Stalinist thinking about the infallibility of police and prosecutors

[On this date in 2009, I posted on this blog an item headed That letter from the FBI to the Justice Secretary: is it real?  The first of its two sentences read simply “This is the heading over a devastating exposure by Jonathan Mitchell QC on his blog of the misconceptions and errors of fact and law in the letter from the Director of the FBI to Kenny MacAskill.” Mr Mitchell’s article reads as follows:]

My last post covered two issues; the hypocrisy of the attack on the decision to release Megrahi, and the law relative to compassionate release of prisoners in Scotland. But in linking these I noted in passing that much of the attack on MacAskill was simply ignorant, and wrote “FBI Director Robert Mueller, in his much-quoted open letter to MacAskill, obviously intended primarily for US domestic consumption, thought the Justice Secretary was a ‘prosecutor‘.“. That touched a nerve with one anonymous commenter, who wrote me a poison-pen message in the middle of which he stated:

The first paragraph of the FBI director’s letter he’s clearly putting it forth that he generally stays out of another jurisdiction’s case–in his experience as a prosecutor the cases of other prosecutors–though the phraseology might be a good target for a pendant punching above his weight class. Indeed, in the US and presumably Scotland, the prosecutor’s ultimate boss is the Attorney General of the US (or Justice Minister there). When the director talks about the effect of the release it is on terrorists in general and their conviction in a ‘…the conviction of trial by jury’. He obviously means it in a general sense or perhaps you’d have his sentence read something like ‘…the conviction of trial by jury–unless of course the crime is one that the statute allows the defendant to select a panel of judges or a judge instead–after the defendant is given all due process…’.

Now, I wouldn’t normally bother about poison-pen writers, but this made me go back to the letter to see if I had misread it. I didn’t. It contains glaring errors about the Lockerbie process. But what on reflection is interesting is that Robert Mueller is an extremely experienced lawyer who worked for many years on the Lockerbie prosecution, (although he was not, as the letter claims, ‘in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991‘; that was the Lord Advocate). It seems inconceivable that he would not have known the truth; and I don’t believe he actually can have been as ignorant as I suggested. I apologise for that. I have to wonder if he actually wrote this letter, with its collection of howlers. Let’s look at what it says, and at the true facts.

The first weird statement is the one about staying out of another jurisdiction’s cases, to use the commenter’s re-hash. This is what Mueller wrote:

Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case.

Now, the ‘practice‘ he says he’s abandoning is the practice that he does not ‘comment on the actions of other prosecutors‘. But the Justice Secretary is not a prosecutor; he has nothing to do with the prosecution process. He is not the ‘prosecutor’s ultimate boss‘; that’s the Lord Advocate, whose constitutional independence of the Justice Secretary is fundamental to the system. Section 48 (5) of the Scotland Act states “Any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person.” 1. If the Justice Secretary tried to tell prosecutors what to do, or how to do it, he would be told to sling his hook; and vice versa. Robert Mueller knows this. He is not stupid. He worked with several Lord Advocates over many years. If Robert Mueller wrote the quotation above, he was telling a deliberate untruth. That seems strange. Why should he bother, just for a minor rhetorical flourish? It seems more likely that the author was some minion who shared the lazy assumption of my commenter that the Justice Secretary just had to be a prosecutor, because that’s the American system.

Now, later in the letter the same howler is repeated in different language:

You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.

The Justice Secretary is not a ‘partner in investigation and prosecution‘, any more than he is a ‘partner’ of the accused or the defence. He is independent of both, as a judge is. Here again we see language that suggests a basic ignorance of the separation of powers.

There’s another error which I didn’t mention, the reference to ‘conviction by jury‘, which Anonymous nevertheless identifies and defends:

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed …

It seems obvious from this language that its author thought Megrahi was convicted ‘by jury‘. But Mueller knows as well as Megrahi himself that he was not. He sat through much if not all of the trial. Here, again, it seems extraordinary that for a pointless two words Mueller would write something which he knew perfectly well was wrong. Juries are fundamental to the American system (except, of course, for alleged terrorists), but surely Mueller knows they aren’t the norm in most countries affected by terrorism.

There are other errors, most notably the central fatuous and hysterical claim that the release will give comfort to terrorists: what will actually give them comfort is the Faustian pact of successive American and British governments to forgive the entire chain of command in the Libyan intelligence service and government so as to encourage business opportunities2. If you cheerfully sup with the devil, you… the reader can complete this sentence.

Yet neither Mueller nor the FBI have ever gone on record as critical of the decision of successive US administrations to grant amnesty and forgiveness to those who, they say, gave Megrahi his orders; to give them hospitality, trade with them, sell them military equipment.

So I have to ask: who actually wrote this letter? If it was Robert Mueller, he must have been on the juice, which may perhaps have been what Lord Fraser had in mind when he kindly suggested Mueller visit Scotland to ‘discuss some good whisky‘. If it was some underling, he didn’t do his homework.

Whoever it was, it was someone with the Stalinist thinking about the infallibility of police and prosecutors which coloured the UK governments strenuous efforts to keep the evidence in the recent appeal effectively secret, but in a less disguised form. Look at this:

… only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

That’s the thinking that led to the founding of the Cheka in 1918. As Hector MacQueen pointed out, it’s the old chestnut that we don’t need courts or judges to “reach the appropriate decision“; still less any defence. The prosecution, after all, is infallible. No wonder then, perhaps, that the writer of this letter, whoever he or she may have been, was so appalled at anyone not following its instructions. Thus the complaint “You never once sought our opinion” on the release. As the Justice Secretary rightly pointed out in Parliament, however, in Scotland “we have separation of powers“. Someone in the FBI, however, does not believe in this.

There’s a phrase for this, and the phrase is ‘police state’.

1. See this description in a recent paper by the Judiciary on reform of the Lord Advocate’s status for a fuller analysis.
2. Musa Kusa, who the British government expelled in 1980 after he announced “The revolutionary committees have decided last night to kill two more people in the United Kingdom. I approve of this“, and who the CIA found had direct responsibility for the PanAm 103 bomb (and indeed many other murders), was in 2003 entertained by both governments in the Travellers Club in Pall Mall, London. The last time I was in the Travellers Club, I noticed the fine portrait of Lord Castlereagh half-way up the staircase. He was the Foreign Secretary of whom Shelley wrote in ‘The Masque of Anarchy’ ‘I met Murder on the way/He had a mask like Castlereagh/Very smooth he looked, yet grim/Seven bloodhounds followed him/All were fat, and well they might/Be in admirable plight/For one by one and two by two/He tossed them human hearts to chew/Which from his wide cloak he drew…‘ . Was the setting deliberate? Castlereagh would have been an appropriate host.

Mueller's Megrahi outburst remembered as he leaves FBI

[A long appreciation of Robert Mueller on the website of the Washingtonian, on the day that he demits office as Director of the FBI, contains the following paragraph:]

In the summer of 2009, Mueller became the most vocal US opponent of the release by the Scottish government of Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only person imprisoned for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 — a case Mueller had originally helped oversee at the Justice Department under President George H W Bush. Megrahi was greeted as a hero on the tarmac in Libya after being released on “compassionate grounds” by the Scots as part of health concerns that, based on newly released documents, seem to have been more about helping British firms access Libya’s oil reserves. Amid a series of tepid official condemnations — President Obama labeled it “highly objectionable” — Mueller’s letter to Scottish minister Kenny MacAskill stood out. Far from an official missive of the state to a fellow government official, Mueller’s letter was personal and heartfelt, written by a man not prone to public rebukes. As he wrote, “Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed, your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world.”

[The full text of Mr Mueller’s foolish and intemperate letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice can be read here.]

Lockerbie families consider third al-Megrahi appeal

[This is the headline over a report (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times.  It reads as follows:]

British relatives of Lockerbie bombing victims will consider making another appeal against the conviction of the only man found guilty of the atrocity.

Some members of the UK Families Flight 103 group will meet lawyers in the new year to discuss whether to apply to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), according to Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the bombing in December 1988.

“The intention of some members is to meet with lawyers in January and discuss the best options, the best way to get the truth,” he said. “It’s a disgrace that we have to wait 25 years to get the truth that should be available from our governments.”

The group will also consider whether an inquiry is the best route to get answers. Dr Swire is part of another group pursuing a long-running petition at the Scottish parliament calling for the Scottish government to open a full public inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Last December, Dr Swire said that the family of the convicted bomber could be risking their lives if they were to raise the prospect of a fresh appeal against conviction, possibly leaving it to victims’ families instead.

Dr Swire said that new evidence needed to be investigated, including allegations surrounding a break-in at Heathrow before the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people in the air and on the ground. “It’s clear following the evidence and the behaviour of certain governments that Megrahi wasn’t involved at all,” he said.

If successful, a new application to the SCCRC could start the third appeal into the conviction. Al-Megrahi lost his first appeal in 2002, a year after he was found guilty of mass murder and jailed for life.

The SCCRC recommended in 2007 that al-Megrahi should be granted a second appeal against his conviction. He dropped the appeal two days before being released from prison in August 2009 on compassionate grounds.

Details of six grounds for referral to appeal were published last year. Four of the reasons refer to undisclosed evidence from the Crown to al-Megrahi’s defence team.

The grounds cover evidence about a positive identification of al-Megrahi by Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who said that he had sold clothes to a Libyan man. The clothes were linked to a suitcase loaded on to the aircraft, which was then linked to the bomb and eventually to al-Megrahi.

The SCCRC has raised concerns that evidence suggesting Mr Gauci had seen a magazine article linking al-Megrahi to the bomb had not been passed to the defence. Contradictions about the day al-Megrahi was said to have bought the clothes were also highlighted. The trial was told that they were bought on December 7 but the SCCRC said that Mr Gauci also thought it might have been November 29. [RB: The two dates that were canvassed as real possibilities were 23 November and 7 December.] 

Also of concern to the SCCRC was undisclosed evidence about Mr Gauci’s interest in rewards. The commission said that the defence should have been told that a substantial reward was on offer from the US Government.

This week, Frank Mulholland, QC, the Lord Advocate, announced that Libya had appointed two prosecutors to work on the investigation into the bombing.

[A similar article appeared in yesterday’s edition of The Scotsman, along with an opinion piece by Dr Jim Swire which reads in part:]

Try to imagine what it is like to know that your daughter went, unaware of her danger, through the corridors of an airport which knew that its “secure” airside had been broken into, and knew that there was a high terrorist threat to US aircraft at the time and yet still decided not to investigate who had broken in or what his motive might have been. Then try to imagine that you have tried in every way you can think of for 25 years to get an inquiry into why Lockerbie was not prevented and how things could be improved for the future, and been blocked at every stage.

It also took us until 2012 to get official confirmation – in a letter to me from the former Chief Constable (Dumfries and Galloway police) Patrick Shearer – that the investigating police had had complete files about that break-in in their computer from February 1989. That letter also explained that the file had been passed to the Crown Office before the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had even started. Yet still the prosecutors failed to share their knowledge with the defence.

It is probable that the suppression of this break-in evidence was caused by blind adherence to the hypothesis that the bomb must have come from Malta because of some associated clothing that had indeed originated there. Once a force has formed a strong hypothesis, it takes an earthquake to convince it that other evidence, particularly if hostile to the favoured hypothesis, ought to be shared with the defence. That is a problem we see again and again in miscarriage of justice cases. (...)

The United Nations special observer to the trial (Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna) was in no doubt that it did not represent justice. How could it have done when the break-in information describing an obvious possible avenue for the introduction of the bomb at Heathrow was simply denied to the defence? There were other signs of something far more sinister: Early in 1990, we UK relatives were called to the US embassy in London. In an aside to one of us there, an American official said privately of Lockerbie: “Your government and ours know exactly what happened, but they’re never going to tell.”

Then, in 1993, the late Baroness Thatcher wrote of her support for the 1986 US air force (USAF) raid on Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi: “It turned out to be a more decisive blow against Libyan-sponsored terrorism than I could ever have imagined…the much vaunted Libyan counter-attack did not and could not take place.” Yet two years before, in 1991, two Libyans had been officially blamed for the Lockerbie bombing. (...)

In the post-Snowden world, we all know how extensive is the reach, even among their own citizens, of US and UK intelligence gathering. What we do not know is what aspects of that intelligence are deliberately hidden from citizens who desperately need access to it in their grief, or indeed why any of it should be kept from them.

We relatives need the truth about who murdered our families and article 2 of human rights legislation guarantees our right to have it. While that truth is hidden, the true perpetrators are protected.

Next year, in the face of the blank refusal of governments to mount any meaningful inquiry, certain relatives will apply to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for a further appeal against the Megrahi verdict. It is likely that some of us will also pursue other routes to force an honest inquiry out of obdurate governments; 25 years is too long, and we should not be opposed by our own elected governments.

If you look at terrible UK disasters – Northern Ireland and the IRA trials, the Hillsborough disaster and also Lockerbie, it is the denial of truth to the victims that is the common thread. So, indeed, there is a thread and that thread is truth.

[The announcement by the Lord Advocate that Libya had appointed two prosecutors to work on the investigation into the bombing has been widely reported in the media.  Examples can be found here (BBC News); here (The Herald); and here (Dundee Courier).  It is also reported that US and UK investigators are to be allowed to question Abdullah al-Senussi, the Gaddafi regime’s security chief who is currently awaiting trial in Libya. Here are examples from ITV News and from the Libya Herald.

The recently-retired Director of the FBI, Robert S Mueller III, has expressed confidence that others will be charged in connection with the Lockerbie bombing. A report on the BBC News website contains the following:]

In a rare interview, to mark the 25th anniversary of the deadliest act of terrorism in the UK, Mr Mueller said he was confident the ongoing investigation would "continue to produce results".

"We have FBI agents who are working full-time to track down every lead, as we have since it occurred 25 years ago," Mr Mueller said.

"My expectation is that continuously we will obtain additional information, perhaps additional witnesses, and that others will be charged with their participation in this.

"We do not forget. And by that I mean the FBI, the US Department of Justice, we do not forget," he said. (...)

Mr [Frank] Mulholland, Scotland's lord advocate, said on Monday that Libya had appointed two prosecutors to work on the Lockerbie case.

He told the BBC that the Libyans would work alongside Scottish and American investigators and described this as a "welcome development' which he said would hopefully lead to progress in the case.

Robert Mueller said there had been progress since the revolution in Libya and he expected that to continue.

But he acknowledged that violence and instability in Libya was making things more difficult.

"The problem in Libya now is the government is struggling to maintain security and order and bring peace to the country," he said. (...)

Robert Mueller said he was open to new evidence but remained convinced "the proof was solid on Megrahi".

He said: "My expectation is there are others who may well be brought to justice as a result of continuing investigation by both ourselves as well as the Scottish authorities".

Mr Mueller has been involved with the Lockerbie case for more than 20 years.

He was assistant attorney general in the United States in 1991 when indictments were issued for the two Libyan suspects, Megrahi and Al-amin Khalifa Fimah. (...)

Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, freed [Megrahi] on compassionate grounds in August 2009 because he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

At that time, Robert Mueller wrote a scathing letter to Mr MacAskill in which he said his decision "gives comfort to terrorists around the world".

In his BBC interview, which he said would be his last, Mr Mueller was asked if he had reflected on this intervention.

"My letter still stands," he said.

[Mr Mueller has featured regularly on this blog. The relevant items can be found here.  By contrast, here are some very sensible comments from Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga died on Pan Am 103:]

A minister who lost his 19-year-old daughter in the Lockerbie bombing told ITV News the government are "looking in the wrong place" for the perpetrators after UK authorities were given permission to interview Muammar Gaddafi's former intelligence chief.

Reverend John Mosey said he was "very sceptical of any good" coming from the interview with Abdullah Senussi because the link between the 1988 disaster and Libya had been "blown out of the water."

He also added that the new Libyan regime are "desperate to pin it all on Gaddafi."

Special counsel Robert Mueller and Lockerbie

[What follows is excerpted from a report published late yesterday on the website of The New York Times:]

The Justice Department appointed Robert S Mueller III, a former FBI director, as special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, dramatically raising the legal and political stakes in an affair that has threatened to engulf Mr. Trump’s four-month-old presidency.

The decision by the deputy attorney general, Rod J Rosenstein, came after a cascade of damaging developments for Mr. Trump in recent days, including his abrupt dismissal of the FBI director, James B Comey, and the subsequent disclosure that Mr Trump asked Mr Comey to drop the investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael T Flynn. (...)

While Mr Mueller remains answerable to Mr Rosenstein — and by extension, the president — he will have greater autonomy to run an investigation than other federal prosecutors.

As a special counsel, Mr Mueller can choose whether to consult with or inform the Justice Department about his investigation. He is authorized to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” according to Mr Rosenstein’s order naming him to the post, as well as other matters that “may arise directly from the investigation.” (...)

Mr Rosenstein, who until recently was United States attorney in Maryland, took control of the investigation because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself after acknowledging he had failed to disclose meetings he had with the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergey I Kislyak, when Mr Sessions was an adviser to the Trump campaign. (...)

Mr Mueller’s appointment was hailed by Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, who view him as one of the most credible law enforcement officials in the country. (...)

Mr. Mueller served both Democratic and Republican presidents. President Barack Obama asked him to stay two years beyond the 10-year term until he appointed Mr Comey in 2013, the only time a modern-day FBI director’s tenure has been extended.

[RB: Mr Mueller has featured regularly on this blog. Perhaps the most egregious of his ill-advised interventions in the Lockerbie case was the remarkable letter sent to Kenny MacAskill after the release of Megrahi in August 2009. The late and much lamented Ian Bell wrote a blistering article in the Sunday Herald about this letter headlined What do US cops know about justice?]

Where, I ask, is the justice?

[What follows is excerpted from an article published today on the CNN Politics website:]

[Robert] Mueller, now 73, began his Department of Justice career in 1976 as an assistant US attorney in San Francisco, and during the decades that followed took only two breaks to try out the private sector, each lasting no more than a couple of years.

The stints were so short-lived because of a simple fact, according to Graff: Mueller couldn't stand defending those he felt were guilty. (...)

That black-and-white outlook served Mueller well at the Department of Justice, where he oversaw some of the highest-profile cases of the last few decades including the prosecution of mobster John Gotti and Panamanian Dictator Manuel Noriega. But it was his investigation into the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland that would most profoundly affect him.

"It was a very personal and a pivotal investigation of his career," according to Lisa Monaco, who served as Mueller's chief of staff when he was FBI director. "It is something that has stuck with him, and I think it was because he was so affected by walking the ground in Lockerbie after that plane went down, seeing the remnants of that plane, seeing the piecing together of the plane and the Christmas presents the passengers on that plane were carrying home to their family members, and seeing that all literally get pieced together in a warehouse in Scotland at the beginning of the investigation."

For years after the trial of the two Libyan terrorists, Mueller would quietly attend the annual December memorial service organized by the families, consoling those he had come to know well. When Scottish authorities announced in 2009 that they were releasing the one terrorist convicted in the case, Mueller was outraged.

"That did not sit well with him. He thought it was an injustice, a fundamental injustice for the families, and he did something very out-of-the-ordinary for him," Monaco said.

Mueller wrote a scathing letter to the Scottish authorities, saying in part, "your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own. ... Where, I ask, is the justice?"

It was an unusual outpouring of emotion for a man who, according to those closest to him, regularly keeps to himself.

Letter to Kenny MacAskill from FBI Director Robert S Mueller

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991.

And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of "compassion."

Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of "compassion."

Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years - in some cases a full career - to see justice done.

But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988.

You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution.

You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification - the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.

You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.

Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to "the need for compassion."

You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.

You have given Megrahi a "jubilant welcome" in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III
Director

[Note by RB: On 6 August 2009, The Times published a report containing the following:

"The investigating officers who led the original inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have made an unprecedented intervention in the case to argue against the release of the Libyan convicted of the attack.

"In a letter to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish police chief and the FBI boss who led the international investigation 20 years ago launch a powerfully worded plea against the release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is serving a minimum sentence of 25 years for his part in the bombing.

"In the letter obtained by The Times, Stuart Henderson, the retired senior investigating officer at the Lockerbie Incident Control Centre, and Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent in charge of the US taskforce, whose detective work helped to convict Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, insist that he is guilty. They also argue that his release would “nullify the dedicated work of dozens of law enforcement and intelligence officials around the world”."

It is therefore untrue for the Director to suggest that the decision was taken without regard to, or in ignorance of, the views of the investigators (or at least some of them). His complaint (if he has one at all) therefore has to be that the ultimate decision was not one that they approved of.

In civilised countries decisions regarding liberation of prisoners are not placed in the hands of policemen and prosecutors, nor are they accorded a veto over those decisions. Mr Mueller (and Mr Marquise) would probably wish that this were otherwise. The rest of us can be grateful that it is not.]

Ministers defend Megrahi release

The Scottish government has defended its decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, amid mounting criticism on both sides of the Atlantic.

It follows an attack by the head of the FBI, who said freeing Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi made a "mockery of justice". (...)

The Scottish Government said last night the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had reached his conclusions on the basis of Scotland's "due process, clear evidence, and the recommendations from the parole board and prison governor".

The comments came in response to a letter from Robert Mueller, chief of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, who said the action made a "mockery of the rule of law" and "gave comfort to terrorists".

Mr Mueller is a former prosecutor who played a key role in investigating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people. (...)

But in its statement, the Scottish government said: "The US authorities indicated although they were opposed to both prisoner transfer and compassionate release, they made it clear they regarded compassionate release as far preferable to the transfer agreement, and Mr Mueller should be aware of that.

"Mr Mueller was involved in the Lockerbie case, and therefore has strong views, but he should also be aware that while many families have opposed Mr MacAskill's decision many others have supported it."

[The above are excerpts from a report on the BBC News website.]

Lockerbie and the Prime Minister

The BBC News website's report on today's Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons contains the following:

"1223 Tory Daniel Kawcznyski asks about a Lockerbie bombing inquiry. Mr Brown says it is up to the Scottish authorities to pursue any new leads."

The account of the exchange on The Scotsman's website can be read here.

What follows is correspondence between Dr Jim Swire and the Prime Minister.

Letter from Dr Swire
24th August 2009

Dear Prime Minister,

LOCKERBIE

I regret that I have not written to you previously about the Lockerbie disaster. Now I must approach you against the rather dire current events in Scotland.

I had the privilege of meeting Kenny MacAskill during discussions over what he should do. I admire him as a man of integrity who decided on the basis of what he believed was right, within the precepts of Scots law. I note that the Church of Scotland supported Megrahi's repatriation.

He knew he would draw the attention of the lynch mobs.

I believe that by taking an honourable course in conformity with established Scottish law practice (the 3 months to live precedent), he has gained for Scotland an opportunity to shed some of the opprobrium which will descend on her over the way the Lockerbie case has been handled, when the verdict is finally quashed.

What may not have been anticipated is the venom of the onslaught from the USA. The odious Libyan rejoicing must surely have been expected. For the public in both England and Scotland the arrogance with which the USA speaks is deeply resented.

In responding to the letter to MacAskill from Mueller of the FBI (writing from the Department of Justice) I have pointed out one way in which the much vaunted investigation was profoundly deficient. I refer to the break-in at Heathrow which remained concealed for 12 years until after the Megrahi verdict had been reached. This break-in must have been known to Lady Thatcher, since the Met. investigated it, yet the Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew about it. That claim demands further corroboration.

Frankly had that aspect of the case been known to the Zeist court, the trial would have been stopped, or never started in the first place. Unlike Heathrow, where all was documented, there was no evidence led of a security breach at the Malta airport.

This concealment does not implicate the USA, except in as much as one would expect their investigators also to have been aware of it, nor your party. Nor does it promote the purposes of the Scottish Nationalists. Indeed there are strong suggestions that the investigating Scottish police may have known of it and suppressed it. Exposing it would exonerate Libya (and Malta) and so certainly would strengthen the UK's position in Libya's mind and through the Arab world.

It implicates the Downing Street of the day (Lady Thatcher) who compounded her apparent knowledge of what really happened by her claims in 'the Downing Street years' published 2 years after the indictments were issued, where she claims that her support for the Reagan bombing of Tripoli/Bengazi left Gaddafi unable to mount serious terrorist outrages thereafter (Page 449).. Its exposure will be strongly opposed by those civil servants and intelligence people who know it to be true.

In urging you to promote a full inquiry, including the question of suppression of the Heathrow evidence, I hope that the proposal will be seen not as some sort of temptation by the devil, but a way whereby the truth may be approached, MacAskill's decision would be justified, the US forced to climb down, and perhaps most importantly of all, the UK, and Scotland in particular emerge with some credit after all.

With best wishes to you and your family,

(signed) Dr Jim Swire

Reply from the Prime Minister
10 DOWNING STREET
LONDON SW1A2AA
23 October 2009

Dear Dr Swire

Thank you for your letter of 24 August.

First of all, I know that nothing I can say will assuage the loss that you and the other family members of the Lockerbie victims will still feel, but I assure you that you have my full sympathy in your loss.

You refer to Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds. As you say, that was a decision to be taken in the Scottish legal system, and I and my colleages were careful to respect the fact that this was Mr MacAskill’s responsibility. Like you however I deplore the unseemly way in which Mr Megrahi was received in Tripoli and I have made this clear publicly.

You seek a public inquiry into the Lockerbie case, to cover in particular certain evidence which you say was concealed from the investigation. I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pa Am flight 103. As you will recognise, that investigation and the subsequent prosecution was the responsibility of the Scottish Police and prosecutors. The evidence that was gathered was tested in court at the original trial in 2001 and on appeal in 2003. I understand that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow to which you refer made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not.

These are matters which the separate legal jurisdiction in Scotland considered and upheld. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.

I recognise that this is not the answer you were looking for, but I hope you understand why for the reasons I have set out. My thoughts, and those of the Government remain with you and the other families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.

Yours sincerely
(signed) Gordon Brown

[It will be noted that the Prime Minister's reply is dated the same day as UK Families-Flight 103 handed in to 10 Downing Street the group's own letter requesting the institution of a full independent inquiry.]