Saturday, 2 April 2016

A conclusion no reasonable tribunal could have reached on the evidence

[The following are excerpts from an article headlined Lockerbie mystery will remain, based on an interview with me, that was published in Lockerbie’s local weekly newspaper The Annandale Herald on this date in 2009:]

Q. You are credited with being one of the “architects” of the first trial at Camp Zeist. What was your involvement at that time?
A. My personal involvement in the aftermath of the destruction of Pan Am 103 began in early 1993. I was approached by representatives of a group of British businessmen whose desire to participate in major engineering works in Libya was being impeded by the UN sanctions that had been imposed on Libya in an attempt to compel the surrender for trial in Scotland or the United States of America of their two accused citizens. They asked if I would be prepared to provide independent advice to Libya with a view (it was hoped) to persuading them their citizens would obtain a fair trial if they were to surrender to the Scottish authorities. I submitted material setting out the essentials of Scottish solemn criminal procedure and the various protections embodied in it for accused persons. It was indicated to me that the Libyan government was satisfied regarding the fairness of a criminal trial in Scotland but, since Libyan law prevented the extradition of nationals for trial overseas, the ultimate decision would have to be one taken voluntarily by the accused persons themselves.

For this purpose a meeting was convened in Tripoli in October 1993 of the international team of lawyers appointed to represent the accused. I am able personally to testify to how much of a surprise and embarrassment it was to the Libyan government when the outcome of the meeting of the defence team was an announcement that the accused were not prepared to surrender themselves for trial in Scotland. At a private meeting I had in Tripoli a day later it was explained to me the primary reason for the unwillingness of the accused to stand trial in Scotland was their belief that, because of unprecedented pre-trial publicity over the years, a Scottish jury could not possibly bring to their consideration of the evidence the impartiality and open-mindedness accused persons are entitled to expect and that a fair trial demands.

I returned to Tripoli and in 1994 and presented a detailed proposal that a trial be held outside Scotland, ideally in the Netherlands, in which the governing law and procedure would be that followed in Scottish criminal trials on indictment but with the jury of 15 persons replaced by a panel of judges. In a letter to me it was stated the suspects would voluntarily surrender themselves for trial before a tribunal so constituted. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya stated his government approved of the proposal. I submitted the relevant documents to the Foreign Office in London and the Crown Office in Edinburgh. Their immediate response was that this scheme was impossible, impracticable and inherently undesirable, with the clear implication that I had taken leave of what few senses nature had endowed me with. However, from about late July 1998, following interventions supporting my “neutral venue” scheme from, amongst others, President Nelson Mandela, there began to be leaks from UK government sources to the effect that a policy change over Lockerbie was imminent; and on 24 August 1998 the governments of the United Kingdom and United States announced they had reversed their stance on the matter of a “neutral venue” trial. And after a number pitfalls were avoided, the suspects surrendered themselves for trial.

Q. What is your view of the legal process involving the case since then?
A. The outcome of the trial was a real shock. Since the day of the verdict I have consistently maintained the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi was contrary to the weight of the evidence and that the finding of guilt against him was a conclusion no reasonable tribunal could have reached on that evidence. I am glad to say my view appears to be shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, for this is one of the grounds on which it referred Megrahi’s case back to the High Court for a further appeal. As someone who has practised, taught and (as a part-time judge) administered the criminal law of Scotland for 35 years, I can confidently say that, in my opinion, the conviction of Megrahi is the worst and most blatant miscarriage of justice to have occurred in Scotland for a hundred years.

Q. What led to the formation of the Justice for Megrahi campaign?
A. What precipitated the establishment of the campaign was the refusal by the High Court to release Megrahi on bail pending his appeal, even though advanced and incurable prostate cancer had been diagnosed. The campaign is intended to create a climate of opinion in which his release on bail by the court, or his compassionate release by the Scottish Government, can be achieved so he can spend what time remains to him with his family at their house in Newton Mearns.

Q. What is your experience of meeting and working with victims’ families?
A. One of the great privileges accorded to me through my involvement in the Lockerbie case has been meeting, and forming friendships with, relatives of individuals killed aboard Pan Am 103: delightful people like Jim and Jane Swire, John and Lisa Mosey and Marina Larracoechea. My contacts with other relatives, particularly some American ones, have been less pleasurable. For some of them, anyone who expresses anything less than absolutely uncritical acceptance of the trial verdict and of Libyan culpability is a rogue and a scoundrel. How they will cope with the quashing of Megrahi’s conviction (which I believe to be inevitable if the current appeal goes the full distance) I hesitate to think. (...)

Q. The second appeal hearing is due to start at the end of April. What are your expectations of that?
A. If the appeal goes the full distance, I have no doubt whatsoever that Megrahi’s conviction will be quashed. But if his medical condition deteriorates dramatically, he may decide to apply for transfer back to Libya to die there in the bosom of his family. It is a condition of applying for prisoner transfer that there be no live legal proceedings in that prisoner’s case. This means in order to qualify, Megrahi would have to abandon his present appeal. I am cynical enough about Crown Office and Scottish Government Justice Department motives to believe this is the outcome these bodies devoutly wish to achieve. There are those — civil servants and others — whose careers and reputations have been built upon the Lockerbie conviction. For them, the ideal outcome is for the current appeal to be abandoned. If it proceeds the full distance, embarrassment (and perhaps worse) are inevitable.

Q. What is it about the Lockerbie case in general that has kept you so involved over the years?
A. The injustice of it. Abdelbaset Megrahi should never have been convicted. This is so obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence and at the trial court’s judgment that there must be something wrong with a system that has already taken more than eight years to reach a point where it might just be about to be rectified.

Q. Do you think there will ever be a satisfactory conclusion to the Lockerbie case?

A. I think Megrahi’s name will be cleared. I only hope he is alive to see it. Beyond that, I doubt if we will ever now find out who or what actually caused the destruction of Pan Am 103. The political (and indeed journalistic) will to investigate what truly happened seems to me to be lacking. And people like me and like those relatives who have never been convinced by the officially-approved explanation are growing old and tired. Clearing Megrahi is the best that we can hope to achieve, I’m afraid.


  1. I know what really happened if one reads the the first item to depart the aircraft was the right hand nose wheel door as shown on the radar screen then it seems to have reattach it self to the nose in the field at Tundergrath I ask a Mr Cooper of the A.A.I.B who signed off the report about how did the nose wheel reattach it self his reply to me was it seems we have made a mistake that the nose wheel door did not fall off first then what did?

    1. Oh for goodness sake. What about the clear evidence of an explosion inside a suitcase inside baggage container AVE4041?

      That evidence is clear and coherent and was moreover picked up by many different people scattered across a wide area. When all these pieces are brought together and reassembled they show a graphic picture of an explosion, and almost exactly where the explosion was.

      All we're arguing about now is whether the exploding suitcase was on top of the blue Tourister on underneath it. Whether the bomb suitcase was on the bottom of the stack of luggage or on the second layer. It's that simple.

      If the latter, the bomb came in on the feeder flight and just possibly, Megrahi might have had something to do with it (though that's a stretch). If the former, the crime happened at Heathrow at about 4.30 pm when Megrahi was provably 1,000 miles away in Tripoli. Hint. It was the former.

      If you've read everything about Lockerbie, you must know this.

  2. Yes I have read everything on this case and outher cases involving air accidents this one is a simple one to Slove but our government and the US government knows what happened but they are never going to tell you but I will in the case of the FEDERAL government v the insurance company's who is sueing the FEDERAL government for around $100 million for a old bone shaker aircraft that had flown nearly 75,000 hours when it was only certified for 60,000 hours they was no explosion on board PA 103 as the last recorded noise on the cockpit voice recorder was a thud and not 500grams of Semtex going bang

    1. The evidence of an explosion in AVE4041 is clear and irrefutable. The age of the aircraft in no way nullifies that evidence. No further posts denying an explosion will be accepted.

    2. You said that last time. And the time before. And the time before that.

      You have a heart of purest putty, my dear professor!

    3. Sigh! It's true! I must sign up for assertiveness classes.

    4. We could ask him what he thinks caused the blast damage to the container and the suitcases and the clothes inside the suitcases. On the other hand, why bother? I must have asked Dave that a dozen times and never got an answer. (I know what John Barry Smith has postulated, and it's hilarious.)

  3. The evidence of an explosion in AVE4041 is clear and irrefutable. The age of the aircraft in no way nullifies that evidence. No further posts denying an explosion will be accepted.

    Just thinking, Vronsky will now announce that you're MI5. I mean it's obvious, innit? You're trying to suppress the information that the nose wheel fell off. Or the cargo door failed. Or something. I dunno.