tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post1670653297594496623..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: He went to Holland expecting justice and never got itRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-53655677244104929322013-08-26T12:05:00.338+01:002013-08-26T12:05:00.338+01:00If this,
"The Justice Minister was right to ...If this,<br /><br />"The Justice Minister was right to release Baset. It was a decent decision."<br /><br />involved any sort of decency, then this,<br /><br />"It was to be expected that as Minister he would support the conviction and laud the Judiciary, Prosecution and Police." <br /><br />still makes no sense at all. <br /><br />A decent decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds, maybe, but decency as a principle left the building when Megrahi was essentially coerced into dropping his appeal. Compassionate release would have allowed his appeal to continue. <br /><br />"It was striking he did not mention another Scottish, statutory body. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission." <br /><br />MacAskill, as Justice Minister, (and a lawyer!) ignored the SCCRC findings completely when he made the Big Speech in the Parliament ahead of Megrahi's release. He declared the original verdict sound. He did not, even as Justice Minister, have the authority to declare such a thing when the SCCRC had already made public the fact that they had found SIX grounds to suggest otherwise. Minister or not he did not have the authority to proceed as if the SCCRC findings had never existed. That he did so, in itself, was a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice by abusing his position to sweep it all under the carpet. <br /><br />Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.com