The Lockerbie Case

Eleven years of injustice

2012-01-31T07:26:00.000Z

It was eleven years ago today that the judges of the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist delivered their verdict of Guilty against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (and Not Guilty against Lamin Fhima) for the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. The Opinion of the Court justifying the verdicts can be read here. In the version originally issued on 31 January 2001, in the very first sentence, their Lordships mis-stated the date of the disaster. This is indicative of the quality of the Opinion as a whole. [RB: This is a modified excerpt from the post that appeared on this blog on the tenth anniversary of the Zeist verdict.]

Tory justice spokesman David McLetchie MSP on Megrahi

2012-01-30T12:08:00.003Z

[Holyrood magazinetoday publishes a long article about the views of recently-appointed ScottishConservative Party justice spokesman (and former leader) David McLetchie MSP. It reads in part:]

The government lastmonth published a bill that could permit publication of information about thecase against the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. It has been saidthe Criminal Cases Bill would let the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commissiondecide whether information it gathered and referred to the Appeal Court shouldbe published.

Abdelbasetal-Megrahi abandoned his second appeal days before he was sent home to Libya oncompassionate grounds.

Campaignerswant case papers released, but that has so far been prohibited by law. For thedocuments to be released, the SCCRC needed the consent of the main partiesinvolved, which include the Crown Office, the police and the Foreign Office.

McLetchiesaid: “I think it is interesting that the Scottish Government’s officialposition is that it doesn’t doubt the safety of Megrahi’s conviction. We havethis obsession about Megrahi and although they say they don’t doubt theconviction, clearly they do as they are playing to that gallery.

“Itwould appear there are barriers in terms of the release of statements ofreasons to do with data protection, which is reserved, and also issues overofficial secrets, so there are quite a lot of barriers over which the ScottishParliament can do nothing.

“Tomy mind it is quite simply grandstanding, it is pandering to a view thatMegrahi is innocent, it is pandering to all the conspiracy theorists and ifthey [the Government] really don’t doubt the safety of the conviction then whatare they wasting our time for?

“Iwould be surprised if all of this ends up being released into the public domainat the end of the day and I think it’s time to draw a line under this butsuspect it won’t be until Megrahi passes away.” It is not a view that willdeter Megrahi campaigners. In recent years, there has been growing support forthe idea that the Libyan may have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.It is one of several issues that convince McLetchie his new job will be farfrom dull.

Headded: “We are at a time when the police is about to go through major reformand there is some important legislation coming through the parliament. As we’veseen in the last few years, the justice brief plays a significant role in termsof politics and policy and I expect that very much to continue throughout thisparliament too.”

S7 in the firing line as Justice Committee defend the role of the SCCRC and recommend repeal

2012-01-27T11:21:00.000Z

[This is the headline over a news item published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

The Justice Committee has issued a strongly worded defence of the Scottish Criminal Cases review Commission and rejected two recent legislative attempts to interfere with its remit contained in the much maligned “emergency” legislation in the wake of the Cadder decision, and Lord Carloway’s review of criminal law.

The committee challenged whether introducing additional hurdles into the role of the Commission was in the interests of justice or warranted by its volume of business.

It said that the committee was “surprised” that Lord Carloway had sought to restrict access to the SCCRC by introducing a further test for cases.

“Emergency legislation passed in the wake of the Cadder case gave the High Court of Justiciary the power to reject a reference from the SCCRC if the Court, having regard to the need for finality and certainty in criminal proceedings, considered that it was not in the interests of justice to accept the reference,” the committee said.

“The Committee appreciates that the main purpose of this provision was to prevent a possible flood of references in the wake of the Cadder judgment involving individuals convicted mainly on the basis of information volunteered during detention, without access to a solicitor having been offered.

“However, as Lord Carloway’s report noted, the legislation gave the High Court a “gate-keeping role” relating to the interest of justice, that formerly rested only with the SCCRC, and which applied to all cases, not just those raising Cadder points. Lord Carloway further noted that that anticipated flood has not, in fact, materialised, and recommended that the relevant provisions in the emergency legislation be repealed. In doing so, he noted that the gate-keeping role assigned to the High Court was in principle inconsistent with the functions originally vested by Parliament in the SCCRC.

“Given the overall thrust of Lord Carloway’s argument, the Committee was surprised to note that, alongside this recommendation, Lord Carloway recommended restating the test for the High Court in determining whether to allow an appeal arising from an SCCRC reference as follows: (a) that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and (b) that it is in the interests of justice that the appeal be allowed.

“Whilst the first leg of the test, being a restatement of the current position, is unobjectionable, practically all witnesses to express a view, queried the purpose of the second leg.”

The letter said that the recommendation amounted to dismantling the gates at the bottom of the driveway only in order to reassemble them at the entrance to the front door.

Justice Committee Convener Christine Grahame MSP said the Committee had seen no evidence to suggest that this is a problem.

The vexed s7, introduced to the surprise of the legal community, was also challenged, and its repeal urged on the basis that it gave “undue prominence” to the need to reflect finality in court cases.

The section had been perceived as an attempt to target the ongoing Abdelbaset Al Megrahi case, and stymie any further possible appeal that may be lodged by his family or campaigners upon his death.

“Another point to arise in evidence was that the opportunity should be taken to repeal a second element of the emergency legislation; provision requiring the Commission itself to take into account finality and certainty in deciding whether to make a reference to the High Court,” she said.

“The SCCRC witness argued that the SCCRC did, in practice, consider these matters in deciding whether to make a reference, but said that the statutory test imposed by the emergency legislation gave these criteria undue prominence, especially given that the very existence of the SCCRC is an exception to the general principle that there should be finality and certainty in the judicial process.”

Justice for Megrahi's written evidence to Justice Committee

2012-01-25T19:59:00.001Z

[The Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firmhas this evening published the following report about the written evidencesubmitted by the Justice for Megrahi campaign group to the Scottish Parliament’sJustice Committee:]

The Justice for Megrahi group have lodged awritten submission to the Scottish Government outlining why it believes theScottish Government should amend its position and move to lift the blockpreventing publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’sreport, which concluded a miscarriage of justice may have befallen AbdelbasetAl Megrahi.

The group had been invited to participate in the parliamentary consultationprocess on the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill.

The group argue that the bill manufactures a block on the release of the paper,which could be removed by a statutory instrument.

“A cynic might suspect that Part 2 of the Bill has been deliberately designedto ensure that no useful disclosure of SCCRC material is possible under itsterms,” the group said in its submission.

“Whether or not that is its purpose, that is its effect,” it adds.

“The reasons for proceeding by primary legislation rather than statutoryinstrument which are given in paragraphs 63 to 65 of the Policy Memorandum arewholly unconvincing: they completely fail to address the issue that a statutoryinstrument would override common law and statutory obligations of secrecy andconfidentiality whereas Part 2 of the Bill does not and cannot.

“It is submitted that the Justice Committee should recommend to the ScottishGovernment that, if it genuinely wishes to see meaningful disclosure of SCCRCmaterial in the Megrahi case, it should (a) reconsider the possibility ofproceeding by statutory instrument and (b) formulate a scheme which, unlike theone set out in the Bill, is designed to achieve rather than impede thisobjective.”

The group argue that the Bill removes the requirement of obtaining the consentof the person who supplied information to the SCCRC, but conversely alsorequires the SCCRC to notify and seek the views of the person who supplied theinformation and also “of any person directly affected by it".

“It provides a detailed (and cumbersome) mechanism to permit such persons toobject to disclosure and (if the SCCRC rejects the objections) to permit themto take legal action to try to block the disclosure,” the group says.

“Under the Bill, common law and statutory obligations of secrecy orconfidentiality could be founded upon by the suppliers of the information, orany persons directly affected by it, in any legal action taken by them to blockdisclosure. But if a statutory instrument were used by the Scottish Ministersto remove the restriction on disclosure -- the mechanism which is specificallymandated in section 194K(1)(f) -- these common law and statutory obligations ofsecrecy or confidentiality would be overridden.”

The full submission can be read here.

Lockerbie bombing inquiry police officer numbers raised

2012-01-24T13:10:00.002Z

[This is the headlineover a report publishedtoday on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

Additional policeofficers have been drafted into the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary teaminvestigating the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

The inquiry has beenscaled up following regime change in Libya.

Chief Constable Patrick Shearer saidthat the extra resources required for the probe had been supplied by theScottish government. (...)

The overthrow and deathof Col Muammar Gaddafi last year opened up a possible opportunity forinvestigators to explore the role of others in the bombing.

The Crown Office has already asked thenew authorities in Libya for help with the inquiry.

As a result, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, which has led the Lockerbieinvestigation from the start, has increased staffing levels within its inquiryteam.

Detectives from the local force have alreadyquestioned Libya's former Foreign Minister Musa Kusa who fledto London when Col Gaddafi's regime started to fall.A spokesman for Dumfriesand Galloway Constabulary said that for operational reasons it could not revealthe number of officers it had added to its inquiry team.

[Unless the police inquiry is prepared to investigateconscientiously the material that has come to light casting grave doubt on theZeist trial's verdict against Abdelbaset Megrahi (including material uncoveredby the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) the new staffing andresources will be a complete waste of time and money and will achieve no morethan the "one man with a feather duster" that has been the pretextover the years for the police and Crown Office claim that the Lockerbieinvestigation was still live.

The treatment of this issue by Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be found here. The coverage of the story in the edition of The Herald for Wednesday 25 January contains the following: 'The Crown Office said: "The transitional Government of Libya has agreed to allow officers from Dumfries and Galloway police to travel to Libya for inquiries into the involvement of others with Mr Megrahi."' So here we have confirmation from the horse's mouth of the scope of this "investigation".]

Justice for Megrahi submits evidence on SCCRC disclosure Bill

2012-01-24T07:08:00.001Z

On 7 December 2011, the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee issued a call for evidence on the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill. The campaign group Justice for Megrahi has now submitted written evidence on Part 2 of the Bill, which purports to set out a framework for disclosure of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's reasons (and evidence) for concluding that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. JFM's submission will be reproduced on this blog once it has been published on the Justice Committee's website. Representatives of JFM are likely to give oral evidence to the committee at a session on 7 February 2012.

Lockerbie father: al-Megrahi is innocent

2012-01-20T07:38:00.000Z

[This is the headlineover a report (behind the paywall) intoday’s edition of The Times. It reads as follows:]

The doctor who lost his daughter in the 1988 Lockerbie bombinghas reaffirmed his belief that the Libyan man convicted of the attack isinnocent.

Jim Swire said he was convinced thatAbdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice,despite the belief of the new Libyan governement that al-Megrahi is guilty ofthe mass murder of the 270 passengers.

Dr Swire was speaking last night after anITV documentary in which he was shown visiting al-Megrahi, who is dying ofcancer. He also consulted representatives of the Libyan leadership that toppledthe dictatorship of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi last year.

In one exchange Ashour Shamis, an adviserto Abdurrahim al-Keib, the Libyan Prime Minister, told Dr Swire: “As far as theLibyans are concerned, the Gaddafi regime, Gaddafi personally, are involved inplanning and executing the atrocity. There is no doubt about it. They areinvolved, the regime are involved.”

Mr Shamis added that al-Megrahi wasinvolved in the bombing, if “only a small player”. He went on: “Megrahi is anemployee of Libyan security there is no doubt about it — of Libyan security.And if he was told to do something, he would have done it.”

Dr Swire said he had not accepted thatargument. Mr Shamis, along with the rest of new government, had simply not hadtime to consider the case with any thoroughness.

“I found Tripoli percolated with the desire to pin everythingimaginable under the sun on the defunct Gaddafi regime, because the people areso delighted to have got rid of him,” said Dr Swire. “Mr Shamis certainlybelieves al-Megrahi was guilty. I tried to make plain that if you look at theevidence that it is not at all likely.”

Dr Swire added that he hoped the documentary would re-awakeninterest in al-Megrahi’s conviction, in a Scottish court at Camp Zeist, in theNetherlands, in 2001. The Libyan was released from Greenock prison oncompassionate grounds in 2009 because he is suffering from terminal cancer.

“The verdict is vulnerable and would berepealed if there were a full inquiry into it,” said Dr Swire. “The Scottishpublic should understand what’s going on in their name: the support of anunsupportable verdict.”

A petition calling for a review of theal-Megrahi case has been lodged with Holyrood’s Justice Committee and will bedebated in the Scottish Parliament next month.

[It is not the petition (PE 1370) that the Justice Committee will be considering next month but Justice for Megrahi's evidence on Part 2 of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, which purports to set a legal framework for disclosure of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's reasons for concluding that Megrahi's conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The evidence session in question is provisionally scheduled for 7 February 2012.]

My trip to bid dying bomber goodbye

2012-01-20T06:33:00.003Z

[This is the headlineover a report published today in the Scottish edition of The Sun. It is the only article that I have so far been able to find following lastnight's STV and ITV1 documentary Did Gaddafi killmy daughter? Itreads in part:]

A dad who lost his daughter in the Lockerbiebombing has travelled to Libya to "say goodbye" to the man convictedof the atrocity.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, wasamong 270 people killed in the 1988 terror attack, said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi"does not have much time left".

Megrahi, 59, was freed on compassionate groundsfrom Greenock jail in August 2009, after being diagnosed with terminal prostatecancer.

Dr Swire — who said hewas "entirely satisfied" that Megrahi was not guilty — revealed hehad spent just over a week in Tripoli. The 75-year-old, who lives inGloucestershire, said: "It was very much a trip for me to say goodbye tohim.

"It may seemunusual but I have come to regard him as a friend."

A deathbed farewell to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi

2012-01-19T07:39:00.003Z

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It readsin part:]

Even without the events of December 21, 1988,they would be the most unlikely of friends. Jim Swire, an Eton and Cambridge-educateddoctor from Bromsgrove, and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a former memberof the Libyan security services who was convicted of murdering 270 people whena bomb exploded on Pan Am Flight 103 as it flew over Lockerbie. Swire’sdaughter, Flora, was one of the passengers. She would have turned 24 the nextday.

Last month, Flora’s father travelled to Tripolifor a meeting with the terminally ill Megrahi, who was released from a Scottishprison in 2009 on compassionate grounds. It was a remarkable journey for a75-year-old man to make, not least because Swire undertook it in order to bidfarewell to the man he now describes as his friend.

The pair have met on anumber of occasions – once in prison in Scotland and twice in Libya – but Swireis sure their encounter in December was their last. “It was, a privilege to beallowed, essentially, to say goodbye to him,” Swire told an ITV camera crew whofilmed part of his visit to Libya. He tells me he is “proud” to have known theman he calls Basset, the man so many others know as the Lockerbie bomber.“Megrahi is dying, and as a doctor I wanted to find out whether he has got thenecessary painkillers.” He has, but Swire cannot say how long the convictedterrorist might live. “He is a very sick man. He only talks in short sentenceswith pauses to get his breath back. He is looking death in the face, and heknows it.”

Swire speaks affectionately of the Libyan’s wife, Aisha, always by her husband’s side, holding his hand; he is almost jovial when speaking about Megrahi’s love of football. “I think that was the thing that endeared him to the other prisoners. He was popular prisoner and, although he lived a different sort of life from his fellow inmates, he did muck in with them.”

At the end of his meeting Swire, a Christian, was so moved he found one of only two churches in Tripoli, where he prayed for Megrahi.

Such gentle compassion for the man convicted of murdering his daughter is incredible, and Swire is aware that many might find it astonishing. But the simple fact of the matter in this most complex of cases is this: Swire does not believe Megrahi is guilty. Indeed, if anyone feels guilt then it is Swire himself, who once met Gaddafi to pressure the late Libyan leader into handing over Megrahi to stand trial. (...)

Swire does not seem to have the same sense of mercy towards Gaddafi, who went to his grave with his secrets. “I am totally satisfied, that he [Megrahi] had nothing to do with it. But that is very different to saying that Gaddafi had nothing to do with it.”

It was during the 2001 trial that Swire started to doubt Megrahi’s guilt. While Libya and Syria may have been involved, he believes Iran was ultimately responsible for Lockerbie, as revenge for the shooting down of an Iranair flight by the Americans.

It was in the early hours of Flora’s 24th birthday that the Swires received a phone call confirming their daughter was dead. “It never occurred to me that I would be trying to get justice for Flora 23 years later. I thought there would be an international investigation and the truth would come out in a year or two,” Swire says. He has lobbied five Prime Ministers for a public inquiry, all of whom seem to have fobbed the families off; and at least two of whom, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, were pictured cosying up to Gaddafi.

The Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission found in 2007 the Lockerbie verdict may have been a miscarriage of justice; Swire still hopes for a proper inquiry.

Libya claims Megrahi had role in Lockerbie bombing

2012-01-19T06:50:00.001Z

[This is the headlineover a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]

The new LibyanGovernment has admitted for the first time that Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed alMegrahi was involved in the Lockerbie bombing, which claimed the lives of 270people.

Ashour Shamis, adviserto the country's Prime Minister Abdurrahim al Keib, scotched the theory theonly man convicted of the atrocity was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Mr Shamis claimed that, as a securityadviser to Colonel Gaddafi, Megrahi would have had a part to play.

While the new Government in Libya has maintainedGaddafi executed the terror attack, it has never before pinpointed theinvolvement of Megrahi.

Mr Shamis made the admission to Dr Jim Swire during a trip to Tripoli which was filmed for a documentary to be screened tonight on STV.

Dr Swire, 75 – whose daughter Flora died in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 – has long believed in the convicted bomber's innocence and he told filmmakers of the guilt he feels for pressing Libya to hand Megrahi over to stand trial.

He went to Libya to continue his search for the full truth behind Lockerbie and to say goodbye to Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

As his fact-finding mission unfolded in Tripoli, he met Mr Shamis after being granted an interview with the Government.

Mr Shamis said: "As far as the Libyans are concerned, the Gaddafi regime, Gaddafi personally, are involved in planning and executing this atrocity.

"There is no doubt about it They are involved. The regime are involved."

He said Gaddafi's payment of compensation to victims was proof the despot, who was killed in the rebel uprising in October, was behind the terror attack.

Backers of Gaddafi have always maintained the money was paid to force the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya.

Crucially, Mr Shamis added that Megrahi was involved in the bombing even if "he was only a small player". He said: "Megrahi is an employee of Libyan security, there is no doubt about it – of external security. And if he was told to do something he would have done it." (...)

In the documentary, Dr Swire elaborated on the guilt he feels over Megrahi's time in prison, describing him as a "decent guy". Dr Swire said: "I feel a sense of guilt about Megrahi ever being found guilty because maybe, just maybe, if I hadn't tried as far as I did, maybe Gaddafi wouldn't have handed him over because it was Gaddafi that I addressed my pleas to – to allow him to be handed over.

"So I feel guilt towards Megrahi, he is a decent guy and many other people who have met him said the same sort of thing.

"I doubt now, that he was a member of Libyan intelligence at all and I don't think he knows who in the Libyan regime knew what was going on.

"That of course brings us to the question of how much did the Libyan regime know and what can we find out."

Dr Swire visited Megrahi during his recent trip but camera crews were banned during the meeting. He was described as "distraught" following the pair's hour-long encounter.

Dr Swire said: "I think that what happened - in the sick room of a dying man and his doctor has to remain private.

"He is a very sick man and I thought it was a privilege to have been allowed essentially to say goodbye to him."

Dr Swire, who had met Megrahi previously, added: "This is a different and deeper level than we have been at before ... this was a parting discussion between two people who know each other, one of whom is going to die in the very near future."

Tonight: Did Gaddafi Kill My Daughter? STV at 7.30pm.

[Megrahi "would have had a part to play"; "he was only a small player"; "if he was told to do something he would have done it". This does not amount to an admission by Mr Shamis that Megrahi was the person who placed, or arranged for the placing of, a bomb on Pan Am 103 (which is what he was accused and convicted of), far less evidence of such involvement. It sounds like a brazen attempt by the NTC to incriminate (i) the regime which they supplanted and (ii) an official of that regime (Megrahi was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines and later director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli).

A useful commentary can be found here on bensix's blog Back Towards The Locus.]

Documentary - Dr Jim Swire visits Al-Megrahi

2012-01-18T12:58:00.000Z

[This is the headlineover a report published yesterday evening on the Newsnet Scotland website. It reads as follows:]

On Thursday 19thJanuary at 7.30pm ITV1 and STV are due to broadcast a programme about a visitby Dr Jim Swire to Libya in December 2011.

During this visit Mr Swire met withAbdel Baset al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and also anumber of key figures in the Libyan Interim Government.

At present the group called Justice forMegrahi (JFM), of which Mr Swire is a member, have a petition before theHolyrood Justice Committee, and also the SNP Government are currently takingsteps which may make the findings of the SCCRC on Lockerbie more publiclyavailable.

The conviction of Mr Megrahi has beenthe subject of debate and doubt ever since he was convicted. Thisescalated in August 2009 when the Libyan was released on compassionate groundsby Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

Many people believe that Mr Megrahi waswrongfully convicted. The imminent publication of John Ashton's biographyof Megrahi is expected to reveal the evidence that led the SCCRC to concludethat a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.

[The readers' comments which follow thearticle are also worth attention.

For those outside the United Kingdom whowish to watch the programme after broadcast on the ITV player,I am told that this is possible via a UK-based proxy server, such as this. Otherscan be found by googling "UK proxy server".]

London's Imperial War Museum to exhibit Lockerbie trial witness box

2012-01-16T09:05:00.002Z

[This is the headlineover a report in today's edition of the Daily Record.It reads in part:]

The witness box from the Lockerbie bombing trialhas been bought by the Imperial War Museum.

They are putting it onshow in London in 2014 as part of an overhaul of exhibits.

Bomber Abdulbaset al-Megrahi listened tomonths of testimony from witnesses in the box at his trial in Camp Zeist,Holland.

A Scottish court was set up there in2000 so he could be tried on neutral ground.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora diedwhen Pan Am 103 came down in 1988, said: “One has to question whether the boxitself bore witness to the truth of the Lockerbie events or to something elseentirely.

“In any event, there was an exhibit inGlasgow’s Museum of Transport for some years where one might have thought anyadditional items may be selected for display.

“One also has to ask what war thisartefact is supposed to be associated with.”

The IWM defended the decision to snap upthe box, saying their remit is “to cover conflicts from 1914 to the present day– this includes acts of terrorism”.

[This story was broken on 13 January byScottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. Its article, with longerquotes from the IWM and Dr Swire, can be read here.]

Did Gaddafi kill my daughter?

2012-01-13T10:21:00.002Z

[This is the title of a programme to bebroadcast in the UK on ITV 1 on Thursday 19 January at 7.30pm. The descriptionon the ITV TV Guide website reads as follows:]

75-year-old Jim Swire, who lost hisdaughter in the Lockerbie bombing, travels to war-torn Libya to investigatewhether Colonel Gaddafi was behind the atrocity. He meets the only manconvicted of the attack, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and confronts the newadministration in his search for answers.

[It is indicated that there will be atleast three repeats.]

Service announcement

2012-01-11T10:42:00.002Z

For the next six months, posts to this blog will be from South Africa. My home base there is very remote and internet connection can be problematical. It is therefore likely that updating will be less frequent and immediate; and that the moderation of comments that I have been driven to institute may be regrettably slow.

Brown claims Lockerbie victory

2012-01-08T09:04:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. It reads as follows:]

Gordon Brown has claimed victory in his battle to persuade Britain's top civil servant that he did not help to secure the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Sir Gus O'Donnell, who last month retired as Cabinet Secretary after six years, had suggested the last Labour government did "all it could" to to "facilitate" the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. But in an angry exchange of letters, Mr Brown insisted he knew nothing of the plan.

In a final letter, on 21 December, Sir Gus wrote to Mr Brown: "Given your recollection that you, as Prime Minister, did not know of such a policy of facilitation, it is right for me to be clear that I have found nothing in the record to contradict this."

The former PM has welcomed the statement and insisted: "I knew nothing, nor did I initiate or support any attempt to facilitate the Megrahi release."

Sound familiar?

2012-01-06T14:22:00.004Z

[The first leader (behind the paywall) in today's edition of The Times is headlined "Justice and Answers". It is about the case of Eddie Gilfoyle. The leader reads in part:]

The story of Mrs Gilfoyle’s locked box is thus now a central part of the story of a man’s liberty, of the probity and competence of the police, and of the integrity of the justice system. It could hardly be more important. What happened to that box may be a mystery today, but it cannot possibly be allowed to remain one.

The box joins other critical evidence that was withheld from the defence at moments when it could have made a real difference. (...) There are serious questions about whether flaws in the case against Mr Gilfoyle have been deliberately protected from exposure.

These questions must be asked at a ministerial level and made subject to an urgent new inquiry. Mr Gilfoyle has been released on licence from his prison sentence having served so many years, but his conviction remains. Every day that it continues to do so without inquiry and examination is an affront to justice. (...)

It is time for some answers and some justice.

[Messrs Salmond, MacAskill, Mulholland and all Members of the Scottish Parliament should read, mark and inwardly digest. And then, without further prevarication, the Scottish Government should institute an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction.]

Blown gasket

2012-01-05T13:05:00.001Z

My computer here in Scotland has blown a gasket. It is unlikely that I shall be able to service this blog until 12 January at the earliest, when I shall be back in South Africa and have access to my computer there.

Situation normal ...

2012-01-01T08:45:00.000Z

[I wish a happy and peaceful 2012 to all readers of this blog. What follows is an item first posted here on 1 January 2008:]

In The Scotsman today, Iain McKie (former police officer and father of Shirley) has an op-ed piece expressing grave concern about criminal justice in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to forensic scientific evidence. He writes:

“The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy.

While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.

A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost. Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose. A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving 'first aid' aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.”

See http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Alternative-take.3631585.jp

Scottish police trying to prevent publication of SCCRC report

2011-12-31T14:25:00.003Z

[This is the headline over an item published today on the Lockerbie Truth website of Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph. It reads as follows:]

One of the important features of the Lockerbie case is that a three year investigation (2004-2007) by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission proved that a miscarriage of justice occurred. The SCCRC discovered that the two principal identification witnesses (the CIA's Majid Giaka and Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci) were secretly paid huge amounts, each receiving $2m for their evidence. The police concealed these payments from the judges and defence.

Even as this webpage is being updated, the Scottish police are trying to hide this fact from public scrutiny. In a briefing note unearthed by the SCCRC inquiry, on 15th May 2007 DI Dalgliesh advised his colleagues "The SCCRC's statement of reasons is likely to question the integrity of Gauci's evidence ... there is a real danger that if the SCCRC's statement is leaked to the media, Gauci could be portrayed as having given flawed evidence for financial reward..."

So now we know why desperate attempts are being made behind the scenes to prevent publication, using the specious excuses of "protect our human rights, protect our personal data etc etc".

Only an inquiry by an independent senior judge can restore confidence in a legal system today widely regarded as untrustworthy and tainted.

The two key elements of the conviction of al-Megrahi are:

1. The identification of Al-Megrahi: In an extraordinary development in 2005, Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci was exposed as an unreliable witness by the man who in 1991 indicted Megrahi, former Scottish Lord Advocate Peter Fraser. In Fraser's words, Gauci was "an apple short of a picnic." The judges had trusted Gauci's confused evidence, unaware of the existence of several other contradictory statements kept secret by the police. The police also failed to reveal that another witness had proof that Al-Megrahi was not the culprit. The police also kept secret the US offers of unlimited rewards to Gauci if Al-Megrahi was convicted. It is now proven that Gauci received $2 million and his brother Paul $1 million.

2. A fragment of a printed circuit board: Found by Dr Thomas Hayes, its label had been altered by unknown persons' and the entry concerning that finding in Hayes' notebook remains to this day highly suspicious.

To re-establish the reputation of Scottish justice it is imperative that an independent inquiry take place into the undisclosed evidence and its effect upon the course of the trial.

Will Abdelbaset al-Megrahi die before Saif al-Islam takes the stand?

2011-12-30T09:13:00.002Z

[This is the headline over an item published today on the Anorak website. It reads in part:]

Will Abdelbaset al-Megrahi die before Saif al-Islam takes the stand?

Human Rights Watch says Colonel Gaddafi’s son is being held in solitary confinement in Zintan, in the Nafusa Mountains of western Libya. He has no access to lawyers. Saif al-Islam has had the ends of his right-hand forefinger and thumb amputated – they became infected after being damaged in a Nato air strike.

Saif al-Islam faces two trials on corruption and war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court. (...)

Al-Megrahi denies being a killer. The headline in The Times quotes him: “These are my last words: I am innocent”. (...)

If not al-Megrahi, who? The NY Daily News tosses up names:

"Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, to start a new investigation into who, exactly, brought down the jetliner.

"Part of the reason a new probe could bear fruit is that the fall of Moammar Khadafy’s regime has suddenly made former Libyan government functionaries more willing to speak honestly about his policy of state-sponsored terrorism — perhaps for no other reason than to settle old scores.

"That’s all well and good, as long as they tell the truth about Lockerbie.

"Among the potential witnesses are former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil and former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, who may finally be eager to talk about what role their government played in the attack — and who else was involved.

"One obvious candidate is Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted. Also suspected are Khafady’s brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, who then led Libya’s intelligence services, and Ibrahim Nayili, former head of airline security."

Names and lies and money. Who now speaks for the 270?

Tories want Megrahi evidence released

2011-12-28T09:12:00.002Z

[This is the headline over a report published today in The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]

The Conservatives have urged the Scottish Government to release the medical evidence on which it based its decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from Greenock prison on compassionate grounds two years ago, after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given three months to live.

Megrahi gave up his appeal against conviction for the murder of 270 people shortly before his release.

The Scottish Government has asked Westminster to set aside data protection rules to allow the release of more details about Megrahi’s abandoned appeal.

However Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, David McLetchie MSP said: “If any information is to be released then it should be all the medical evidence as to why the SNP government set Megrahi free, something it has consistently refused to do.”

[A similar report appears here in The Sun.

Is Mr McLetchie really saying that it is more important to release the medical evidence relating to Megrahi's repatriation than to release the evidence upon which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded that his conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice? I find it hard to believe that a lawyer could say this. But Mr McLetchie is a Scottish Conservative. Flawed judgement goes with the territory.]

Al-Megrahi ‘gives up fight to beat cancer’

2011-12-27T11:21:00.001Z

[This is the headline over the lead story on the front page of today's Scottish edition of The Times (behind the paywall). It reads in part:]

Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi is no longer receiving treatment for his terminal cancer and is taking high levels of morphine only to dull the pain after giving up his fight against terminal prostate cancer, he has told Scottish officials.

The Lockerbie bomber, freed on compassionate grounds more than two years ago, spoke about his care via a video link from his bed in Libya this month. “Megrahi was able to speak to the officials,” a source told The Times. “He was no longer talking about trying to beat the illness and said he didn’t expect to live for much longer. It sounds as if he has given up.” (...)

His survival thus far has been attributed to the fact that he started receiving chemotherapy on his return to Tripoli. Karol Sikora, who examined the convicted bomber before his release from Greenock prison in August 2009, has said that al-Megrahi was being given medication developed in Britain but not available on the NHS, leading some to speculate that it is this that has kept him alive.

However, the source who spoke to The Times said: “I think that was a bit of a myth and it is certainly the case that he is not receiving anything other than morphine now.”

Al-Megrahi remains, technically, a Scottish prisoner released on licence and is obliged to stay in regular contact with East Renfrewshire Council. It was local authority officials with whom he communicated via video link.

The confirmation that he is receiving only palliative care comes after the convicted bomber used what he described as his final interview to protest his innocence and to accuse one of the Crown’s main witnesses of lying at the trial in The Hague. The Times reported last week that al-Megrahi continued to insist that he had not bought clothes from a shop in Malta owned by Tony Gauci, whose identification of al-Megrahi was instrumental in securing his conviction.

We must have Lockerbie inquiry, no matter the cost

2011-12-27T09:11:00.005Z

[This is the headline over an editorial in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

As Pamela Dix, whose brother died in the Lockerbie bombing, says: "It is unfinished business." Now one more step has been taken towards unravelling the uncertainty that has hung over this case ever since that awful December night 23 years ago.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has revealed that he has the go-ahead under the Data Protection Act from Kenneth Clarke, his opposite number in the UK Government, to publish the 800-page Statement of Reasons from the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC). This document explains the grounds for appealing the conviction of the Libyan Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only person convicted of the atrocity. It was never published because the appeal itself was dropped when he was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009.

It emerged earlier this year that legislation going through Holyrood could not guarantee publication because the material would continue to be subject to UK data protection legislation. Now that potential hurdle appears to have been removed.

If, as the Scottish Government maintains, it supports the maximum possible transparency in this case, it is apposite to ask why it took some time to make an official approach to the Westminster Justice Department regarding this matter. For years the UK and Scottish governments have played a slow-motion version of pass the parcel with this case, with neither seemingly prepared to increase the snail's pace progress and the prospect of political advantage (or damage) playing its part.

The imminent publication of John Ashton's biography of Megrahi may force the pace as, once the material is public, SCCRC will be free to publish it themselves. It is not clear how much further it will take us. The document dates from 2007. Fresh material and new forensic techniques have appeared in the interim. Also, in the interests of national security, some items and passages will be redacted.

Regardless of whether or not the man convicted of this crime is guilty as charged, others must have been involved. There are still many unanswered questions. Only a full and wide-ranging independent public inquiry can tackle these issues. This case may show the quality of Scottish justice in a poor light but ultimately getting at the truth is more important. It is also what the relatives of those who died desire and deserve.

[This editorial follows on from an article by chief reporter Lucy Adams which contains the following:]

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has revealed he has received assurances from the UK Government to help smooth the path to publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) long-awaited report.

Mr MacAskill wrote to the UK Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke earlier this month to ask the Coalition Government to remove obstacles presented by the Data Protection Act 1998, which is reserved to the UK Parliament, to enable a Scottish Government Bill to be put forward.

Mr Clarke has replied to say he is happy for his officials to discuss the matter directly with the SCCRC to find out more information about the barriers to publication of its Statement of Reasons in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

The Scottish Government has responded by providing contact details for the SCCRC to facilitate discussions. (...)

The chief executive of the SCCRC said that, regardless of the legislation going through the Scottish Parliament, the commission still had to "comply with the requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998 which is, of course, UK-wide legislation".

Robert Black, QC, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, said the Scottish legislation was a "waste" of time. (...)

It is thought Megrahi's official biography, expected early next year, will contain much of the detail from the report. If it does, that could free the commission to publish the full report because it will already be in the public domain.

Mr MacAskill said: "I welcome this willingness from Kenneth Clarke and the UK Government to engage with the SCCRC on this important issue. We in the Scottish Government have always made it clear that we want to be as open as possible when it comes to publishing information relating to the Lockerbie atrocity.

"This is a welcome step forward that we have sought for some time in the process of removing the obstacles that bar publication by the SCCRC of its Statement of Reasons in the case of Megrahi.

"We will be following the outcome of discussions between the UK Government and the SCCRC very closely and will review the necessary steps forward after these discussions have concluded."

In October this year, Gerard Sinclair, the commission's chief executive, said: "As I previously indicated, the commission is willing, in principle, to publish this document, the content of which has been the subject of a great deal of public and media speculation and debate.

"I believe, however, that legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament cannot, by itself, guarantee publication of this document, as both the Scottish Parliament and the commission must act at all times in compliance with their respective obligations under the Human Rights Act.

"In addition, the commission would also still require to act lawfully and comply with the requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998 which is, of course, UK-wide legislation."

Scottish officials claim the Bill currently going through the Justice Committee is important because it will remove the ability of parties who disclosed the information to block its publication.

The Criminal Cases (Punishment & Review) (Scotland) Bill is expected to be passed early next year. It should give statutory authority to the SCCRC to decide whether it is appropriate to publish a Statement of Reasons in cases it has investigated where an appeal has subsequently been abandoned.

However, it has no power to get around UK data protection legislation.

[The Scottish Government's press release on the issue can be read here.]

Megrahi, other Lockerbie bombers must face justice

2011-12-26T10:47:00.000Z

[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of the New York Daily News. It reads as follows:]

Justice, so very long delayed, may finally be coming to the families of those murdered on Pan Am Flight 103.

It has been 23 years since the Pan Am plane bound for JFK from London was blasted out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people — most of them Americans, many of them New Yorkers.

It has been 23 years of excruciating failure to bring those responsible to justice. In 2009, victims’ loved ones watched powerlessly as the only man convicted for his role in the crime, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was released from a Scottish prison — and given a hero’s welcome in Libya.

The Libyans and the Scottish courts then insisted Megrahi had late-stage prostate cancer and was sure to die within a matter of weeks, but he has yet to do the world the honor of keeling over.

And the notion that this was a one-man crime has always offended common sense.

Now, fingers crossed, comes the possibility of some clarity.

Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller and US Attorney General Eric Holder met with Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, to start a new investigation into who, exactly, brought down the jetliner.
Part of the reason a new probe could bear fruit is that the fall of Moammar Khadafy’s regime has suddenly made former Libyan government functionaries more willing to speak honestly about his policy of state-sponsored terrorism — perhaps for no other reason than to settle old scores.

That’s all well and good, as long as they tell the truth about Lockerbie.

Among the potential witnesses are former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil and former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, who may finally be eager to talk about what role their government played in the attack — and who else was involved.

One obvious candidate is Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted. Also suspected are Khafady’s brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, who then led Libya’s intelligence services, and Ibrahim Nayili, former head of airline security.

As for Megrahi, every breath he continues to draw reminds those who suffer of how much damage was done and how few perpetrators have paid the price.

In a talk with the BBC published right after the Dec. 21 anniversary of the attack — one advertised by the convicted murderer as his “last interview” — Megrahi brazenly said, “I am an innocent man. I am about to die and I ask now to be left in peace with my family.”

To be with family — that is exactly what Megrahi and his accomplices denied their victims at Lockerbie. They must pay for it once and for all.

[ “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

The above are three quotations from, or attributed to, Joseph Goebbels.]

US State Department on Megrahi

2011-12-24T09:18:00.001Z

[What follows is an excerpt from yesterday's US Department of State daily press briefing, conducted by acting spokesperson Mark C Toner:]

QUESTION: One question on Libya, too?

MR TONER: Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Al-Megrahi, the guy who was accused of the bombing Pan Am, he gave an interview. He said it would be the last before he dies, and he is –

MR TONER: That’s a story we’ve heard before.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. He’s confirming his innocence. What’s the update on your talks with the authorities in Libya about the bombing of Pan Am?

MR TONER: I don’t have an update for you. I know we have raised it multiple times with the interim government. They pledged to cooperate. I think we’ve said before that they say they have a number of different priorities before they can tackle this problem. For us, clearly, this is a very high priority. And so we’re going to continue to talk and engage with them. I’ll try to see if I can get an update on where those discussions stand.

QUESTION: But you don’t take his words serious, like he’s saying he’s innocent?

MR TONER: I don’t. But we certainly welcome additional – an additional investigation into if there is more evidence on this. But he should be back in jail in Scotland. He never should have been released.

Lockerbie truth

2011-12-23T08:40:00.000Z

[This is the headline over a letter from David Flett published in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]

The farcical “evidence” used to convict Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (your report, 22 December) was quite frankly unbelievable. Scotland’s justice system had an obvious and very serious failure as it so obviously locked up (then released just in time before a successful appeal) the wrong man.

Worryingly, the real murdering perpetrators are at liberty.

It may be politically awkward and it may bring questions about the competence of our legal institutions, but the priority must be to get to the truth about who killed all those poor souls a few days before Christmas 1988.

[In today's edition of The Herald there are two letters on the Lockerbie case. They read as follows:]

You report that during his visit to Washington Scotland's Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland agreed with senior US Government officials that US investigators might join Scottish police in seeking further information on the Lockerbie bombing ("Lockerbie detectives will be in Libya early next year", The Herald December 22).

While I am pleased that Scottish police officers are to pursue answers to the many unanswered questions about the atrocity and the guilt of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi and others, I am less sanguine about them being "assisted" by US anti-terrorist agencies.

The main contribution of the CIA and FBI to the original investigation was to offer a huge bribe to jog the memory of the main prosecution witness about his identification of a casual customer in his shop several years earlier, and to magically find a tiny piece of the detonator casing in a Lockerbie field six months after the local police had scoured every inch of the area. We don't need any more of that kind of co-operation.

In seeking justice for the victims' families, and to restore the reputation of the Scottish justice system, what would extremely helpful would be the publication in full of the 800-page Report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which found six reasons to indicate that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the original court conviction.

It is an ongoing disappointment to many who are concerned about the Camp Zeist trial that Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill and his officials have consistently found reasons to conceal this report, despite it being clearly in the public interest that it should be published. Now sections of it are to be revealed in Megrahi's biography early next year and will no doubt appear on the internet for all to see.

There is another possible scenario. Official Libyan Government documents may reveal what many have always suspected, that Libyan involvement was merely as an undercover agent for an Iranian terrorist group backed by Syria, seeking revenge for the unlawful shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner a few months earlier for which the captain and crew of the US warship were decorated and feted as heroes. How would the CIA manage to cover that up? Is that why it wants to be present at a Scottish criminal investigation?
Iain A D Mann

An extraordinarily detailed research paper published last month seems to confirm that US intelligence was well aware that a timer device of the type used by Palestinian terror group the PFLP-GC was used to detonate the bomb on Pan Am Flight 103, because of the flight time, but that even by November 1991, it was still unaware of the Heathrow break-in. The academic paper also reveals the interception of messages of relief from Iran following this switch of suspicion away from her.

During Mr Megrahi's trial in 2000, the Heathrow break-in remained unknown, blinding the court to an all-too-obvious route by which the bomb may well have been infiltrated.

The Heathrow break-in occurred just after midnight, 16 hours before the Lockerbie disaster. Because of the nature of the device, it could not possibly have been put on board in Malta.

Iran seemed to be the motivating force in the time between the US shooting down of her airbus and the "Autumn leaves" operation by the (West) German BKA.

Mr Megrahi is now near to death in Tripoli, but his guilt or innocence seems to tell us nothing about what the Gaddafi regime and Abu Nidal were up to between October and December 1988.

Scotland's compassion in allowing Mr Megrahi to go home to die looks like the release of an innocent scapegoat. The performance of her investigating police in failing to reveal the existence of the Heathrow break-in looks, at best, like a serious omission.

When a person is seriously injured, there is said to be a "golden hour" when life-saving treatment can best be given. At Heathrow 16 golden hours were allowed to elapse between the break-in and the Lockerbie bombing, with no appropriate counter action being taken.

Even so many years after the event an apology would still be welcome, along with proof that things really are done better now.

Having released Mr Megrahi in 2008 Scotland has been unable or unwilling to enforce a comprehensive review of the evidence against him, despite the findings of the SCCRC that the trial may indeed have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

We hear that the Scottish police are to go to Libya soon to investigate whether other evidence can now be found as to whether the Gaddafi regime was itself involved in the Lockerbie bombing.

I wish them luck when they do finally get to Libya: they will need to remember it's a country where old scores against the Gaddafi regime are certainly still being actively settled.

Should the Scottish police find any such evidence, it is unlikely to connect with the story heard at Zeist, where, in retrospect it seems clear that Megrahi was no more than a convenient scapegoat. That would be a bitter pill for them and the Crown Office to swallow, and they would need great integrity to admit it.

Meanwhile Tehran is immune to accusations over Lockerbie, but the convulsions in Syria may, hopefully lead to new revelations from that direction. Perhaps the failure of the west to indict those two states over Lockerbie added to its boldness in threatening its own people as well as those of other countries.
Dr Jim Swire

Talks ongoing on Megrahi details

2011-12-22T18:51:00.004Z

[This is the headline over a report published this evening by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]

The publication of details relating to the Lockerbie bomber's abandoned appeal is a matter for the UK Government and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which holds the information, the Justice Secretary has said.

Kenny MacAskill said the Scottish Government had tried to broker discussions between the two on the possibility of setting aside data protection laws to allow the SCCRC's information on the Abdelbaset al-Megrahi appeal to be published.

Megrahi gave up his legal challenge shortly before he was released on compassionate grounds from Greenock jail two years ago. He was serving a sentence for the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

The SCCRC said he was entitled to an appeal, but said it had no power to make its reasons available to the public.

Mr MacAskill wrote to his Westminster counterpart Ken Clarke asking if data protection could be set aside to allow the SCCRC's statement of reasons to be released.

Asked by Conservative MSP John Scott whether he had received a response from Mr Clarke, Mr MacAskill told Holyrood: "They have asked for further information related to the type of personal data included within the SCCRC's statement of reasons in the Megrahi case, and I have responded by providing contact details to allow direct discussion to take place between the UK Government and the Commission on the issues surrounding data protection."

Mr MacAskill added: "These are fundamentally a matter for the SCCRC. We've made it quite clear that we are trying to broker discussions and I am grateful to Ken Clarke for his willingness to do so, so that officials from his department can meet with the Commission.

"This information is actually information that is privy only to the Commission. It is not known by myself or any other member of Government, and accordingly the discussion is required to take place by Her Majesty's Government and the SCCRC."

[This is quite extraordinary. The Scottish Government has said that data protection considerations were prominent among the reasons for proceeding by primary legislation rather than by statutory instrument (secondary legislation) which is much less cumbersome and time-consuming. From the outset, I have been sceptical about there being any relevant data protection concerns. Like the UK Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, I would very much like to know "the type of personal data included within the SCCRC's statement of reasons in the Megrahi case". The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, now says he doesn't know. Note that it is not the actual CONTENT of the information that he's saying he doesn't know -- that would be perfectly understandable -- but the TYPE. For the promoter of the primary legislation in question not to know the TYPE of personal data in the Megrahi report that his government says renders the legislation necessary is nothing short of mind-boggling.

The Official Report account of the exchange can be read here.]

Megrahi interviewer writes exclusively for The Lockerbie Case

2011-12-22T09:08:00.005Z

[George Thomson has provided, exclusively to this blog, the following account of his recent meeting with Abdelbaset Megrahi:]

As you are probably aware some of this mornings newspapers are carrying a story of my recent trip to Libya where I managed to meet up with Baset on two occasions. I was shocked and I must admit a bit distressed by what I found. He is in a very poor state of health and I have no doubt in my mind that he has not got long on this earth. It will come as a surprise to many to learn that Baset possesses a strong sense of humour and I took him out a gift of a tea towel which had a lot of the old Scottish words on it like glaikit and crabbit. He used to try and learn one word every visit I made to him in prison. I was not slow to point out to him that I had found him to be crabbit on many of the occasions I visited him in jail. He responded by saying to me "George, I have a new word, 'I am knackered'" [RB: For those requiring a translation of these Scots words, resort should be made to the online Dictionary of the Scots Language.]

The reason I was in Tripoli was in connection with the making of a follow-up documentary to Lockerbie - The Pan Am Bomber in which much of the new evidence discovered by the SCCRC is investigated. We were hopeful to get a filmed interview with him which would be broadcast as part of the new documentary which will be screened in conjunction with the release of John Ashton's book sometime early in the New Year.

As it happened Baset was to ill to be bothered with a television crew setting up in his bedroom to which he is now confined, but he was keen to say something about his case before he dies and so he agreed to be interviewed by me on camera on condition that I operated the camera on my own. Having never held a television camera in my life I was a wee bit dubious as to how that would be possible, but it worked out not too badly and he was able to get some things off his chest.

Because of contractual agreements I am not at liberty to disclose the parts of the interview where he talks about the new evidence which will be revealed in the book and in the film, but he was very keen to say something about the way he was treated during his time here in Scotland. In particular on camera he thanks the Scottish public for the kindness shown to him and the support he has received for his case. He also thanks the staff and prisoners of Barlinnie and Greenock Prison for the general way in which he was treated while in custody.

One of my questions to him was "If Tony Gauci was here tonight what message would you have for him?" With obvious passion he replied, "I would tell him that I have never in my life been in his shop and I have never ever bought any clothes from him, I would tell him that before I saw him in Holland I had never set eyes on him before. I would tell him that he was a simple man who would have to answer to his God and my God one day for what he has done." Baset went further at this point but I am prohibited from revealing the whole of his response to my question for the time being.

I asked him what he thought of the SCCRC report and he said that in many area they had done a very good job, but in others they had not addressed many of the points that they should have. He blames the SCCRC for not properly investigating some of the allegation of malpractice by the police and he goes on to identify two officers in particular who he particulary blames for malpractice. He claims that in all Gauci met with the police 55 times, but there exists only a handful of statements from him.

Off camera we talked about the continuing support he receives and in particular from this blog. He is well aware of the efforts of Bob and many of the regular contributors to the blog and he sends his thanks. He is no longer able to follow things on a regular basis.

Of particular interest to myself, he formally released me from a confidentiality contract which has been in place for some time now and which has prevented me from answering some of the points made by certain contributors who pop up now and again and talk drivel.

On Baset's behalf I would challenge any of the following such as Mr Marquise, Harry Bell, John Crawford to face me across a table in open debate about the quality of the evidence. My door is open any time they want to call.

Finally the main purpose of him giving the final interview on camera and the generating of the press interest of today was to hammer home a final request from Baset to be allowed to now die in peace without intrusion from the world media or any other parties. You only have to see him to appreciate how really sick and weak he is now. I only hope that his plea is granted.

[What follows is the text of a comment posted in response to this blog post:]

As it happens, I was working in the education department in HMP Barlinnie during part of Megrahi's incarceration there. I obviously can't speak for them all but I can confirm that such staff as I spoke to who had any involvement with him took their responsibility seriously. It is gracious of a deeply-wronged man to find time to thank them. Thanks for the piece.

‘These are my last words: I am innocent’

2011-12-22T08:34:00.003Z

[This is the headline over a report (behind the paywall) in today's Scottish edition of The Times. The article, under the byline of Marcello Mega and the paper's Scotland editor Magnus Linklater, gives an account of a very recent visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi by George Thomson (who presented the Aljazeera documentary on the Lockerbie case broadcast in June 2011). The report reads in part:]

The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has given what he says is his last interview, using it to protest his innocence.

Speaking from his sick bed in Tripoli, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, insisted that he was not involved in the attack on Pan Am 103 in December 1988 that killed 270 people. He also accused a key witness, whose evidence helped to convict him, of lying in court.

The interview was published as relatives of the American and Scottish victims gathered yesterday to mark the 23rd anniversary of the atrocity. At the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, stood alongside US officials, including Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General, and Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI, to lay a wreath at the Lockerbie cairn.

They were joined by Ali Aujali, the Libyan ambassador to the United States, a mark of the new relationship between Tripoli and the West, and also a signal that new evidence may be produced in the search for the original instigators of the Pan Am bombing. (...)

A friend, George Thomson, who conducted the interview on Saturday, described him as ravaged by the cancer and very weak. “For any doubters who may think he is not ill, you only have to look at the man and how wasted he is to see he has not got long in this life,” said Mr Thomson on his return.

However, al-Megrahi still had enough strength to deliver a personal challenge to the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, whose identification was instrumental in securing his conviction. Clothes from Mr Gauci’s shop were found, along with a tiny fragment of the timing device that triggered the bomb, in a briefcase among the wreckage of the plane.

Asked by Mr Thomson, a former police officer who was part of his defence team, what he would say to Mr Gauci if he met him again, al-Megrahi said: “If I had the chance to see him, I would tell him that I never ever in my entire life bought clothes from his shop, I never bought clothes from him. He dealt with me very wrongly, I have never seen him in my life before he came to the court. I am facing my death and I swear by my God, which is my God and Gauci’s God, I swear with him I have never been in that shop or buy any clothing from Gauci. He has to believe this because we are all together when we die.”

It is not suggested that the claims against Mr Gauci have any basis in fact. [RB: Well done, Magnus Linklater! The Times's lawyers will be proud of you!]

Mr Thomson filmed the 20-minute interview as part of a documentary about Lockerbie to be broadcast in February. The Libyan revealed that he has co-operated in writing a book with an investigative journalist, John Ashton, that will contain “dramatic” new evidence about his case.

Scottish prosecutors remain convinced that the evidence on which he was convicted is substantial, but al-Megrahi said: “I want people to read the book and use their brain, not hearts, and make judgment. Information is not from me, not from lawyers, not from the media, but experts who deal with criminal law and science, and they will be surprised when they read it. It will clear my name.”

Al-Megrahi is convinced that US agencies were determined to secure a conviction. “I am facing my death any time, and I don’t want to accuse anyone, or any country. But the Americans led the way,” he said.

He also revealed that he had been paid a visit a few days earlier by Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the atrocity, and who has long campaigned to clear his name. He said that he had confided in Dr Swire the details of new discoveries about the timing fragment made by investigators still working on his behalf.

He claimed that police were aware that there was another witness to the purchase of clothing in the Maltese shop, who might have helped to clear his name — Mr Gauci’s brother, Paul. It has always been believed that Mr Gauci was the only witness who could identify the buyer of the clothes.

“The commission met with Gauci. At the end of the statement they said he was nervous. He told them that when the man who bought the clothes left the shop, his brother Paul came to the shop, and took the parcels from the man and took them to the taxi he was taking. This information has never been raised before. There is an opportunity to have another physical witness who could have identified the man, yet they kept the brother out of it.”

Al-Megrahi ended the interview by saying he had a message for the international community, especially the people of Scotland and the UK: “I am about to die and I’d ask now to be left in peace to die with my family, and they be left in peace by the media as well. I will not be giving any more interviews, and no more cameras will be allowed into my home ... I am an innocent man, and the book will clear my name.”

[A longer and more personal article by Marcello Mega about George Thomson's visit to Megrahi appears in today's Scottish edition of The Sun. A further article appears in the Daily Mail. A Maltese perspective is to be found in this article in Malta Today; and a Libyan perspective in this article in The Tripoli Post.]

" ... failing in my duty ..."

2011-12-21T20:27:00.002Z

Scotland's most senior law officer has vowed to bring the perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing to justice.

The Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland said he would be "failing in his duty" if he failed to find the people who were responsible for the bombing.

He was speaking on the 23rd anniversary of the 1988 atrocity, in which 270 people died when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded in the skies over Lockerbie. (...)

Speaking ahead of a US ceremony to commemorate the lives lost, Mr Mulholland said: "I think I would be failing in my duty if I didn't properly seek to take advantage of the opportunity that has opened up with the fall of Gaddafi.

"I am determined to get the answers these families deserve."

[From a report published this evening by The Press Association news agency.

The Lord Advocate will not "get the answers these families deserve" unless he exhibits willingness to pursue the copious evidence that exonerates Abdelbaset Megrahi. There is no indication whatsoever that he is prepared to do so. The Crown Office stance is that if it doesn't point towards Libya and Megrahi, then it just isn't evidence. It is in adopting this blinkered approach that Mr Mulholland is failing in his duty.

An interview with the Lord Advocate on the STV News website can be accessed here.]

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland meets FBI over Lockerbie bombing probe

2011-12-21T09:29:00.004Z

[This is the headline over a report published today in the Daily Record. It reads in part:]

Scotland's top lawman has held talks with the FBI over plans to step up new inquiries into the Lockerbie bombing.

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland met FBI director Robert Mueller and US Attorney Gereral Eric Holder in Washington last night.

It came as both countries prepare to send investigators to Libya to seek new evidence and speak to witnesses inthe hope of staging a second trial over the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Mulholland said: “The meeting was to renew rapport over the joint inquiry into state-sponsored terrorism and explore the opportunities we have to bring others to justice.”

It is understood a number of potential witnesses have been identified. Negotiations are taking place to insure they are interviewed.

Hopes are high that vital evidence needed to convict those who acted along with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi will be uncovered.

One target is Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted.

Mulholland has already set up a Lockerbie inquiry unit aimed at uncovering new evidence against Fhimah, 55.

The move came after Holyrood scrapped the double-jeopardy law which prevented people being tried twice for the same crime. (...)

Fhimah recently backed the Libyan rebels as the Gaddafi regime fell.

It was thought to be a desperate bid to persuade them not to hand him over for a re-trial.

Former justice minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, who claims to have evidence of Gaddafi’s involvement in Lockerbie, is a prominent figure in the new Libyan regime.

Scottish police have also questioned former foreign minister Moussa Koussa, who defected from the Gaddafi regime and is said to hold key information about the 1988 attack.

Other suspects include Gaddafi’s brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, who headed Libya’s intelligence services, and Ibrahim Nayili, Libya’s former head of airline security.

[A report (behind the paywall) in today's edition of The Times contains the following paragraph:]

The US authorities were furious when Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, allowed al-Megrahi to be released on compassionate grounds more than two years ago, but, in a sign that relations are improving, the Lord Advocate has been working with the FBI in recent weeks on a detailed plan to find others who were involved in the attack.

[More public relations puffery from the Crown Office. There is not the slightest sign that the Crown Office or the FBI are pursuing the copious evidence that exonerates Abdelbaset Megrahi. On this of all days, the relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster deserve better.]

23rd anniversary of Lockerbie disaster

2011-12-21T08:48:00.002Z

23 years ago, 270 people died when Pam Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. The victims of the terrorist bombing will be remembered during an annual ceremony at the Lockerbie Cairn in Arlington National Cemetery.

Speakers at the ceremony include members of The Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, the group which organized the event, US attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller and others.

[From a report published today on the C-Span website.

A report on the STV News website reads in part:]

Libya’s Ambassador to the US Ali Aujali is scheduled to address relatives of the victims at the annual service at Arlington National Cemetery.

It is thought it will be the first time a Libyan politician has attended an event to commemorate Lockerbie. (...)

Other speakers due to address the Arlington Service include Scotland’s top law officer, the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC.

"My Lockerbie evidence was ignored"

2011-12-18T09:45:00.002Z

[This is the headline over a report (not on the newspaper's website) published today on page 17 of the Scottish print edition of The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]

Envoy says he could have discredited key witness

A former Maltese minister with information that raises questions about the case against the Lockerbie bomber has criticised Scottish authorities for not interviewing him until almost 20 years after the atrocity.

Michael Refalo, a former tourism minister in Malta and a former high commissioner in London, said he disagreed with evidence given by Tony Gauci, a key witness in the case against Abdelbaset … al-Megrahi.

However, he was not approached until 2007 when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) carried out an independent review of the case.

Gauci … claimed the Christmas lights were not lit in the Maltese city of Sliema when Megrahi allegedly bought clothes from his shop on December 7, 1988.

Megrahi’s trial heard claims that fragments of the clothes were recovered from the wreckage of Pan Am flight 103 later that month.

The date was crucial as Megrahi is known to have been on the island that day. Refalo said he had lit them the day before, casting doubt on the reliability of Gauci’s testimony.

“Without going into the merits of whether Megrahi was guilty or not, there are a few inaccuracies in Tony Gauci’s testimony about the Christmas lights. Gauci said that on December 7 the Christmas street lights were not on. That’s incorrect. As minister for tourism at the time, I switched them on the day before at 5.30pm.”

Refalo criticised Scottish police for not interviewing him before the trial. He said that as a former member of the Maltese government he was easy to trace but had never been approached.

His evidence forms part of the unpublished 800-page report from the SCCRC, which casts doubt on Megrahi’s conviction and offers six reasons why he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice (…)

The secret report has remained under lock and key since 2007. It is understood that it states that during inquiries in 1990-91, officers tried and failed to establish when the Christmas lights outside Gauci’s shop were lit in 1988, but adds that the most significant missing evidence now available is Refalo’s.

“The first time I got to know my evidence was required was during my term as Malta’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom when I was contacted by the SCCRC,” said Refalo. “I was interviewed by lawyers acting for the SCCRC and released a sworn affidavit about the date and time I had turned on the lights.”

[The context and importance of this material are better elucidated in the Megrahi appeal documentation (pages 209 to 225) than in The Sunday Times report.

This is yet another nail in the coffin of the Megrahi conviction. The flaws that have been exposed in the investigation and the prosecution are so glaring that it is a gross insult to the people of Scotland for the Scottish Government to continue to deny that an independent inquiry is necessary into the operation of the Scottish criminal justice system in the Megrahi case.

Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has published a news item on this story.]

Libya to allow police to probe Lockerbie - minister

2011-12-16T08:41:00.000Z

[This is the headline over a report published late yesterday evening by the news agency Reuters. It reads in part:]

The Libyan government will allow British police to go to Libya to investigate the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and the unsolved 1984 killing of a policewoman in London, a British minister said on Thursday.

Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt, who held talks with Libyan ministers in Tripoli last week, said the Libyan government had given permission for British police to carry out fresh investigations into the two shadowy episodes that occurred under the rule of late strongman Muammar Gaddafi.

"I have absolute confidence that the police from Dumfries and Galloway (in Scotland) and the Metropolitan Police (in London) will be going back to Libya to get their investigations going again and they will be given a positive opportunity to do so by the Libyan authorities," Burt told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Burt, the Foreign Office minister responsible for North Africa and the Middle East, said no date had been set yet for a police visit, noting that Libyan authorities had a lot of other issues to deal with in a turbulent post-Gaddafi transition.

But he said that in his talks with Libyan Interior Minister Fawzi Abd al All and Foreign Minister Ashour bin Hayal, both had recognised the importance of the so-called "legacy" issues.

[Why Reuters is featuring this story a week after the rest of the media (see here and here) is a minor mystery. It has now been picked up on the Libya TV website.]

Public confidence paramount

2011-12-14T20:46:00.001Z

In his reaction to the report of the judicial inquiry by Sir Anthony Campbell into the Shirley McKie fingerprint case, the Scottish Government's Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, said this:

"Scotland's Criminal Justice system is a cornerstone of our society, and it is paramount that there is total public confidence in it."

Does Mr MacAskill believe that there is "total public confidence" in the operation of the Scottish criminal justice system in relation to the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi? Certainly, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had no such confidence. How therefore can the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish public? An independent inquiry is essential if confidence is ever to be restored.

Who Knows About This? Western Policy Towards Iran: The Lockerbie Case

2011-12-13T10:45:00.000Z

[This is the title of an important article by Dr Davina Miller published earlier this month in the journal Defence & Security Analysis. The following are excerpts. I sought permission from the copyright holders, the publishers Taylor & Francis, to quote from the article but was told that it would take ten weeks for them to consider the matter. In the circumstances I have decided to proceed without formal clearance, relying on the fair use and educational use provisions of copyright law.]

Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by an improvised explosive device (IED) at 19.03 whilst over the Dumfries and Galloway region of Scotland, 38 minutes after leaving Heathrow, on 21 December 1988. The IED, installed in a Toshiba Bombeat RT-SF16 stereo cassette/radio player, was hidden in a brown hard-shell Samsonite suitcase. All 259 passengers and crew were killed together with eleven people in Lockerbie. More than anything, the issue of responsibility matters to the families of those who died, and the official narrative remains problematic for many.

A number of conspiracy theories surround this awful event. This article puts aside all allegations and speculation and relies only upon legal and governmental papers to examine the evidence. It is in three parts: first, it examines the official narrative that emerged in the course of the prosecution and conviction of Libyan intelligence officer, Abd-al-Basit al-al-Miqrahi (al-Megrahi) for the Lockerbie bombing; second, it assesses the available evidence that the governments of the US and Britain knew that Iran via the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) bore responsibility for the outrage; and third, it investigates the plausibility of a deal between the US and Iran over Pan Am 103. To reiterate, this article is not definitive, but exploratory.

PAN AM FLIGHT 103: THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE AND ITS PROBLEMS

According to the Trial Court, the circumstantial case against al-Megrahi rested upon four interlocking planks: the presence of an unaccompanied bag from Malta to London; the identification of al-Megrahi as the buyer of the Maltese clothing found in the brown Samsonite suitcase containing the bomb; his presence in Malta under a false name at the time the bomb was placed on a plane; and his association with both Edmond Bollier, the manufacturer of the MST-13 timer, said to have been used in the IED, and members of Libyan Intelligence who purchased such timers.[iv][4]

The case against al-Megrahi depended upon the bomb having originated in Malta (on Flight KM180) since that was where he was on 21 December 1988. In contrast to the theory of the crime presented to the Trial Court, the President’s Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, published in May 1990, eighteen months into the investigation, determined that the bomb “probably was placed aboard at Frankfurt”.[v][5] The Trial Court, however, relied upon a Frankfurt airport dispatch record, which could have shown the presence of an unaccompanied bag from Malta. Nonetheless, it noted that, “the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 is a major difficulty for the Crown”, given the “relatively elaborate security system at Luqa airport” and that KM180’s baggage records show “no discrepancy”.[vi][6]

The US Defence Intelligence Agency noted on 30 December 1991 that, “Malta’s position on the Pan Am crisis supports Libya (i.e. Malta stated that it can prove that all the luggage on Pan Am 103 belonged to passengers on the flight)” (emphasis as in the original).[vii][7] Air Malta reached an out-of-court settlement with Granada Television in 1993 for its claim in a television documentary that the bomb had been loaded in an unaccompanied bag at Malta.

Another problem with the theory that the bomb began its journey in Malta concerns a CIA document. On 30 August 1989, the station in Malta noted intelligence from their Libyan agent, ‘Abd al-Majid Gaika, that there had been an External Security Organisation (ESO) survey of Luqa International Airport in 1986, which had found that controls there “ruled out insertion of unaccompanied baggage containing explosives on to onward flights”.[viii][8] In short, and in spite of Libya’s close connections to Malta, Libyan security had ruled out the very act of which it would be accused of having committed just two years later.

[The next section of the article deals with the well-known problems surrounding the “identification” of Megrahi by Tony Gauci.]

The third circumstantial plank of the case against al-Megrahi was his presence in Malta on a false passport at the appropriate time for placing the bomb on board a Maltese flight. Much was made of his use of a passport in a different name. However, as the CIA noted in a contact report on 21 January 1989, it was “common practice among ranking officers wishing to conceal their movements through the use of passports (ppts) bearing variations on their true names”.[xii][12] On 22 December 1988, the CIA reported that al-Megrahi had travelled through Malta earlier, on 7 December. The fact that he was then also travelling on a passport in an assumed name was reported without comment. The CIA also identified al-Megrahi as a “technical communications expert”. Further, its report went on to say that, “it is likely that el-Megrahi (sic) was carrying technical intelligence-gathering equipment with him” and was “involved in some type of technical intelligence operation”.[xiii][13]

[The next section of the article deals with the well known problems regarding the Mebo MST-13 timer fragment and the evidence of Hayes and Feraday.]

AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE: THE PFLP-GC AND IRAN

Al-Megrahi’s defence team presented evidence about the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) and the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF). In its judgment, the Trial Court argued that, while these organisations were engaged in terrorist activities during the same period, there was not any reasonable doubt - in spite of the Trial Court’s admission - that, “we cannot say that it is impossible that the clothing might have been taken from Malta, united somewhere with a timer from some source other than Libya, and introduced into the airline baggage system at Frankfurt or Heathrow”.[xx][20]

On 26 October 1988, the Federal Criminal Police Office, or Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), arrested members of a PFLP-GC cell in an operation centred on Frankfurt and Neuss and known as ‘Autumn Leaves’. Inter alia, the BKA found explosives, timers, barometric pressure devices, radio cassette players, Lufthansa luggage tags and airline timetables, including Pan Am’s. Most members of the cell, bar Haj Hafez Kassem Dalkamoni, the right hand man of Ahmed Jabril, leader of the PFLP-GC and Abdel Fatah Ghadanfar, a Palestinian associate, were released shortly thereafter.[xxi][21] Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) found later had pressure switches that would trigger about seven minutes after takeoff and timing devices with time elapsed between 35 and 45 minutes.[xxii][22]

Marwan Khreesat, the PFLP-GC Frankfurt cell bomb-maker - and a Jordanian agent - was interviewed on 12 and 13 November 1989 at the Headquarters of the Jordanian Intelligence Service. Khreesat “does not think he built the device responsible for Pan Am 103, as he only built the four devices in Germany” and did not use models with two speakers.[xxiii][23] Only three devices were recovered by the BKA. Khreesat had, however, seen “a not very good” device (the alterations to the radio cassette player could easily be discovered) that he believed Dalkamoni had taken to Frankfurt and handed over to Abu Elias, the PFLP-GC’s security expert. This he identified as being similar to a Toshiba RT-F423.[xxiv][24]

From 19-26 October 1988, Abu Talb, a member of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) in Sweden, who had ties to the PFLP-GC cell in Frankfurt, was in Malta as a guest of Abd El Salam (aka Abu Nada), a Director of the Miska Bakery. Talb took home clothing from Hashem Salem, Salam’s brother. He flew to Sweden on an open return ticket, but had no intention, he told the Court, of returning; it was simply a cheaper ticket than a single. He remained in contact with Abd El Salam.[xxv][25]

In summary, from the evidence presented at the trial, at the time of the bombing of Pan Am 103, there were two groups actively planning to attack Western aircraft and with the capabilities to do so. In addition, both these groups had links to Malta. (...)

Even after the indictments of Libyan co-defendants Lamen Khalifa Fhimah and al-Megrahi, intelligence documents continued to assert the involvement of the PFLP-GC, though it was now linked to Libya, rather than Iran. An information report dated 26 November 1991 assigned blame to Ahmed Jabril “in training the perpetrators and in designing the bomb”. The report goes on to assert that, “the luggage containing the bomb was purportedly intercepted in London by al-Megrahi, who probably claimed the bag, set the timer, then switched luggage tags to route it on to Pan Am flight 103”.[xxix][29] A Defence Intelligence Terrorism Summary on 13 December 1991 also linked Jabril with training the accused and in designing the bomb.[xxx][30]

It is not clear exactly when or why the PFLP-GC and PPSF were dropped as suspects post-1991 to leave a single focus upon Libya as the perpetrator of the Pan Am 103 bombing. (...)

On 24 September 1989, the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), in a secret information report not releasable to foreign nationals and relying on information acquired through the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade’ (i.e. through Foreign Signals Intelligence), asserted that the attack on Pan Am Flight 103, “was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar (Mohtashemi-Pur)”, the former Iranian Minister of the Interior. The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad (Jabri’il), the PFLP-GC leader, for the sum of $1,000,000. The report was highly detailed in describing the organisation of the bombing and claimed that, “the flight was supposed to be a direct flight from Frankfurt to New York, not Pan Am Flight 103”.[xxxii][32]

In October 1989, a further DIA report noted that Iranian “radicals want to be able to retaliate in less time than it took them to carry out the Pan Am 103 bombing”.[xxxiii][33] The CIA’s ‘Terrorism Review’ for 14 December 1989 also noted that liaison between Iran and radical Palestinian groups “was most likely responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103”.[xxxiv][34] The Defence Intelligence Agency in a brief in December 1989, titled “Pan Am 103: Deadly Co-operation” argued that, “Iran probably was the state sponsor for the PFLP-GC attack on Pan Am 103”. The same report noted: that the bomb was “a sophisticated, barometrically triggered explosive device probably fabricated by the PFLP-GC”; that “DIA believes the device was placed aboard...in Frankfurt”; and that, “analysis of material confiscated from this PFLP-GC cell has provided strong circumstantial evidence linking the cell to the bombing”. The report further detailed the relationship between Iran and the PFLP-GC, including the initial overtures, payment for Pan Am 103, and the latter’s exploitation of Iran’s “established terror network in Europe”.[xxxv][35]

A Combined Message from the DIA on 22 December 1989 asserted that, “a compelling body of evidence indicates the PFLP-GC placed a sophisticated, altimeter-fused, radio-encased bomb aboard Pan Am flight 103”. The missing improvised explosive device (IED) from the Autumn Leaves Operation was noted: “the fourth device was believed to be a Toshiba radio/cassette player larger than the Bombeat 453” and “may prove to be the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103”. [xxxvi][36] In January 1990, the DIA then argued that, “Iran probably was the state sponsor for the PFLP-GC attack on Pan Am 103”.[xxxvii][37] (...)

A Defence Intelligence ‘Terrorism Summary’, dated 15 September 1990, summarised a discussion about Pan Am 103 and the PFLP-GC during a meeting between the US Secretary of State, James Baker, and the Syrian Foreign Minister. The Summary notes that, “although the US has provided evidence of PFLP-GC complicity, the Syrian government has dismissed it as insufficient”.[xl][40] A Defence Intelligence Terrorism Summary on 16 November 1990 asserted that, “The US has long sought Jibril’s expulsion for his role in the bombing of Pan Am 103”.[xli][41]

(...) in February 1991, eight months after the FBI had supposedly identified the timer which led away from the PFLP-GC and Iran, in an Intelligence Report for Multinational Forces, Desert Storm, the DIA noted Iran’s Interior Minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi’s payment of $10 million for “terrorist activities” and that he “was the one who paid the same amount to bomb Pan Am Flight 103”.[xlii][42]

This Report was published in the UK media on 24 January 1995. UK and US officials insisted, however, that there was, “no credible evidence” linking Iran to the bombing and denied the claims made. Libya saw the report as, “exonerating” it of any involvement.[xliii][43] More tellingly, in November 1991, DIA officials commented upon an earlier report on Syria: “We found the article helpful. However ... the statement that the PFLP-GC is accused of bombing Pan Am 103 directly contradicts the recent announcement that Libya was behind the act”.[xliv][44] The anonymous officials did not question the veracity of the assertion; their main concern was about its being leaked.

While US intelligence services were asserting Iranian complicity, they ruled out Libyan and Syrian involvement. As the December 1989, “Pan Am 103: Deadly Co-operation” Defense Intelligence brief noted, the “DIA continues to discount Libyan or Syrian involvement in the bombing of Pan Am 103 because there is no current credible intelligence implicating either”.[xlv][45] This was consistent with the conclusions contained in other DIA and CIA reports throughout 1989. (...) Both before and after the indictments, there was no discussion in US intelligence records of how to prevent similar future acts of Libyan terrorism.

CHOOSING ONE’S ENEMIES

The United States’ Potential Motives

Given the concerns around the safety of al-Megrahi’s conviction, the evidence pointing to the PFLP-GC and PPSF, as well as the US intelligence community’s apparent conclusion that Iran orchestrated the bombing of Pan Am 103, it is worth examining the circumstantial evidence as to the possibility of a decision, or a deal, to overlook Iranian potential guilt.

The most popular conspiracy theories attribute such a decision to the exigencies of Middle Eastern politics around the period of the first Gulf War of 1990-1. The investigation began to focus on Libya, however, at a much earlier time in September 1989, a year before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. While investigators sought to link Libya to the PFLP-GC, US government agencies retained and adhered to the original theory of the crime. For example, at least until late 1990, the State Department pressed Syria for Jibril’s expulsion, because of his alleged involvement in the bombing of Pan Am 103. Moreover, US intelligence documents continued to speak of PFLP-GC and Iranian involvement long after the public focus upon Libya. (...)

A deal between the US and Iran that involved the issue of Pan Am 103 is not an unreasonable hypothesis, given previous US behaviour and British and French ‘deals’ with Iran for the release of hostages. For example, on 21 March 1991, the CIA criticized Britain for having deported Mehradad Kokabi, an Iranian charged in connection with a bomb attack. While this would, “help Rafsanjani by using an issue used by hardliners to argue against the release of hostages”, it would also reinforce the view in Tehran that, “Washington, like London, will strike a deal favourable to Iran”. Equally, the CIA complained that the French government had earlier done a deal with Iran for the release of nine hostages between 1986 and 1988.[li][51]

Even as the US was contemplating in early 1989 that Iran had a hand in the bombing of Pan Am 103, it was still signalling the hope for a deal with Iran on the hostage issue as expressed in President Bush’s inaugural address. As he said, “There are today Americans who are held against their will in foreign lands and Americans who are unaccounted for. Assistance can be shown here and will be long remembered”.[lii][52] (...)

US/UK indictments of the two Libyan suspects were announced on 13 November 1991. On 16 November 1991, Iranian radio declared that the indictments of Fhima and al-Megrahi represented, “the start of a new psychological and propaganda war by Washington against Libya”.[lviii][58] A DIA report on 23 November, from intelligence acquired from Fort Meade, (that is, from Foreign Signals Intelligence) noted, however, that the “Iranian President voiced his pleasure in seeing the recent press attribute the blame to Libya for the 1988 Pan Am flight 103 bombing”.[lix][59]

On 18 November 1991, the American, Thomas Sutherland, and the Briton, Terry Waite, were freed by Islamic Jihad in Beirut.[lx][60] Later that month, there was a comprehensive exchange of hostages and human remains on one side and, on the other, prisoners in Israeli jails. On 2 December, the US also paid compensation to Iran some $278,000,000 for weapons confiscated in 1979.[lxi][61] On 10 December, a UN report found that Iraq’s invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980, and the occupation of Iranian land that followed, were unjustified and illegal.[lxii][62]

While many elements comprised the hostages deal, it could be argued that Pan Am 103 was necessarily part of the comprehensive settlement that involved, inter alia, money, prisoners, and international judgments about the Iran-Iraq War. It was necessary because, as the CIA commented on 1 June 1989, the Iranians “believe that the presence of Western hostages in Lebanon will help deter retaliation” for the bombing of Flight 103.[lxiii][63] It follows that Iran could not feel safe from US retaliation for Pan Am 103 (whether the retaliation was justified or not) if the hostages were freed without some guarantee. Thus, the eventual indictment of a rival state, it could be argued, provided that guarantee and was thus the necessary condition for the deal that followed.

Even before the final settlement, it is possible to argue that the US and Iran reached a tentative agreement about Pan Am 103. If Mohtashemi were the architect, as US intelligence seemed firmly to believe, using the back channels already established through ‘Irangate’, and relying on the policy of searching for moderates with whom to do business, it is possible that the US sought the isolation of Mohtashemi in exchange for a policy of non-retaliation. (...)

CONCLUSION

This article is not definitive. Rather, given the persistence of counter-narratives, it seeks to explore the available reliable evidence. That there remain some problematic issues around the conviction of al-Megrahi is evidenced in the referral of his case to a further appeal by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007. That appeal was never heard because of al-Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds in 2009. The Crown’s case rested upon four inter-locking circumstances, each and all of them problematic. Security at Luqa was ‘a major difficulty’ for the Crown’s case that the bomb originated in Malta. Moreover, Libyan intelligence, according to CIA reports, seemed to have ruled Luqa out as an airport for the insertion of IEDs because of said security.

The identification of al-Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothes found in the bomb case was, as the Trial Court acknowledged, ‘not absolute’. Subsequently it has been revealed that Gauci was paid for his evidence. Al-Megrahi’s presence in Malta on a false passport does not seem to have caused the CIA concerns in the late 1980s. A false passport was common among Libyan security personnel and the CIA had defined al-Megrahi as a ‘technical communications expert’. Finally, in terms of the bomb and its timer, the Trial Court noted problems in the evidence chain and subsequently the central US and British forensics staff involved have been discredited.

Turning to the defence’s theory of the crime, it is known that the PFLP-GC and PPSF had both the intention and capability for an attack on an airliner. In addition, they can be connected to Malta. Looking at the investigation, the PFLP-GC continued to be suspects, but with attempts from 1989 to link them to Libya. US intelligence spoke of “a compelling body of evidence” that “the PFLP-GC placed a sophisticated, altimeter-fused, radio-encased bomb aboard Pan Am flight 103” in December 1989 and the US was lobbying Syria, at Secretary of State level, for Jabril’s expulsion for Pan Am 103 in late 1990. The conviction that the PFLP-GC committed the bombing seems to have been widely held and long-lasting within the US government. Why there was an attempt first to link the PFLP-GC to Libya and then to abandon the “compelling evidence” against this group are interesting questions.

Given the attack on [sic; presumably "by" is meant] the USS Vincennes, less than six months before the bombing of Pan Am 103, Iran had, on the one hand, an obvious motive for retaliation against the US – and, indeed, US intelligence anticipated such action. On the other hand, Libyan motives were unclear, given that the anticipated date for an attack against the US was April (the anniversary of the Tripoli bombing in 1986). It is well known that the West had both a history of, and reasons for, backchannel deal-making with Iran, chief among those reasons the hostages held in Lebanon by pro-Iran groups. Given the belief by some factions that the hostages were deterring US retaliation for Pan Am 103, it would be necessary for any hostage deal to entail a guarantee on said retaliation. It is possibly telling both that Rafsanjani took private pleasure at the Libyan indictments and that US intelligence reported it. (...)

Given the current mix of circumstances in the Middle East and South Asia, it has never been more important that the West gets its policy towards Iran right. It is equally important for democratic politics and the human rights of those who must live under such regimes that there is honesty about the foreign policy choices that the West is making.

This article and its references are the copyright of Taylor and Francis, which must be acknowledged ©Taylor and Francis 2011.

NOTES
[iv][4] In the High Court of the Justiciary at Camp Zeist, Case No. 1475/99, Opinion of the Court, delivered by Lord Sutherland in causa Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, paras.87-89, http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/Lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf, 18 July 2010.
[v][5] Report to the President by the President’s Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, GPO, Washington DC, May 1990, p. ii.
[vi][6] I n the High Court of the Justiciary at Camp Zeist, Case No. 1475/99, Opinion of the Court, delivered by Lord Sutherland in causa Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, paras.38-39, http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/Lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf, 18 July 2010.
[vii][7] Defence Intelligence Agency, Combined Message, 30 December 1991, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[viii][8] Central Intelligence Agency, Contact Report, 30 August 1989, http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp, 9 July 2010.
[xii][12] Central Intelligence Agency, 20 January 1989, http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp , 13 July 2010.
[xiii][13] Central Intelligence Agency, ’Travel of Libyan External Security Organisation Officers through Malta in December 1988’, 22 December 1988, http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp, 9 July 2010.
[xx][20] In the High Court of the Justiciary at Camp Zeist, Case No. 1475/99, Opinion of the Court, delivered by Lord Sutherland in causa Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, para.82, http:/www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/Lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf, 18 July 2010.
[xxi][21] In the High Court of the Justiciary at Camp Zeist, Case No. 1475/99, Opinion of the Court, delivered by Lord Sutherland in causa Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, paras.73-4, http:/www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/Lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf, 18 July 2010.
[xxii][22] In the High Court of the Justiciary at Camp Zeist, Case No. 1475/99, Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Evidence, Rainer Gobel, physicist, BKA, pp. 8793-8796.
[xxiii][23] In the High Court of the Justiciary at Camp Zeist, Case No. 1475/99, Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Evidence, Edward Marshman, FBI Special Agent, p. 9268 and p. 9298.
[xxiv][24] In the High Court of the Justiciary at Camp Zeist, Case No. 1475/99, Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Evidence, Edward Marshman, FBI Special Agent, p. 9300.
[xxv][25] In the High Court of the Justiciary at Camp Zeist, Case No. 1475/99, Opinion of the Court, delivered by Lord Sutherland in causa Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, paras.78-9, http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/Lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf, 18 July 2010.
[xxix][29] Defence Intelligence Agency, Information Report, 26 November 1991, http:/www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xxx][30] Defence Intelligence Agency, Terrorism Summary, 13 December 1991, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xxxii][32] Defence Intelligence Agency, Information Report, 24 September 1989, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010
[xxxiii][33] Defence Intelligence Agency, Information Report, 7 October 1989, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xxxiv][34] Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, Terrorism Review, 14 December 1989, http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp, 19 March 2010.
[xxxv][35] Defence Intelligence Agency, Defence Intelligence Brief, ‘Pan Am 103: Deadly Co-operation’, December 1989, http:/www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xxxvi][36] Defence Intelligence Agency, Combined Message, 22 December 1989, http:/www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xxxvii][37] Defence Intelligence Agency, January 1990, http:/www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xl][40] Defence Intelligence Agency, Terrorism Summary, 15 September 1990, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xli][41] Defence Intelligence Agency, Terrorism Summary, 16 November 1990, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xlii][42] Defence Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Report, February 1991, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xliii][43] Keesing’s Record of World Events, Vol. 41, January 1995, Libya, p. 40380.
[xliv][44] Defence Intelligence Agency, Memorandum, November 1991, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[xlv][45] Defence Intelligence Agency, Defence Intelligence Brief, ‘Pan Am 103: Deadly Co-operation’, December 1989, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[li][51] Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, Terrorism Review, 21 March 1991, http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp, 19 March 2010.
[lii][52] President George bush, Inaugural Address, 20 January 1989, http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/, 20 March 2011.
[lviii][58] Keesing’s Record of World Events, Vol. 37, November 1991, Libya, p.38599
[lix][59] Defence Intelligence Agency, Information Report, 23 November 1991, http://www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[lx][60] Defence Intelligence Agency, Information Report, 19 November 1991, http:/www.dia.mil/foia/panam103.pdf, 18 March 2010.
[lxi][61] Keesing’s Record of World Events, Vol. 37, December 1991, Lebanon, p.38694.
[lxii][62] Keesing’s Record of World Events, Vol. 37, December 1991, Iran, p. 38697.
[lxiii][63] Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence, Terrorism Review, 1 June 1989

Scottish police will be invited to Tripoli to question Megrahi

2011-12-09T09:07:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman, following on from yesterday's exclusive on The Guardian website. It reads in part:]

Libya will invite Scottish police officers to Tripoli to interview the former Libyan agent convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, according to Britain’s foreign minister Alastair Burt.

The move, which could see Dumfries and Galloway police travel to Libya shortly to speak with Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, was welcomed by Scotland’s most senior law officer the Lord Advocate Frank Mullholland QC. (...)

Yesterday Megrahi’s brother Nasser said the former Libyan agent, who is suffering from prostate cancer, was too sick to be interviewed by British investigators.

So far Libya’s ruling National Transitional Council, formed in March to lead the revolution that toppled Muammar al-Gaddafi, has dragged its feet on giving Scottish officers access.

But the new cabinet is keen to build trust with the West as it seeks to unfreeze more than £100 billion in assets held by international banks.

Frank Duggan, the Washington-based lawyer representing US victims of the bomb, said: “I am pleased to hear it. The US families want to make sure that this case is still alive. I suppose it is impressive that after 23 years it is still alive.”

Mr Mulholland said: “If reports are correct I am pleased that the Transitional Government of Libya has agreed to allow officers from Dumfries and Galloway police to travel to Libya for inquiries.

“This is a live inquiry and Scottish police and prosecutors will continue to pursue the evidence to bring the others involved to justice.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “Our police and prosecution authorities stand ready to investigate and follow any new lines of inquiry which may be emerging in Libya.”

[A report in today's edition of The Guardian contains the following:]

Libyan suspect Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, cleared of bombing in 2000, could face fresh trial – but victims' families are sceptical

The new Libyan government's undertaking will also hearten Frank Mulholland, the lord advocate and chief prosecutor for Scotland, who announced several months ago he was reopening prosecution files on Lockerbie.

New laws on double jeopardy in Scotland, which will allow previously cleared suspects to be tried again, came into force in late November. That would allow prosecutors to attempt a fresh trial of Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi in 2000 in the Lockerbie case but was cleared by the court.

In August, Fhimah denied any links to the atrocity and insisted he too was a victim of Gaddafi, but some US relatives have pressed for both men to be handed over to the US for a fresh trial – moves the Libyans have brushed away.

Mulholland said yesterday: "The trial court held that the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the murder of 270 people was an act of state-sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone. This is a live inquiry and Scottish police and prosecutors will continue to pursue the evidence to bring the others involved to justice."

Megrahi's family insisted he was too ill to meet British officials. Nasser al Megrahi, his brother, said he was being cared for by relatives. "He is really ill," he said. "He is in his room, I have not seen him today. He's too tired to see anyone, even us, his family."

He also questioned why Scottish police and prosecutors would want to reopen the case or interview his brother, since the UK authorities had previously agreed to release Megrahi, who is terminally ill with advanced prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds. "Why would they want to reopen the case? That doesn't make sense, it was not the Gaddafi government that made the judgment, it was the Scottish [government]." (...)

Jean Berkley, convenor of the UK Families of Flight 103, said she was pleased that there was renewed interest in the case, but she was not optimistic that a police visit to Tripoli would uncover significant new information. But she said: "We would welcome any attempts to find out more of the truth because we feel that there's a lot we don't know."

Professor Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who proposed trying Megrahi and Fhimah on neutral ground in the Netherlands, was sceptical that the initiative would lead to a fresh trial. He said if detectives tried to interview Fhimah as a suspect, they would need to apply new Scottish rules requiring his lawyer to be present.

"If they've now got permission to go and look at Libyan archives to see what they can find, fine, but I'm amazed if they think they can go and interview Megrahi: the position of the Crown Office has been we've got Megrahi, we're now looking for others," he said. "I suspect they'll be talking to people who now head the various ministries in Libya to see whether they can find any archives on Lockerbie when it was under the Gaddafi regime."

[A report in today's edition of The Times (behind the paywall) contains the following:]

It is understood that the Lockerbie inquiry team are keen to speak to Abudullah al-Senussi, a key figure in the Gaddafi regime. Al-Senussi is believed to be in custody in the town of Sabha after his capture, along with Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi’s son, last month. [RB: There remains grave doubt about whether al-Senussi has been captured at all.]

Al-Senussi, known as the executioner, is already wanted by the International Criminal Court. France wants him to face justice for the 1989 bombing of an airliner over Niger. A French court has already sentenced him to life in prison in absentia. The ICC issued an arrest warrant against Al-Senussi, 62, earlier this year for alleged crimes against humanity. The court has described him as “one of the most powerful and efficient organs of repression of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime”. (...)

Crown Office sources indicated yesterday that they had no plans to speak to al-Megrahi, the only man so far convicted of the outrage. Mr Mulholland added: “The trial court held that the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the murder of 270 people was an act of state-sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone. This is a live enquiry and Scottish police and prosecutors will continue to pursue the evidence to bring the others involved to justice.”

Libya gives Lockerbie inquiry go-ahead

2011-12-08T13:39:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]

Libya has given the green light for British police to visit the country to conduct investigations into the Lockerbie bombing and the assassination of PC Yvonne Fletcher, the British foreign minister Alistair Burt has said.

The governing National Transitional Council had stalled on earlier requests for officers to travel to Libya, but Burt said the new Libyan government, sworn in last weekend, would co-operate.

Libya's interior minister, Fawzy Abdel Aal, confirmed on Thursday morning he would agree to "the early return of the Dumfries and Galloway police in relation to Lockerbie", said Burt.

The minister, who is on a two-day visit to Tripoli, said Abdel Aal had made the same promise regarding the investigation into the killing of Fletcher, gunned down outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984. "We are very keen that the Metropolitan police should return to continue their investigation," Burt said. "The Libyan government is aware of how important it is."

He said Libyan officials had given no dates for the visits, but expected it to happen soon, adding: "This is a new government, I think they have a lot on their plate." (...)

Scottish investigators want to interview Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, jailed for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing but released on grounds of ill health by the Scottish government in August 2009. He currently lives in Tripoli, reportedly in ill-health. [RB: This the first suggestion that I have seen that the Scottish investigators wish to interview Megrahi. I suspect that even if he is in a condition to speak to them, he will tell the Scottish police (politely, for he is a polite person) to get lost.]

Burt told journalists the move was an important confidence-building measure between Libya's new government and the UK. He said Libya was being offered the chance for security training from the Metropolitan police and the army, and that British security and education consultants were being encouraged to bid for work in Libya.

Megrahi Wikipedia page altered by PR company acting for oncologist

2011-12-08T09:01:00.001Z

[The following are excerpts from an article published yesterday on the website of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism:]

The extent of Bell Pottinger’s internet manipulation to alter its clients’ reputation online can be revealed by the Bureau.

Evidence seen by the Bureau shows the company made hundreds of alterations to Wikipedia entries about its clients in the last year.

Some of the changes added favourable comments while others removed negative content.

It is the first direct evidence that secretly recorded boasts by the company’s senior executives that it uses ‘dark arts’ to manipulate content on the internet were true.

Among the changes made in the last year by a user – traced to a Bell Pottinger computer – who made the alterations under the pseudonym ‘Biggleswiki’ were: (...)

Editing of the entries for prostate cancer expert Professor Roger Kirby and his firm, The Prostate Centre. Both are clients of Bell Pottinger. The user added Mr Kirby into a separate page on ‘prostatectomy’ as a notable expert, and edited the entry on Lockerbie bomber Abdulbasset al-Megrahi to include comments made by Kirby about Megrahi’s cancer.

[An article in today's edition of The Independent contains the following:]

Several Wikipedia accounts have been suspended pending an investigation by the co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, who last night expressed his dismay at Bell Pottinger's "ethical blindness". (...)

James Thomlinson, head of digital at Bell Pottinger, admitted last night to The Independent: "Biggleswiki is one of a number of accounts that the digital team have used to edit Wikipedia articles. I would like to point out that while we have worked for a number of clients like The Prostate Centre, we have never done anything illegal. We have never added something that is a lie or hasn't been published elsewhere and we have never tried to 'astroturf', ie create fake positive reviews to sell a product. If we have been asked to include things about clients that are untrue we have always said no and pointed to Wikipedia's strict guidelines.

"We have also ensured that for every change that we have made we have sought the approval of the wider Wikipedia community first."

Last night, Mr Wales told The Independent: "I am astonished at the ethical blindness of Bell Pottinger's reaction. That their strongest true response is they didn't break the law tells a lot about their view of the world, I'm afraid.

"The company committed the cardinal sin of a PR and lobbying company of having their own bad behaviour bring bad headlines to their clients, [and] did so in a fashion that brought no corresponding benefits.

He added: "There are ethical PR companies out there."

[A news item on this story can be read here on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.]

PM challenged over Pan Am 103 evidence

2011-12-07T09:37:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a news item published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has been challenged by Professor Robert Black QC to make available any evidence linking deceased Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi to the Pan Am 103 atrocity, to the Dumfries and Galloway police.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that Gadaffi was responsible for the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984, the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988 and the supply of semtex to the IRA.

"First of all we are no strangers to what Gaddafi was capable of. He murdered the police officer on the street of London; he managed to blow up an airliner over the skies of Lockerbie; he gave Semtex to the IRA – Semtex that they’ve probably not even released even to this day. We know what he was capable of," Cameron said.

Professor Black has challenged the Prime Minister's assertion in relation to Pan Am 103, following revelations that the key witness linking convict Abdelbaset Al Megrahi to event was bribed by Scottish police, that the key forensics evidence was claimed to have bene fabricated by former MEBO employee Ulrich Lumpert, and that the evidence surrounding the use of semtex in the destruction of the plane does not bear scientific scrutiny.

"If the Prime Minister has evidence that Colonel Gaddafi blew up Pan Am 103 (or ordered it to be blown up) I hope he has made it available to the Dumfries and Galloway police who, we are told, are still actively investigating Lockerbie," Black said.

The accumulated doubts over the safety of the conviction have led to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluding that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. A petition is currently active before the Justice Committee calling for an inquiry into these events.

Gaddafi blew up Pan Am 103, says PM

2011-12-06T17:05:00.001Z

[What follows is a brief excerpt from a speech to service personnel returning from the Libyan campaign given today by Prime Minister David Cameron:]

Gaddafi was hell-bent on going to Benghazi and murdering and massacring his own people and it was the action that NATO countries, that Britain, that France, that America took – that you took – that stopped that
massacre taking place. So I think we have given Libya the chance of a better future and to those people who say, ‘Well, what’s this got to do with all of us back here in Britain?’ I would say two things. First of all we are no strangers to what Gaddafi was capable of. He murdered the police officer on the street of London; he managed to blow up an airliner over the skies of Lockerbie; he gave Semtex to the IRA – Semtex that they’ve probably not even released even to this day. We know what he was capable of.

[If the Prime Minister has evidence that Colonel Gaddafi blew up Pan Am 103 (or ordered it to be blown up) I hope he has made it available to the Dumfries and Galloway police who, we are told, are still actively investigating Lockerbie.]

Foreign Office clarification of Megrahi statement

2011-12-06T08:50:00.001Z

[On 23 November 2011 in the House of Lords the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Howell, answered a question about Lockerbie from Lord Selkirk of Douglas. A short debate followed. The FCO yesterday issued a ministerial statement correcting certain remarks that the minister then made. It reads as follows:]

State of health of Abdelbassett Al-Megrahi

The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Alistair Burt): My Noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (The Rt Hon Lord Howell of Guildford) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement: On 23 November, Official Report, column 1051, I said that part of the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary would embrace the question of Abdelbasset al-Megrahi’s condition and that we were awaiting the precise details of his health from the Libyan Government.

I would like to clarify that the Government has not asked the Libyan government to provide information about Mr al-Megrahi’s health. The terms of Mr al-Megrahi’s release from prison on licence specify that he has to comply with a number of conditions set by the Scottish Ministers. These conditions include the submission of a monthly medical report to East Renfrewshire Council. As I said on 23 November, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have passed on a request from the Devolved Administration to the Libyan Chargé d’Affaires in London asking the Libyan authorities to assist in ensuring that the supervision arrangements of Megrahi’s licence are observed.

The Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary’s investigation concerns the involvement of others, with Mr al-Megrahi, in the Lockerbie bombing. The Government will continue to support the police in following any new leads, including any new information that may come to light concerning Mr al-Megrahi.

[The House of Lords Hansard report of this statement can be read here.]

Lockerbie bombing fabrication sealed Gaddafi's fate

2011-12-05T09:21:00.001Z

[T]he Libya campaign was preceded by a years-long propaganda war that had prepared our domestic populations well for the eventuality of the 'evil dictator's' downfall. And perhaps it was the infamous Lockerbie bombing, which more than any other fabrication that sealed Gaddafi's fate (though at the time, Iran was the preferred culprit, accused by yet another defector).[1]

1. "A man claiming to be a senior Iranian intelligence service defector has said that Iran, not Libya, masterminded the Lockerbie bombing." -- 'Iran blamed for Lockerbie bomb', BBC News, 5 June 2000

[The above is an excerpt from an article by William Bowles published yesterday on the Global Research website and also today here on The 5th Estate website.]

SNP has no justification for Criminal Cases legislation

2011-12-02T16:11:00.001Z

[This is the headline over an item published today on the ToryHoose website, which describes itself as providing "fresh thinking for Scottish conservatism". The relevant portion reads as follows:]

The Scottish Government has published the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill. The bill seeks to resolve the sentencing anomaly which surrounds mandatory life sentences, and to try and force the disclosure of information relative to the Al-Megrahi case. (...)

When commenting on the Scottish Government’s attempts to provide more transparency on the Al-Megrahi case, [Scottish Conservative Justice Spokesman, David McLetchie MSP] said:

"The Scottish Government states that it ‘does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Al-Megrahi’. That being the case it is difficult to see the justification for this legislation. If any information is to be released then it should be all the medical evidence as to why the SNP Government set a mass murderer free, something it has consistently refused to do.”

[When I saw the headline over this story, I naively anticipated Tory recognition that (a) the Bill is unnecessary since all that it will do could equally have been achieved by secondary legislation (a Statutory Instrument) and (b) the Bill's provisions are so circumscribed and restrictive that no information that matters will ever be released by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission under it. Silly me! These are Scottish Tories we are talking about. Expecting them ever to identify the true issue on any Scottish topic of importance is utterly futile. That is why they have become an irrelevance on the Scottish political scene.]

Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill

2011-12-01T08:57:00.001Z

This Bill, Part 2 of which relates to the terms upon which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can release information in cases where it has referred a case to the High Court of Justiciary but the resulting appeal has been abandoned, was introduced into the Scottish Parliament on 30 November 2011 and published on the Parliament's website this morning. The Bill can be read here, the relevant provisions to be found in sections 3 and 4.

The Bill is accompanied by a policy memorandum. The portions of this document that relate to SCCRC disclosure are paragraphs 4, 50 to 59, 62 to 65, 67 and 74 to 77. Also published are explanatory notes relating to the Bill. The relevant portions of this document are paragraphs 4, 18 to 45 and 52 to 61.

As I anticipated here and here when such a Bill was announced in the Scottish Government's Programme for Government 2011-2012, the provisions of the Bill relating to SCCRC disclosure are a complete waste of Parliamentary time. The conditions attached to release of information are so restrictive that no useful information relating to the Megrahi case will be forthcoming. Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

The Scottish Government's press release on the Bill can be read here and the BBC News report based on it here. Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has this afternoon published on its website a news item headlined “Restrictive” Megrahi Bill “a complete waste of Parliamentary time”.

Council will not back down over Megrahi

2011-11-30T15:19:00.001Z

[What follows is the text of a report published today on the website of the Barrhead News, a newspaper circulating in East Renfrewshire:]

East Renfrewshire Council will not back down as pressure from Washington to extradite the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, looks set to grow.

A legal clash between Washington and East Renfrewshire Council could hold up efforts to bring Megrahi before an American court.

East Renfrewshire will do what it can to make certain that the condition that has been agreed with Megrahi and the Libyan Government is not breached.

One report suggests that if the US Government was allowed to succeed in its plan that it would breach his conditions, therefore the case would have to be referred to the Parole Board of Scotland who would decide how to deal with the matter.

[It is comforting to learn that East Renfrewshire Council appreciates where its duty lies. Would that the same could be said of the Scottish and United Kingdom governments on this matter.]

Law change may reopen Lockerbie bomb inquiry

2011-11-28T13:17:00.001Z

[Thisis the headline over a report (not featured on the newspaper'swebsite) in today's Scottish print edition of The Times. Itreads in part:]

Legislationthat permits the retrial of suspects comes into force today and couldtrigger fresh developments in the Lockerbie case.

Underthe reform the principle of double jeopardy, which prevents a personbeing tried twice for the same crime, will be enshrined in law butwill permit exemptions.

CrownOffice sources have confirmed that they are ready to examine the caseof Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who in 2001 was found not guilty ofblowing up Pan Am flight 103.

MrFhimah's defence argued successfully that the case against himamounted to "inference upon inference".

Overthe summer Scottish prosecutors interviewed the Libyan defectorMoussa Koussa, Colonel Gaddafi's former foreign minister. It isunderstood that he was asked a series of questions about Mr Fhimah.

Thekey changes in the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act were backedunanimously by MSPs in March.

Asecond trial will be permitted in very serious cases where, after anacquittal, "compelling new evidence" emerges to"substantially strengthen" the case against the suspect. The measures will also allow a suspect to face retrial on a moreserious charge if the victim has died since the original trial.

Theprinciple of double jeopardy dates back more than 800 years. "thelaw needed to be modernised to ensure that it is fit for the 21stcentury and I am delighted this day has come," said KennyMacAskill, Scotland's Justice Secretary.

RobertBlack, a professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University said thathe would be "astounded" if prosecutors sought to re-indictMr Fhimah.

"TheCrown Office is just as aware as the rest of us are that theastonishing thing about the Zeist trial was not the acquittal ofFhimah but the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi," he wrote in his blog.

"Anynew evidence that has emerged since 2001 points clearly towards theinnocence of the accused Libyans rather than their guilt, as theScottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst others has pointedout."

[This story now features in a news item in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm headlined Professor challenges Crown Office spin over Pan Am 103 double jeopardy retrial.]

Fhimah retrial speculation on abolition of double jeopardy rule

2011-11-27T08:32:00.001Z

[The following are excerpts from a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday:]

Prosecutors are examining whether to reopen a series of “double jeopardy” cases which could lead to some of Scotland’s most notorious unsolved murders being brought back to court.

The 800-year-old law of double jeopardy will be radically overhauled tomorrow, ending the rule which prevents an accused being tried twice for the same crime. (...)

Officials declined to specify which cases could be among those coming back to court, but they are likely to include the so-called “World’s End” murders of Christine Eadie and Helen Scott from 1977. Other cases believed to be at the top of the list include the prosecution and acquittal of Libyan al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah for the Lockerbie bombing (...)

The reform could also trigger fresh developments in the Lockerbie case, which remains active, amid speculation that Fhimah, who was found innocent of the atrocity, could be prosecuted once again. (...)

[T]he reforms, which come into force tomorrow, will ensure that a second trial can take place where “compelling new evidence emerges to substantially strengthen the case against the accused”. A second trial may also be allowed to proceed where there is evidence that the first trial was “tainted”. An example might be where a witness was found to have been intimidated into supporting the accused.

Furthermore, if after acquittal the accused admits having committed the offence, the Crown Office will be permitted to have a second trial. (...)

A Crown Office spokeswoman said: “The Solicitor General for Scotland, Lesley Thomson QC, has been asked by the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, to review and prioritise cases which may be prosecuted anew under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill.”

She added: “It is too early to say which cases would be considered, nor would we speculate on how any particular cases will be dealt with under the change to the law of double jeopardy in Scotland.”

[I would be astounded if prosecutors sought to re-indict Lamin Fhimah. The Crown Office is just as aware as the rest of us are that the astonishing thing about the Zeist trial was not the acquittal of Fhimah but the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Any "new evidence" that has emerged since 2001 points clearly towards the innocence of the accused Libyans rather than their guilt, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst others has pointed out.]

US bid to extradite Lockerbie bomber raises prospect of David and Goliath battle between Washington and Scottish local council

2011-11-25T10:52:00.001Z

[This the headline over a report in today's edition of the Daily Mail. It reads in part:]

US efforts to extradite the Lockerbie bomber face an unlikely challenge - from a local council in Scotland.

A transatlantic legal clash between Washington and East Renfrewshire Council could scupper efforts to bring Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi before an American court.

Earlier this month, the Scottish Daily Mail revealed the US government had begun legal moves to extradite 59-year-old Megrahi, who is suffering from prostate cancer and may not have long to live.

But yesterday it emerged that East Renfrewshire Council – which has responsibility for ensuring Megrahi does not breach his licence conditions following his release from Greenock Prison more than two years ago – is likely to challenge the move.

A spokesman for East Renfrewshire said Megrahi would breach his licence conditions if he disappeared from his Tripoli home and was no longer easily contactable.

His comments raised the prospect of a David and Goliath battle between the council and the American authorities.

The spokesman said: 'It would be treated in the same way as anyone else in this position – if they are no longer at the address we have for them, then there could be a breach.

'That would be referred to the Parole Board for Scotland and they would decide how to deal with it.'

If Megrahi were extradited, he would no longer be at his Tripoli residence, where East Renfrewshire Council officials are required by law to contact him periodically, thus triggering a breach of his licence. (...)

Last night, legal expert Professor Robert Black, who believes Megrahi is innocent, said: 'I don’t think the US government would be worried in the slightest about the licence breach.

'It has never concerned itself with international legality and never will. Quite simply, if America thinks it’s right, it’s right – it does what it wants and won’t care about legal issues.

'But if a US extradition was attempted which caused a breach of his licence conditions, then the UK Government should act.

'The Foreign Office should intervene – but, of course, with the "special relationship", it’s unlikely that will happen.

'It’s far more likely that the UK Government wouldn’t say anything about it. That would be disgraceful.'

The National Transitional Council in Libya has said it 'doesn't care' what happens to Megrahi. Last night, a US State Department source said there were communications concerning Megrahi with Libyan officials.

The US source added that the capture in the past few days of Gaddafi's son Saif and of Abdullah al-Sanussi, former Libyan chief of internal security, had powerful implications for Megrahi's future. Both are set to stand trial in Libya.

A Scottish Government spokesman said it did not comment on hypothetical scenarios but added: 'Scotland’s Justice Secretary granted compassionate release to Megrahi according to the due process of Scots Law.

'The fact remains that Megrahi has a terminal illness, is an extremely sick man dying of prostate cancer and continues to abide by the terms of his release licence.

'There has been no breach of licence conditions and therefore the issue of recall does not arise.'

Terrorists on Trial: The Lockerbie Case

2011-11-25T09:10:00.001Z

[This was the title of a seminar held at The Hague on 23 November 2011. The principal speakers were Judge Howard Morrison (Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia); Scottish QC Paul McBride; and investigative journalist and Lockerbie author Ian Ferguson. The Sun newspaper yesterday published an article about Paul McBride "leading debate" at the seminar. In the audience were Lockerbie relatives Dr Jim Swire and Rev John Mosey. The comments that follow were provided by Dr Swire after the seminar.]

Colin Boyd, (who was Lord Advocate at the time of the trial) had been invited, and had accepted, but apparently declined to come when he heard that I would be there! Nice story anyway.

I liked McBride, we got on well, and he simply spouted old material on a Powerpoint set of slides provided to him by the Crown Office. He was not 'leading the debate', and had no fire in his belly I felt. We did not clash at all.

There were of course significant contributions from the floor.

The main discussion was supposed to centre on the consequences for communities served by the criminal justice system used. I was able to point out that:

1.) The Zeist set up was indeed theatrical and designed to encourage press and TV attendance, while the use of the 'relatives' lounge at Zeist by members of the prosecution team (never the defence) to groom American relatives into believing that they were hearing the truth emerging, and that 'the bastards who did this are going to go down for a very long time' has seriously damaged relations between the British and many of the US relatives.

2.) In the context of the effect on regimes I amplified a point raised by Hague research fellow, Dr Beatrice de Graaf concerning the question of the effect on the regimes which had hosted the real terrorists, ie Iran and Syria. Did the academics present think that absolution from accusation over Lockerbie might have emboldened those regimes through making them feel that the US would not retaliate against them? Could this, I asked have contributed to the position the world now finds itself in, where Iran has long range rockets, is on the brink of nuclear capability and has openly threatened to destroy America's protege Israel, while Assad in Syria seems to feel he can turn whatever force he likes upon his own people and not be stopped by the West.

But my main function there was to get to know the academics, judges, members of the ICC etc, and to distribute copies of the Davina Miller paper to them. I made sure that Paul McBride took one with him. [RB: The Davina Miller paper is an article to be published in the December 2011 issue of the journal Defence & Security Analysis. A synopsis of the article appears here (at pages 75 to 77 of the PDF document.]

Good may come of this.

Certainly a bevy of people some much younger than I am are now motivated to carry on raising questions, even if something should happen to me.

Lockerbie raised in the House of Lords

2011-11-25T08:35:00.001Z

[Two days ago I posted an item based on a news agency report about a question and answer on Lockerbie in the House of Lords. The full Hansard report of the exchange is now available. It reads as follows:]

Asked By Lord Selkirk of Douglas:

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. We will approach Libya's newly formed transitional Government about getting the Dumfries and Galloway police back to Libya at the earliest opportunity to take forward their investigations. The National Transitional Council chairman, Abdul Jalil, has assured my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate with the UK on this and other ongoing investigations.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: While I welcome the Minister's statement, does he believe that the recent capture of Colonel Gaddafi's intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, and of the intelligence archives in Tripoli, may finally provide the vital information that would assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries? I ask this question as one of the two former Ministers who were at the crime scene within a few hours and who met some of the relatives shortly afterwards. In order to bring closure to the families of 270 victims, is it not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what happened 23 years ago, and precisely what the background was to this monstrous crime?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Yes, it is desirable and yes, indeed, it was the most monstrous crime. We are seeking confirmation from the Libyan Government regarding the reported detention of Abdullah al-Senussi. We have been clear that no effort should be spared in bringing him to justice. Al-Senussi's arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime's dreadful crimes. As I just said, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the bombing. We would want any new evidence to be made available to it and indeed to the Lord Advocate. I am confident that the new Libyan Government will act in accordance with Chairman Jalil's commitment to co-operate with the UK on this and other investigations, and bring closure to the concerns and misery of the families of the victims.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it would also shed light on this matter if the report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission were published in full, so far as is possible?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Of course, there has been the report of Sir Gus O'Donnell. It has been placed in the Library and it was fully discussed when it was produced some weeks ago. Further light needs to be shed on this and I am confident that, with the full assistance of the new Libyan Government, we will get the papers and the evidence to show exactly what was said and by whom.

Lord Empey: My Lords, can the Minister tell us that in addition to pursuing the issue of Lockerbie, the Government will rigorously and vigorously pursue the issue of compensation for all UK victims who were damaged by weapons supplied to the IRA by the Gaddafi regime and that the Government themselves will lead those negotiations rather than leaving them to third parties?

Lord Howell of Guildford: At present we are looking at all possible options with the Libyan Government to get a resolution on the legacy issues, including this one, which is certainly a very high priority. It is very early days for the new Libyan Government as they have only just been appointed, but we want to see a broad proposal for embracing questions of compensation, reconciliation and, indeed, investment in Northern Ireland. We are trying to develop a broad approach with, and led by, the Libyan Government.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is utterly natural and inevitable that parliaments the world over should seek to have as much light as possible cast upon the perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing? However, technically speaking, a request should be made formally by the Scottish Parliament themselves-bearing in mind, of course, the transfer of jurisdiction in relation to that. As for this Parliament, could the same principle not also apply to casting light upon those who were responsible for the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher?

Lord Howell of Guildford: On the second point about WPC Yvonne Fletcher, that is most certainly so. We are in touch with the Metropolitan Police about reopening their investigations into the perpetrators of that hideous crime. On the former question, the decision was made by the devolved Scottish Government and it is a matter for them to pursue. We have indicated that the Government in London will give full assistance to the devolved Government in pursuing their inquiries.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us about the state of health of Mr Al Megrahi, who was released by the Scottish authorities on the grounds that he had only six months to live?

Lord Howell of Guildford: We have passed a request from the devolved Administration to the Libyan chargé d'affaires in London asking that the supervision arrangements of Al Megrahi's licence are observed. Part of the investigation by the Dumfries and Galloway police will also embrace the question of his condition, but we are awaiting the precise details of his health from the Libyan Government now.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Does the Minister accept that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request to the National Transitional Council and that a statement has been issued by the Crown Office to the effect that the trial court of Mr Al Megrahi accepted that he did not act alone?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am not sure that I can comment on my noble friend's second point, but it is certainly correct that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request, and indeed has made that absolutely clear to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. We are collaborating closely on this.

Libya may investigate Lockerbie

2011-11-24T09:19:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]

The new Libyan government may run its own investigation into the Lockerbie bombing, once unseen documents emerge, the country’s interior minister said yesterday.

The ousting of Muammar al-Gaddafi has presented an opportunity to bring to light thousands of documents lying in the coffers of the institutions of the former regime.

The papers may contain evidence that could finally bring to justice those responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, an atrocity in which 270 people died.

Fawzi Abdul Aal, appointed to the role of interior minister on Tuesday, said: “If there are new documents on Lockerbie, we will start an internal investigation. It may be possible to re-open the case and show the truth. My desire is to show the truth.”

However, Mr Aal refused to commit to making any documentation public.

“This is a complicated issue … the decision of whether to reveal the documents must come from the Cabinet,” he said. “This is an issue that affects America and Britain, and Scotland, and the decision must come from other powers, not just the ministry.”

There were conflicting reports yesterday that Gaddafi’s intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi, who is thought to have been behind the Lockerbie bombing, had been captured.

The Libyan Transitional Council announced this week that rebel brigades had captured Senussi in southern Libya.

But members of the local brigades cast doubt on the announcement. “We are in the area where he is, we are searching house-to-house but he has not yet been found,” said one fighter.

International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in Tripoli yesterday he did not believe Senussi had been captured.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, thought to have been recruited by Senussi, was jailed for the atrocity in 2001 but was released in 2009 on compassionate grounds after being given three months to live. He is still alive.

Tripoli mission for Lockerbie police

2011-11-24T08:38:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

Scottish detectives could soon be in Tripoli to sift through undisclosed evidence that might shed new light on the Lockerbie bombing, 23 years after Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity took place.

Members of the House of Lords were told yesterday that the UK Government was “collaborating closely” with Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s request to Libya’s National Transitional Government (NTC) for evidence relating to the 1988 terrorist attack – which theoretically raises the prospect of a new trial – and, in addition, its ministers were seeking an update on the health of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. During the recent uprising, he was said to be at “death’s door”.

During questions in the upper chamber, Lord Howell, the Foreign Office Minister, said: “The Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary’s investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. We will approach Libya’s newly formed transitional Government about getting the police back to Libya at the earliest opportunity to take forward their investigations. The NTC chairman, Abdul Jalil, has assured the Prime Minister that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate with the UK on this and other on-going investigations.”

Lord Selkirk of Douglas asked if the recent capture of Colonel Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Abdullah al Senussi, and the intelligence archives in Tripoli “may finally provide the vital information which will assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries”.

The Conservative peer, who was a Scottish Office minister at the time of the bombing, asked that in order to bring closure to the families of the 270 victims was it “not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what it was that happened 23 years ago and, precisely, what was the background to this monstrous crime”.

Lord Howell said: “Senussi’s arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime’s dreadful crimes.”

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has said Megrahi could not be extradited to the US because it would breach the conditions of his licence. [RB: This is true, of course, but I was not aware that the Scottish Government had actually said so.]

Hope for Lockerbie bombing truth

2011-11-23T18:27:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the Herald Scotland website from The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]

The reported capture of the man thought to be behind the Lockerbie bombing gives the UK an opportunity to discover the truth about some of the crimes of the former Libyan regime, a Foreign Office minister says.

Lord Howell of Guildford said that no effort should be spared in bringing former intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi to justice.

At question time in the House of Lords, Lord Selkirk of Douglas [RB: formerly Lord James Douglas-Hamilton], a former Scotland minister who was on the scene of the Lockerbie bombing within hours of it taking place, said the capture of Al-Senussi and intelligence archives could "finally provide the information that would assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries". (...)

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, thought to have been recruited by Al-Senussi, was jailed for mass murder in 2001 but was returned to Tripoli in 2009 on compassionate grounds after doctors treating him for prostate cancer gave him an estimated three months to live. He is still alive.

Conservative peer Lord Selkirk asked Lord Howell: "In order to bring closure for the families of the 270 dead victims, is it not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what it was that happened 23 years ago and precisely what was the background to this monstrous crime?"

Lord Howell replied that the Government was seeking "confirmation" about Al-Senussi's "reported detention".

"We have been clear that no effort should be spared in bringing him to justice," he said.

"Abdullah al-Senussi's arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime's dreadful crimes.

"The Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's investigation into the bombing. We would want any new evidence to be made available to them and to the Lord Advocate."

Answer to PQ about extradition of Megrahi to USA

2011-11-23T10:31:00.001Z

[On 11 November 2011 Christine Grahame MSP tabled a written question. Here is the question and the answer:]

Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (Scottish National Party): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the (a) Cabinet Secretary for Justice or (b) Lord Advocate had received any communication from the (i) US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, (ii) Home Office or (iii) interim Libyan government concerning proposals to extradite Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to the USA. (S4W-04021)

Mr Kenny MacAskill: The Scottish Government have not received any communication from the United States Government, the Libyan National Transitional Council or the Home Office, concerning proposals to extradite Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to the USA.

[If Mr Megrahi were to be extradited to the United States, this would place him (without any voluntary action on his part) in breach of the terms of the licence under which he was released from his Scottish life sentence. I understand that in the new Libyan cabinet announced yesterday Mohammed al-Alagi remains justice minister. He has in the past said that there was no question of any such extradition.]

Abdullah al-Senussi and Lockerbie

2011-11-21T08:59:00.001Z

[The following is an excerpt from a report in today's edition of The Herald:]

Muammar Gaddafi’s brother-in-law and spymaster general was dramatically captured yesterday, just a day after the dictator’s son Saif was caught, in what were dubbed the “last acts” of a now-extinct regime.

Having both men in custody will boost hopes that they will reveal what they know about the Lockerbie bombing and other atrocities.

The last stand of intelligence chief Abdullah al Senussi came as Libyan rebels insisted they would try Saif rather than transfer him to International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague. Unlike the ICC, it is expected a Libyan court would have the power to impose the death penalty, and officials in the interim government yesterday indicated that was the punishment they would seek.

It is likely the rebels will also push for the death penalty for al Senussi, long known as Gaddafi’s brutal right-hand man and a hate figure for many in the country. (...)

A decade ago he was convicted in his absence in France of the 1989 bombing of a UTA passenger plane over Niger which killed 170 people. As a former head of the country’s intelligence services he is likely to face pressure to reveal what he knows about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people in died the worst terrorist atrocity over UK soil.

[A similar report in The Scotsman can be read here. The following appears in a post of 17 May 2011 on this blog:]

In the 1980s, he headed Libya's external security organisation, in which capacity he was said to have recruited Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people were killed. Like Megrahi, Senussi is a member of the powerful Megarha tribe. He is also a cousin of Abdel-Salam Jalloud, one of Gaddafi's oldest comrades.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and Lockerbie

2011-11-20T08:15:00.001Z

[The following are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Sunday Telegraph:]

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was his father's favourite son. Until the start of the Libyan revolution, he was also feted by the West, as the arch-moderniser who would supposedly guide the oil and gas rich north African country along the path of democracy.

He was influential in his father's decision to give up weapons of mass destruction that brought Libya in from the cold in 2004 and helped to negotiate the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish jail in 2009.

Saif's extensive contacts included the Duke of York, Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson. (...)

By about 2002, he was becoming a regular visitor to London and within a year is said to have fixed up a meeting between the Libyan regime and MI6 that would lead to Libya's public abandonment of its nuclear and chemical weapons programme, paving the way for Tony Blair to embrace Muammar Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent in March 2004 – the now infamous "deal in the desert". (...)

He was hugely influential in controlling the Libyan Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund with billions of pounds to spend in the UK and elsewhere.

The fund was used as leverage to secure the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

Saif and others let it be known that if al-Megrahi died of cancer in a British jail, then all business deals with the UK would be cancelled. Saif was entrusted with accompanying Megrahi back to Tripoli for a hero's welcome.

[An article written by Saif in The New York Times about this supposed "hero's welcome" can be read here.

A report in The Sunday Times (behind the paywall) contains the following:]

His trial could prove deeply embarrassing if he chooses to reveal details of his once-cosy relations with British politicians including Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, the former business secretary.

Mohammed al-Alagi, Libya’s interim justice minister, said yesterday that Gadaffi will be placed on trial in Libya and faces the death penalty.

With little to lose, Gadaffi may decide from his desert prison in Zintan to spill the beans on business deals and political promises made to the regime over the past decade.

Blair, who was described by Gadaffi Jr as a close personal friend of the family, may face searching questions if Gadaffi goes ahead and reveals the secrets of their deals including oil contracts and the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber.

Gadaffi was his father’s point man on the settlement of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 which killed 270 people. His detailed knowledge of the negotiations that involved British diplomats and Musa Kusa, his father’s chief of intelligence, could prove explosive. The questions of who knew what, and who did what, have never been answered.(...)

Blair, Prince Andrew, Mandelson and the Rothschild banking family are among those who could be cited by Gadaffi in court.

They were among Establishment figures who courted him in the belief that Libya would pursue a reformist agenda while lucrative business contracts were on the agenda. Among the secrets he could unlock are the machinations that may have gone on under the former Labour government ahead of the release of Megrahi.

Gadaffi Jr greeted Megrahi’s flight from Glasgow to Tripoli when he was freed by the Scottish authorities on “humanitarian” grounds in August 2009. [RB: Saif did not greet the flight. He was on board it.] Megrahi is still alive even though doctors claimed he would die within three months from cancer.

The release happened after Blair’s notorious “deal in the desert” with Muammar Gadaffi paving the way for multi- million-pound oil contracts with Shell and BP.

Gadaffi Jr claimed that the former prime minister acted as a consultant to the Libyan Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund. Blair vehemently denies this. However, he has visited Libya at least six times since leaving office.

Five meetings with Muammar Gadaffi took place in the 14-month period prior to Megrahi’s release. On at least two occasions Blair flew on a private jet paid for by Gadaffi. But he denies influencing the Scottish government’s decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.

Just a week before Megrahi’s release, Mandelson discussed his case with Gadaffi Jr while on holiday at a villa in Corfu owned by the Rothschilds. Mandelson later met Gadaffi at a shooting party at Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire, the Rothschild family seat.

[The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (footnotes omitted):]

He was also negotiating with the United States in order to conclude a comprehensive agreement making any further payments for American victims of terror attacks that have been blamed on Libya – such as the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing – conditional upon U.S. payment of compensation for the 40 Libyans killed and 220 injured in the 1986 United States bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi. On 14 August 2008, the U.S.-Libya Comprehensive Claims Settlement Agreement was signed in Tripoli. Former British Ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles described the agreement as "a bold step, with political cost for both parties" and wrote an article in the online edition of The Guardian querying whether the agreement is likely to work.

In an August 2008 BBC TV interview, Saif Gaddafi said that Libya had admitted responsibility (but not "guilt") for the Lockerbie bombing simply to get trade sanctions removed. He further admitted that Libya was being "hypocritical" and was "playing on words", but Libya had no other choice on the matter. According to Saif, a letter admitting "responsibility" was the only way to end the economic sanctions imposed on Libya. When asked about the compensation that Libya was paying to the victims' families, he again repeated that Libya was doing so because it had no other choice. He went on to describe the families of the Lockerbie victims as "trading with the blood of their sons and daughters" and being very "greedy": "They were asking for more money and more money and more money".

Interviewed by French newspaper Le Figaro on 7 December 2007, Saif said that the seven Libyans convicted for the Pan Am Flight 103 and the UTA Flight 772 bombings "are innocent". When asked if Libya would therefore seek reimbursement of the compensation paid to the families of the victims (US$2.33 billion), Saif replied: "I don't know." Saif led negotiations with Britain for the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the convicted Pan Am 103 conspirator.

The Carloway Review and the SCCRC

2011-11-17T12:01:00.001Z

[Lord Carloway's review of criminal procedure and practice following the Cadder decision and the Scottish Parliament's emergency legislation that followed it has today been published. It can be read here. The principal concern that I had about the emergency legislation related to the "need for finality and certainty" restriction which section 7 imposed upon the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission before a reference could be made to the High Court of Justiciary of a prima facie miscarriage of justice; and, more importantly, the gatekeeping power that it conferred on the High Court to refuse, on the basis of the "need for finality and certainty", to hear a case so referred. Lord Carloway has recommended that the restriction imposed on the SCCRC should be retained; but that the High Court gatekeeping power should be repealed. He has, however, proposed that the test to be applied in determining, after hearing a case referred by the SCCRC, whether the appeal should be allowed should be that (a) there has been a miscarriage of justice; and (b) it is in the interests of justice that the appeal be allowed. I may say that I personally find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which a court of justice worthy of the name could find that there has been a miscarriage of justice, but that it is not in the interests of justice to rectify it.

The relevant section of the Carloway Report reads as follows (footnotes omitted):]

8.2.8 Because of the concern that Cadder might result in a flood of applications to the SCCRC and consequent references to the court, many of which, on one view, would have resulted in the quashing of the relative convictions, the 2010 Act expanded on the interests of justice element in the test to be applied by the SCCRC by providing that: "In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made, the Commission must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings".The intention was to ensure that, when assessing an application, the SCCRC would be bound to take into account the dictum in Arbour Hill Prison relative to "spent" cases (i.e. those where the time limits for an appeal had expired or the appeal, or application for leave to appeal, had been refused).

8.2.9 It was perceived that there would remain a problem if, nevertheless, the SCCRC did refer "spent" cases. As already noted, the High Court would not be able to take "the interests of justice" into account. Its role would be restricted to determining whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred in the particular trial process. For this reason, the 2010 Act introduced another provision whereby:"(1) Where the Commission has referred a case to the High Court under section 194B of this Act, the High Court may, despite section 194B(1), reject the reference if the Court considers that it is not in the interests of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed.(2) In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed, the High Court must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings".The amendments made by the 2010 Act were designed specifically to deal with cases where an applicant to the SCCRC, who had not appealed his/her conviction or had had his/her appeal or application for leave to appeal refused, sought to raise a Cadder point, even although the law was as stated in McLean at the time of his/her appeal and/or trial.

8.2.10 The amendments made by the 2010 Act apply to all SCCRC references and not just to those raising Cadder points. They give to the High Court a gate-keeping role, relative to the interests of justice, which formerly rested only with the SCCRC. Whereas, previously, the sole concern of the High Court was whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred in the trial process, it now extends to whether the Court considers that a reference ought to have been made "in the interests of justice" having regard, potentially, to a wide range of circumstances, including the reasons why the High Court might previously have refused leave to appeal late or treated an earlier appeal as abandoned.

8.2.11 This gate-keeping role has to be performed by the High Court at a preliminary (procedural) hearing in advance of any full hearing on the merits of the reference. Although the power to reject a reference has not yet been exercised, it might be envisaged that the High Court may refuse to entertain a reference in circumstances where, if an application for a late appeal were to have been made, it would have refused to grant such an application. Equally, it might refuse a reference, if it had already refused to entertain a late appeal and there was no change in circumstances. There may be cases in which the SCCRC and the High Court could reach a different decision on where the interests of justice may lie.

Consideration
8.2.12 There are three main questions to answer: first, is it appropriate that there should be a specific requirement for the SCCRC to consider finality and certainty in deciding whether to refer and, if so, should other aspects of the "interest of justice" test be similarly specified; secondly, should the High Court's "gatekeeping role", provided for in the 2010 Act, be continued; and thirdly, are there any other ways in which finality and certainty, or the wider interests of justice, should be considered in the reference or appellate processes?SCCRC and the "interests of justice"

8.2.13 The significance of the SCCRC is that it provides, by its very nature, an exception to the principle of finality in criminal proceedings. It has that role because it is recognised that, no matter how proficient the High Court may be in rooting out miscarriages of justice in the trial process, there are some, albeit few, cases, where the High Court has failed to do this or where facts have come to light to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice after the exhaustion of rights of appeal.

8.2.14 As has been highlighted elsewhere in this report, the effect of continued litigation on victims and relatives of deceased persons, as well as those convicted, should not be underestimated. Certainty and finality remain important considerations for any criminal justice system. As a generality, it is in the interests of all of those involved in a case, whether it be victims, witnesses or accused, that it reach a conclusion. It is important, for purposes of public perception, that cases do end and are not subject to repeated appeals or changes of decision.

8.2.15 The need for finality and certainty is reflected in the SCCRC being limited to referring cases where it can be said that it is in the interests of justice for the reference to be made. This element in the reference process must involve taking into account considerations wider than those raised in the particular application such as whether, despite his/her perception that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, an applicant decided not to appeal at the time or abandoned an appeal and effectively acquiesced in his/her conviction.

8.2.16 A SCCRC reference is an extraordinary process designed to deal with exceptional cases where something has gone wrong within the criminal justice system. But the form of process acknowledges that it is not enough to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred at the previous trial. A broader test, having regard to the wider interests of justice, must be applied before a case can be referred. It must take into account the dictum in Arbour Hill Prison, if the evidence adduced at trial was in accordance with the law then or at the appellate stage.

8.2.17 The Review accepts that, even in the absence of the new wording introduced by the 2010 Act, the SCCRC would normally have taken the principles of finality and certainty into account when applying the interests of justice test. The Review is confident that the SCCRC will continue to do so in the immediate future. But there have been instances in the past in which the High Court has not been entirely happy that the SCCRC has fully considered this aspect of a case. Retention of the new wording will ensure that it continues to be regarded as an important factor recognising, if it were not obvious, that the possibility of a miscarriage of justice having occurred in the trial process does not, of itself, mean that it is in the interests of justice that the relative conviction be quashed. This applies in all cases where a miscarriage of justice is alleged and not just in change of law situations.

8.2.18 The Review takes the point that, by specifying this particular aspect of the "interests of justice", the legislation may be seen as detracting from the importance of other elements. In this connection, the Review notes the terms of the SCCRC information leaflet, which make it a requirement that appeal procedures be exhausted. But the Review is confident that the SCCRC will continue to take into account all the other matters which it has customarily had regard to. It would be reluctant to recommend listing, in statutory form, other aspects of the interests of justice which might be taken into account and which could outweigh the occurrence of a miscarriage of justice at trial.

The High Court's "Gate-keeping Role"

8.2.19 The Review is acutely aware of the important role that the SCCRC plays in retaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. There is a perception that miscarriages of justice sometimes occur. That perception is well founded, even if it has to be put into a proper perspective relative to the total number of convictions recorded (approximately 140,000) and appeals marked (about 2000) in a given year. The SCCRC receives about 110 applications per annum and refers about 8 per annum to the appeal court. In conviction cases the SCCRC has referred 57 out of 1,000 cases since 1999. About two thirds of references result in convictions being quashed. Of course, there may be miscarriages which are neither complained of nor referred, but the figures do provide some illustration of the extent of any problem.

8.2.20 The fact that the High Court must consider a reference from the SCCRC is important in maintaining confidence in the SCCRC and thereby in the criminal justice system as a whole. Miscarriages of justice can arise for reasons not directly connected to the trial process. This is very often the case with "fresh" evidence claims. However, some miscarriages of justice arise as a result of the way in which a case has been dealt with by a trial or appellate court. It is unusual for the SCCRC to consider a case unless and until the applicant has either unsuccessfully appealed the decision at first instance or has been refused leave to appeal. Thus by the time an application is made to the SCCRC, the applicant, his/her friends, relatives and other supporters, may perceive that the Court is less than sympathetic to his/her position. This concern would be greater if the Court, when originally rejecting the applicant's appeal or refusing to grant leave to appeal, made negative comments about the merits of the grounds of complaint. If applicants were aware that, even if his/her case were to meet the criteria for a reference by the SCCRC, the Court could refuse to consider the reference in limine for reasons other than whether there was a miscarriage of justice, this may well deter them from applying to the SCCRC in the first place. If applicants are deterred from applying to the SCCRC because of that perception, this has a strong potential for undermining the important role of the SCCRC within the criminal justice system.

8.2.21 On the other hand, SCCRC references are not, or at least ought not to be, the same as appeals made in the ordinary manner. However egregious a potential miscarriage of justice may be, the SCCRC cannot refer the case to the High Court unless they also believe it would be in the interests of justice to do so. If the Court were to be allowed to consider the interests of justice test, all that it would be doing would be applying part of the same statutory test as that laid down by Parliament for making a reference in the first place. Of course, if the SCCRC apply the test appropriately, the Court should rarely have any basis upon which to reject a case on this ground. But if it is for the SCCRC to consider whether it is in the interests of justice to refer a case, then logically it may also be appropriate for the Court to consider such a test at least when determining the appeal. It is countered that, if the SCCRC does not appropriately consider the interests of justice, the Crown could elect to "judicially review" the reference. But introducing a civil process into this arena, and one involving an Outer House judge at least initially, may be seen as unnecessarily elaborate.

8.2.22 The case for maintaining a gatekeeping role for the High Court would have greater force if there were a perception that the SCCRC had a significant track record of frivolous or inappropriate references and it were thought that some further measure was required to bring greater discipline to their activities. The Review is content to note that there has been no suggestion from any source, nor is there any other reason to suppose, that this is the case. Indeed, it seems to be widely accepted that, despite the occasional lapse, the SCCRC has been a conspicuous success in discharging its duties conscientiously and responsibly.

8.2.23 The "flood" of referred cases that was feared following Cadder has not materialised. The Review understands that, in the period from the Cadder decision in October 2010 up until July 2011, there were thirty-eight applications to the SCCRC citing Cadder grounds. Added to fourteen similar applications made before Cadder was finally determined, this makes a total of fifty-two applications. Of these fifty-two applications, at least twenty-four have been fully processed by the SCCRC and none have been referred to the Court. It may be that a proportion of the remaining twenty-eight cases may result in references, but this cannot be said to be a deluge. The Review notes that more references may arise following Ambrose. However, the outcome of that case would suggest that they will be very few in number.

8.2.24 In all these circumstances, it is inappropriate for the Appeal Court to have a gate-keeping role in relation to references from the SCCRC because of the effect which such a role could have relative to the function committed by Parliament to the SCCRC. That new provision of the 1995 Act ought to be repealed.

References to the High Court
8.2.25 In references, there are wider considerations than exist in an ordinary appeal process, when the Court is generally only reviewing the proceedings in the trial court, although fresh evidence may also have an impact. By the time a reference is made, there may also have been a previous conscious decision by an applicant not to appeal, or not to do so on particular grounds. He/she may have abandoned an appeal or expressly departed from one or more grounds. There may have been a decision to refuse an applicant leave to appeal late either because of the absence of any arguable grounds or on the merits of the application as framed. In a reference, it may transpire that there is "fresh" evidence on both sides. Rather than continuing the process by, for example, ordering a re-trial, it may be more appropriate for the Court to be able to bring matters to a conclusion in a reference by considering, in whatever order it deems appropriate in the particular case, but after a final hearing, whether: (a) there has been a miscarriage of justice in the trial process; and (b) it is also in the interests of justice that the appeal be allowed. The law might thereby be advanced in so far as the Court can determine in appropriate cases what wider considerations of justice might result in a conviction being sustained, notwithstanding the finding of a material miscarriage in the original trial or appeal proceedings. Such a determination may assist the SCCRC when considering the interests of justice in subsequent applications.

[A related article in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm headlined "Carloway Review and Pan Am 103: joining the dots" can be read here.]

Lockerbie petition continues

2011-11-14T09:10:00.001Z

[This is the headline over an article in the current edition of Holyrood, a magazine devoted to Scottish politics and the Scottish Parliament. It reads in part:]

MSPs have decided that a petition calling for an inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing will remain open.

It is difficult to tell whether it is a development of any major significance. Is it simply a minor piece of bureaucracy being allowed to limp through Parliament before it fizzles out or can it really help pave the way for a genuine review of the case to take place?

Members of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee voted six to three last week to allow the petition to come back to them at a later date. (...)

The petition was brought by the Justice for Megrahi group, which includes the father of one of the victims.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died on flight Pan Am 103, insists Megrahi is innocent of the crime.

The [petitioners] said: “It is time for the government of Scotland to show real independence by standing up to the UK and US governments and other vested interests and instituting an open and accountable judicial inquiry that would at last free the people of Scotland and the relatives of those lost in that terrible tragedy 22 years ago.”

Committee convener, MSP Christine Grahame (SNP), said the petition should be kept open “until all the parts of the legislative jigsaw come together”.

She added that there was unfinished business in relation to Lockerbie events, including the unpublished conclusions of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which said Megrahi may have been a miscarriage of justice victim.

Four years ago, the SCCRC published an investigation into Megrahi’s initial trial and appeal.

It listed several points which could challenge the original conviction.

A ruling has meant that the SSCRC statement of reasons cannot be made public unless everybody concerned, for instance, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, consent.

In the run-up to May’s Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP insisted it would produce a bill to ensure publication of the SCCRC report.

This has still to occur – but when it does, many will ask why the Government did not push to have this done earlier.

It is the biggest criminal trial in Scottish legal history and it has worldwide implications.

The number of people who seem convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Megrahi’s guilt seem to be falling into a small minority.

Later this week, Lord Carloway will publish a year-long review into the Scottish criminal justice system – an exercise that the Scottish Government insists will ensure the country can continue to boast a legal system that is underpinned by fairness and decency.

It becomes increasingly difficult to tell what reputation the Scottish legal system will continue to enjoy while so many questions central to the country’s most important criminal case remain unanswered.

Twenty years on

2011-11-14T08:22:00.001Z

[Here is a post from this blog dated one year ago today:]

It was on 14 November 1991 that the prosecution authorities in Scotland (the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC) and the United States (acting US Attorney General, William Barr) simultaneously announced that they had brought criminal charges -- principally murder and conspiracy to murder -- arising out of the destruction of Pan Am 103 against two Libyan nationals, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah, who were alleged to be members, and to have been acting throughout as agents, of the Libyan intelligence service.

According to the Scottish and American prosecutors, what had happened was this. The two Libyans had manufactured, or caused to be manufactured, a bomb using a Toshiba cassette recorder, Semtex explosive and a digital electric timer (supplied and manufactured by a Swiss company based in Zurich, MeBo AG, the principals of which were Erwin Meister and Edwin Bollier). The device had been placed in a brown Samsonite suitcase in Malta, along with items of clothing purchased for the purpose from a particular shop (Mary's House) in Sliema owned by the Gauci family. Using stolen Air Malta luggage tags, the Libyans (one of whom -- Fhimah -- had occupied the post of station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta) introduced the suitcase at Luqa Airport into the interline baggage system as unaccompanied luggage on Air Malta Flight KM 180 from Malta to Frankfurt, with directions for its onward transmission (first) on to a feeder flight (PA 103A) to Heathrow and (second) on to Pan Am flight 103 from Heathrow to J F Kennedy Airport in New York.

[The US grand jury indictment announced by the acting Attorney General is the basis of the current US contention that Megrahi should be extradited from Libya to the United States. This, of course, blithely ignores UN Security Council Resolution 1192 and the Zeist trial at which two US Justice Department lawyers formed part of the Lord Advocate's prosecution team.

In this context the following Written Question to the Scottish Government should be noted:]

Question S4W-04021 - Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (Scottish National Party) (Date Lodged 11/11/2011) :

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the (a) Cabinet Secretary for Justice or (b) Lord Advocate had received any communication from the (i) US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, (ii) Home Office or (iii) interim Libyan government concerning proposals to extradite Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to the USA.

Libya will not allow US to try Megrahi

2011-11-13T16:08:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a section of a report in the Scottish edition of today's Sunday Express. It reads as follows:]

The new Libyan government will not extradite the Lockerbie bomber for a second trial in the United States, senior officials in Malta claimed yesterday.

Dr Tonio Borg, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malta, said he applauded the National Transitional Council (NCT) for “standing up” to pressure from Washington to extradite Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

His comments contradict recent reports that NTC information minister Mahmoud Shammam claimed Megrahi had lost his special protection. He said: “Basically, we don’t care what happens to him."

Dr Borg, who is also a veteran of talks with his North African neighbours, said: “Of course, if there is an extradition request this has to be processed.

“But the possibility that this would run counter to the double jeopardy rule is real unless the request is based on completely new charges.”

Sources at the State Department in Washington say talks with the NTC are ongoing and a “formal approach” for extradition is being prepared.

SNP ministers 'wanted bomber out of the way'

2011-11-13T15:37:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a report in the Scottish edition of today's Sunday Express. It reads in part:]

Scottish Ministers last night angrily deniedextraordinary claims from a sacked SNP adviser that the Lockerbiebomber had been released for “political” reasons – and not ongrounds of ill health.

Mark Hirst claims First Minister Alex Salmond andJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had already decided to freeAbdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi before the application for aprisoner transfer from Libya was even received.

Mr Hirst, who was sacked as Christine Grahame’ssenior political adviser in September, is embroiled in anincreasingly bitter row with his former employer. (...)

Writing online yesterday [RB: in a commenton this blog], Mr Hirst said: “MacAskill made the decision...BEFORE his defence team or Libyan officials had made any applicationto have him returned.

“He didn’t do this because he felt any realsense of compassion, or for any commercial reasons as the Americanshave stated, but because MacAskill believed it was politicallyexpedient. Fair to say neither he or anyone expected the media furorethat followed.

“For Scottish Ministers the bottom line wasthis; they were determined to uphold, as they saw it, the integrityof the Scottish legal system... whether or not it deserved it.

“Ensuring Megrahi was out the way and sent backto Libya, his appeal dropped, was critical to achieving thatobjective.”

Mr Hirst also claimed that Ms Grahame – who wasa vocal supporter of Megrahi and believed he had suffered amiscarriage of justice – had now “backed off” from thecampaign.

So far, she has not used her position as Convenerof the Justice Committee to push for a Scottish Government inquiryinto the 1988 bombing.

Mr Hirst wrote: “Grahame said she could not,for political reasons, push Scottish Ministers fully on this.

‘Thereis only so far I can go,’ she told me and added that we shouldcontinue to try to divert and focus calls for an inquiry on the UKGovernment instead, knowing fine well they will never hold one.”

Megrahi, 59, is the only man ever convicted of thebombing in 1988. After being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer,he was freed on compassionate grounds just days after dropping anappeal against his conviction – which many believe to have beenflawed.

Colonel Gaddafi’s regime had also applied for aprisoner transfer, under a deal agreed with Tony Blair’s governmentas part of talks that also saw BP win lucrative oil deals.

Mr MacAskill’s spokesman said last night: “Thisis complete and absolute nonsense, from an individual in no positionto know anything about these matters. There were two applications forrelease – one on compassionate grounds, and another for prisonertransfer. The Justice Secretary rejected the prisoner transferapplication.

“In every regard, the Scottish Government actedwithout any consideration of the economic, political and diplomaticfactors that the then UK Labour Government based its hypocriticalposition in favour of release on.”

... the prosecution case in the Lockerbie trial was itself a conspiracy theory

2011-11-13T11:32:00.001Z

[The following are excerpts relating to Lockerbie from a long essay entitled "Who said Gaddafi had to go?" by Hugh Roberts in the 17 November 2011 edition of the London Review of Books. The whole essay merits close study. I am grateful to regular blog commentator Vronsky for drawing it to my attention.]

As early as 1987 he was experimenting with liberalisation: allowing private trading, reining in the Revolutionary Committees and reducing their powers, allowing Libyans to travel to neighbouring countries, returning confiscated passports, releasing hundreds of political prisoners, inviting exiles to return with assurances that they would not be persecuted, and even meeting opposition leaders to explore the possibility of reconciliation while acknowledging that serious abuses had occurred and that Libya lacked the rule of law. These reforms implied a shift towards constitutional government, the most notable elements being Gaddafi’s proposals for the codification of citizens’ rights and punishable crimes, which were meant to put an end to arbitrary arrests. This line of development was cut short by the imposition of international sanctions in 1992 in the wake of the Lockerbie bombing: a national emergency that reinforced the regime’s conservative wing and ruled out risky reform for more than a decade. It was only in 2003-4, after Tripoli had paid a massive sum in compensation to the bereaved families in 2002 (having already surrendered Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhima for trial in 1999), that sanctions were lifted, at which point a new reforming current headed by Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam emerged within the regime. (...)

Since February, it has been relentlessly asserted that the Libyan government was responsible both for the bombing of a Berlin disco on 5 April 1986 and the Lockerbie bombing on 21 December 1988. News of Gaddafi’s violent end was greeted with satisfaction by the families of the American victims of Lockerbie, understandably full of bitterness towards the man they have been assured by the US government and the press ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103. But many informed observers have long wondered about these two stories, especially Lockerbie. Jim Swire, the spokesman of UK Families Flight 103, whose daughter was killed in the bombing, has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the official version. Hans Köchler, an Austrian jurist appointed by the UN as an independent observer at the trial, expressed concern about the way it was conducted (notably about the role of two US Justice Department officials who sat next to the Scottish prosecuting counsel throughout and appeared to be giving them instructions). Köchler described al-Megrahi’s conviction as ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice’. Swire, who also sat through the trial, subsequently launched the Justice for Megrahi campaign. In a resumé of Gaddafi’s career shown on BBC World Service Television on the night of 20 October, John Simpson stopped well short of endorsing either charge, noting of the Berlin bombing that ‘it may or may not have been Colonel Gaddafi’s work,’ an honest formula that acknowledged the room for doubt. Of Lockerbie he remarked cautiously that Libya subsequently ‘got the full blame’, a statement that is quite true.

It is often claimed by British and American government personnel and the Western press that Libya admitted responsibility for Lockerbie in 2003-4. This is untrue. As part of the deal with Washington and London, which included Libya paying $2.7 billion to the 270 victims’ families, the Libyan government in a letter to the president of the UN Security Council stated that Libya ‘has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103, and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials’. That this formula was agreed in negotiations between the Libyan and British (if not also American) governments was made clear when it was echoed word for word by Jack Straw in the House of Commons. The formula allowed the government to give the public the impression that Libya was indeed guilty, while also allowing Tripoli to say that it had admitted nothing of the kind. The statement does not even mention al-Megrahi by name, much less acknowledge his guilt or that of the Libyan government, and any self-respecting government would sign up to the general principle that it is responsible for the actions of its officials. Tripoli’s position was spelled out by the prime minister, Shukri Ghanem, on 24 February 2004 on the Today programme: he made it clear that the payment of compensation did not imply an admission of guilt and explained that the Libyan government had ‘bought peace’.

The standards of proof underpinning Western judgments of Gaddafi’s Libya have not been high. The doubt over the Lockerbie trial verdict has encouraged rival theories about who really ordered the bombing, which have predictably been dubbed ‘conspiracy theories’. But the prosecution case in the Lockerbie trial was itself a conspiracy theory. And the meagre evidence adduced would have warranted acquittal on grounds of reasonable doubt, or, at most, the ‘not proven’ verdict that Scottish law allows for, rather than the unequivocally ‘guilty’ verdict brought in, oddly, on one defendant but not the other. I do not claim to know the truth of the Lockerbie affair, but the British are slow to forgive the authors of atrocities committed against them and their friends. So I find it hard to believe that a British government would have fallen over itself as it did in 2003-5 to welcome Libya back into the fold had it really held Gaddafi responsible. And in view of the number of Scottish victims of the bombing, it is equally hard to believe that SNP politicians would have countenanced al-Megrahi’s release if they believed the guilty verdict had been sound. The hypothesis that Libya and Gaddafi and al-Megrahi were framed is to be taken very seriously indeed. And if it were the case, it would follow that the greatly diminished prospect of reform from 1989 onwards as the regime battened down the hatches to weather international sanctions, the material suffering of the Libyan people during this period, and the aggravation of internal conflict (notably the Islamist terrorist campaign waged by the LIFG between 1995 and 1998) can all in some measure be laid at the West’s door.

[Another important London Review of Books article from September 2009 "The framing of al-Megrahi" by Gareth Peirce can be found here.]

MacAskill stands by Megrahi conviction "until such time as that matter were to be reviewed"

2011-11-11T15:28:00.001Z

[What follows is an excerpt from a report published this afternoon by The Press Association news agency:]

A senior Scottish Government minister has backed Justice Committee convenor Christine Grahame amid allegations that she made sectarian remarks.

The Electoral Commission is investigating the allegations made by Mark Hirst, a former senior political advisor in her office.

She faced calls by Labour MSP Michael McMahon to "consider her position on the Justice Committee until such times as any investigation into this matter has been completed".

However, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said Ms Grahame has "rebutted these matters firmly" and the allegations should be viewed "with the contempt they deserve".

Mr MacAskill also said he will stand by the conviction of the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing "until such time as that matter were to be reviewed". (...)

Ms Grahame is also a member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign.

Earlier this week, she spearheaded calls to continue a petition by the group calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for his role in the Lockerbie bombing, which killed 270 people in 1988.

[Further details can be found here on the Herald Scotland website.

It lies, of course, within the powers of the government of which Kenny MacAskill is a member to have the matter of Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction reviewed. That is precisely what is sought in the petition currently before the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament and is precisely what the Scottish Government has been assiduously obstructing.

The Official Report of Tuesday's meeting of the Justice Committee at which the petition was discussed can be read here (at pages 11 to 15 of the PDF document).]

Drugs 'keep Lockerbie bomber alive'

2011-11-10T21:20:00.001Z

[This is the headline over a report published today by The Press Association news agency following an appearance by Dr Karol Sikora on the BBC Daily Politics programme. It reads as follows:]

A cancer expert who examined the Lockerbie bomber in prison has said he is being kept alive by "experimental drugs".

Professor Karol Sikora said that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was being given medication not available on the NHS.

Megrahi was controversially freed from prison on compassionate grounds more than two years ago after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

He was said to be three months from death when he was released from Greenock prison on August 20 2009 following a decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

Megrahi returned to Libya upon his release. Cancer expert Prof Sikora was asked by the Libyan government to provide an independent medical assessment of Megrahi and visited him in prison in July that year.

On the BBC Daily Politics show, he was asked: "You did the health assessment of al-Megrahi giving him three months to live or thereabouts. He is still alive. How has he managed to survive so long more than two years later?"

He replied: "He has been on experimental drugs, including one that was developed in the UK and is not available on the NHS, which is quite ironic." He added: "My opinion wasn't taken into account by the Scottish Government. Nine doctors looked at it and they all said three months. They were using standard NHS practice in Glasgow in 2008, 2009."

Megrahi is the only person to have been convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270 people.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Mr al-Megrahi is an extremely sick man, dying of terminal prostate cancer. He was released on compassionate grounds based on the recommendations of the Parole Board, the prison governor and the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service's most senior health professional, Dr Andrew Fraser.

"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity and he concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three-month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish health service professionals involved in al-Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008."

[During most of my tenure of office as Professor of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh, law and medicine students graduated in the same ceremony. The medical graduands were required to swear an oath to the effect, inter alia, that things learned about patients in the course of medical practice would not, save for weighty cause, be divulged. Dr Sikora is not an Edinburgh graduate.]

Justice not served: Those involved with Pan Am Flight 103 still troubled by al-Megrahi’s release

2011-11-09T09:48:00.002Z

[This is the headline over a long report in today's edition of The Daily Orange, the newspaper of Syracuse University, New Jersey, thirty-five of whose students died on Pan Am 103. It contains quotes from Frank Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc (not himself a Lockerbie relative), Susan Cohen (mother of one of the Syracuse students) and Brian Murtagh, a US Justice Department prosecutor at the time who worked on the case and, indeed, formed part of the Lord Advocate's prosecution team in the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. The views of Mr Duggan and Mrs Cohen are well known. I therefore confine myself to reproducing the sections relating to Mr Murtagh (wrongly given as "Murtaugh" in the article itself).]

The Scottish and U.S. governments worked to study evidence from the site of the bombing, said Brian Murtaugh, then a Justice Department prosecutor. Pieces of cloth, metal from the aircraft and the remains of the suitcase that held the bomb were recovered, he said. A storekeeper in Malta said he sold the clothes that were recovered from the site to al-Megrahi. A double agent stepped forward with testimony, although Murtaugh said it was later discovered that the witness exaggerated his involvement. (...)

Murtaugh, who worked on the case for more than two decades, said if al-Megrahi had been tried in the United States, it would have been less likely for him to be released on compassionate grounds.

"A life sentence in the federal system means a life sentence," he said.

Through all the conflict, as well as the confusion of a foreign legal system, families of the victims wanted to be involved. The Justice Department funded flights to Scotland and provided access to al-Megrahi and Fhimah's trial, and closed-circuit televisions were set up in New York. (...)

After 23 years, the case remains open. Few have details on how the crime was orchestrated. Gadhafi died at the hands of his own people in October and al-Megrahi still claims his innocence.

The Scottish and U.S. governments continue to investigate the case with the hope of finding more people involved. Someone had to make the bomb; someone else must have delivered it, Murtaugh said.

Closure may be impossible, he said, but people still want to know what happened.

"Trials are an imperfect vehicle to bring justice in a sense of making the victims whole," Murtaugh said. "We can never make them whole. We can never bring back the decedent."

Justice Committee votes to keep Megrahi petition open

2011-11-08T13:29:00.000Z

[The following account of this morning's discussion of the Justice for Megrahi petition (PE 1370) in the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee comes from Patrick Haseldine:]

On 8 November 2011, the Justice Committee decided by six votes in favour [SNP and Lib-Dem] and three against [Labour and Conservative] to keep open the Justice for Megrahi petition (PE 1370), which calls upon the Scottish Government to institute an inquiry into Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

James Kelly MSP [Labour, deputy convener], brother of Megrahi's former solicitor Tony Kelly, argued strongly that the court is the correct route for testing the soundness of criminal convictions. He could see no role for the Justice Committee to consider the JFM petition further.

However, Justice Committee convener, Christine Grahame MSP [Scottish National Party], said the petition should be kept open until all the parts of the legislative jigsaw come together: there was unfinished business in relation to the Lockerbie trial; the conclusions of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's unpublished report remain untested; the SCCRC's power to refer cases back to the Appeal Court is being restricted; and Lord Carloway, who is currently reviewing law and practice of criminal investigations, is due to publish his report on 17 November 2011.

[The report just published by The Press Association news agency reads as follows:]

MSPs have voted to continue a petition calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for his role in the Lockerbie bombing.

Holyrood's Justice Committee met to consider the petition by the Justice for Megrahi campaign, a group calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 which killed 270 people.

SNP MSP Christine Grahame, the committee's convenor and a member of the Justice for Megrahi group, went head-to-head with Labour's James Kelly, vice-convenor and brother of Scottish lawyer Tony Kelly, who has acted for Megrahi, over whether the petition should continue.

He added: "Obviously it's an ongoing situation, particularly after recent events, and new information is continuing to come to the fore. I think the relevant place for that information to be considered is by the Scottish police and Scottish prosecutors, and as such I don't think there's a role for this committee to consider this petition further."

Ms Grahame declared her membership of Justice For Megrahi and her "particularly high profile in arguing that his conviction is unsound".

She said: "The Justice Committee is not being asked to conduct a public inquiry via the committee. We're being asked whether or not there should be a public inquiry. I think the committee will agree that this is unfinished business. We had the abandonment of the second part of the appeal, with the SCCRC report untested, in extraordinary circumstances."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government would welcome a wide-ranging inquiry into the circumstances of the Lockerbie atrocity and we stand ready to assist in any way we can.

"However, given the international dimensions to this issue, the scope of any such inquiry goes well beyond the restricted remit and responsibilities of the Scottish Government or Scottish Parliament, and would therefore have to be convened by those with the required powers. Scottish authorities would co-operate in full in any such inquiry.

"Scotland's justice system has been dealing with the Lockerbie atrocity for nearly 23 years, and in every regard the due process of Scots Law has been followed - in terms of the investigation, prosecution, imprisonment, rejection of the prisoner transfer application and granting of compassionate release.

"We believe that the SCCRC Statement of Reasons should be in the public domain and that is precisely why we are introducing a Bill later this year to facilitate publication. The Bill is necessary in order to overcome objections by interested parties preventing any publication."

[The report in the edition of The Herald for Wednesday, 9 November can be read here; that in The Scotsman can be read here.]