whether or not there has been a miscarriage of justice.
In the present case, the Appellant, having abandoned his appeal, has left the Scottish legal system in a situation where a not inconsiderable part of the population believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the Appellant.
Such views ought to be properly, and openly tested in the Appeal Court. If the Appellant is guilty, those who have concerns about it can have confidence that the matter has been impartially judicially considered and that the matter of guilt is beyond doubt.
If the Appellant is not guilty, the Appeal Court can restore confidence in the justice system by acquitting the Appellant.
With respect, we would submit that the Commission are wrong and that we remain instructed by members of the Megrahi family as well as the British relatives.
We have been in communication with the Megrahi family, both via intermediaries and directly. Communication is hampered by an extremely dangerous situation in Libya, a situation referred to yesterday by the Lord Advocate, by way of an explanation for lack of any progress in relation to investigations into the Lockerbie atrocity.
Put simply, if the Lord Advocate with all the resources of the state cannot make progress, then it is highly unlikely that we can to travel to Libya in the near future to obtain the necessary documentation. Nor will we expect the Megrahi family to put their lives unnecessarily at risk to provide the required documentation in what can be termed as a ‘failed state’.
The Al-Megrahi family have advised of the risks that they face and that they will try to provide the documentation as soon as is possible. We will continue in our efforts to obtain what the SCCRC requires and in the meantime we will prepare for petition that has been lodged.
If the documents that are required by the SCCRC from the Megrahi family are provided in advance of the petition being heard, this will render the petition unnecessary and academic, as the SCCRC will be able to assure itself that the instruction does come directly from the Megrahi family.
Clearly the Court is unlikely to entertain a purely academic petition.
With regards to the rights of the victims’ families to pursue an appeal, we would submit that there is a fundamental duty on the State to protect the rights of victims of crime, which includes the national courts responsibility for the administration of justice.
If the long struggle of Dr Jim Swire, Rev’d John Mosey and many of the British relatives has indicated anything, then it is that they should not have to go through unyielding confrontations with the police and Crown Office just to get the necessary information in their fight for justice.
The families of the victims should not now be denied a referral to the Appeal court when the SCCRC had already considered there was a significant basis for doing so.
It is submitted that the families of the victims have as much right to make an application for referral as the family of Mr Al-Megrahi.
Finality and certainty in the Megrahi case is unlikely ever to be achieved unless a referral is made to the Appeal Court.
Indeed, the Scottish Government has itself stated that this is the appropriate course to be followed (see http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/cia-interfered-in-police-probe-into-lockerbie.22954217?):
"Any issues raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law - Mr Al- Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.
As was made clear by the Justice Secretary in his statement to the Scottish Parliament last year, it remains open for relatives of Mr Al- Megrahi, or others, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the court for a further posthumous appeal which Ministers would be entirely comfortable with."
Over the years the case of Abdelbasset Al- Megrahi has been described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history.
A reversal of the verdict would of course mean that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stand exposed as having lived a monumental lie for 26 years by imprisoning a man they knew to be innocent.
There is also a very strong argument that, if there is a miscarriage of justice in a case, such circumstances ought not, for public policy reasons, to be exclusively for the Appellant or (their family members in the event of death) to determine as to whether or not the Court of Appeal gets to hear an appeal and decide whether or not there has been a miscarriage of justice.
In the present case, the Appellant, having abandoned his appeal, has left the Scottish legal system in a situation where a not inconsiderable part of the population believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the conviction of the Appellant.
Such views ought to be properly, and openly tested in the Appeal Court. If the Appellant is guilty, those who have concerns about it can have confidence that the matter has been impartially judicially considered and that the matter of guilt is beyond doubt.
If the Appellant is not guilty, the Appeal Court can restore confidence in the justice system by acquitting the Appellant.
‘Despite the Commissions repeated requests’! What does this mean in practice? How have they attempted to contact Megrahi's family?
ReplyDeleteThrough Aamer Anwar & Co, I understand. The firm's response:
ReplyDeleteWe have been in communication with the Megrahi family, both via intermediaries and directly. Communication is hampered by an extremely dangerous situation in Libya, a situation referred to yesterday by the Lord Advocate, by way of an explanation for lack of any progress in relation to investigations into the Lockerbie atrocity.
Put simply, if the Lord Advocate with all the resources of the state cannot make progress, then it is highly unlikely that we can to travel to Libya in the near future to obtain the necessary documentation. Nor will we expect the Megrahi family to put their lives unnecessarily at risk to provide the required documentation in what can be termed as a ‘failed state’.
The Al-Megrahi family have advised of the risks that they face and that they will try to provide the documentation as soon as is possible. We will continue in our efforts to obtain what the SCCRC requires and in the meantime we will prepare for petition that has been lodged.
Thank you Robert for assisting the Al-Megrahi family. By the way, for trusted lawyers in the Philippines, visit NDV Law.
ReplyDelete