On 10 September 2015 I posted an item on this blog headed Amendment to limit High Court's power to reject SCCRC references about Christine Grahame MSP’s success in carrying in the Justice Committee an amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill removing the requirement (a) that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings in deciding whether to refer a case to the High Court; and (b) that the High Court itself must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings in deciding whether an appeal arising from such a reference should proceed.
It was feared that the Scottish Government might seek to overturn these amendments during the later parliamentary progress of the Bill. I am delighted to report that the amendments have survived and are to be found as section 82 in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2015, as passed today. Now what is needed is an application, acceptable to the SCCRC, on behalf of the late Mr Megrahi.
It was feared that the Scottish Government might seek to overturn these amendments during the later parliamentary progress of the Bill. I am delighted to report that the amendments have survived and are to be found as section 82 in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2015, as passed today. Now what is needed is an application, acceptable to the SCCRC, on behalf of the late Mr Megrahi.
Whoopee? I think?
ReplyDeleteWasn't the finality and certainty thing originally just about preventing a flood of vexatious appeals from petty crooks based on them having originally been interviewed before they'd had access to a lawyer?
As a scientist, the concept bothers me a lot. Imagine, no, Professor Einstein, we can't publish your theory of special relativity because it has been decided that Isaac Newton settled the matter a couple of hundred years ago. Or no, Dr. Warren, we can't accept that duodenal ulcers are caused by Helicobacter pylori because it has been accepted for decades that the condition is caused by stress. We must have certainty and finality!
If a case has been wrongly decided, and there is clear factual evidence to demonstrate this, it should not be prevented from going to further appeal just because someone wants to save themselves the trouble and/or cover their backside and/or keep the paperwork looking tidy.
DOSSIERS LOCKERBIE, 2015.
ReplyDeleteThank you the Scottish Parliament and Christine Grahame.... The report that the amendments have survived and are to be found as section 82 in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2015, as passed today. Now what is needed is an application, acceptable to the SCCRC, on behalf of the late Mr Megrahi.
By analyzing the SCCRC report - MEBO found several shady reviews. Several parts about the MST-13 fragment are misleading and false. The Lockerbie case remains an open criminal investigation, and while the only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law, the SCCRC could be a valuable body but it is itself part of the Scottish justice system. It is a clear conflict of interest.
Among other things, this must be investigated as it is in connection with a fraud of evidence:
Under SCCRC-section No. 7.97, PI/995 - The evidence of fraud about the discovery of the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) on the wrong date, 22 May 1989, was clear been adopted by SCCRC, with assistance of perfect confusion , and with the acceptance of the manipulated, additional page No. 51, and (PI/995) in the report 181.
The fact is that the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) was found in a slalom-shirt for the first time in January 1990, allegedly by expert Allen Feraday at 'RARDE'!
The SCCRC-Commission made a very problematic and unfair comment about to the fraud of evidence (MST 13 fragment) and the page 51:
(7.97) "Given its findings, the Commission sees no basis for the criticism levelled at the trial court’s approach to the provenance of PI/995".It sounds positive that SCCRC discovered several miscarriages of justice but they failed to understand the technical jumble made around the MST-13 fragment. The same fatal mistake was already made by the court in Zeist.
Mebo will focus on more problematic details in the SCCRC report...
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication, Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch