Megrahi petition again before Justice Committee

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be held on Tuesday 17 January 2017 starting at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The following are (a) the committee clerk’s note on this agenda item and (b) Justice for Megrahi’s submission to the committee:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of the petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls for the opening of an inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

Current consideration

19. At its meeting on 27 September 2016 the Committee agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of Operation Sandwood. This is the operational name for Police Scotland‟s investigation into the nine allegations of criminality levelled by Justice for Megrahi at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the police, and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perverting the course of justice to perjury. It had previously been understood that the operation would be expected to conclude by the end of 2016. Further information is being sought from Police Scotland and the clerk will update the Committee on this at the 17 January meeting.

20. Police Scotland have previously stated that once the report is finalised it will then be scrutinised and assessed by an independently appointed Queen‟s Counsel appointed by Police Scotland to provide independent direction and advice.

21. In their submission to the Committee for the meeting on the 27 September, the petitioners informed the Committee that they continued to liaise with Operation Sandwood investigators and that they anticipated having a final meeting with them prior to the report being submitted to the COPFS.

22. The petitioners have provided a written submission (Annexe F*) asking the Committee to keep the petition open not only until the completion of Operation Sandwood but until the COPFS has fully considered the police report and announced its findings. The submission does not contain any new information from the petitioners as to the likely completion date for Operation Sandwood.

Options for action on petition PE1370

23. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in relation to the petition, having regard to its decision in September in keep the petition open pending the completion of Operation Sandwood.

*Annexe F

Petition: PE1370 submission from Petitioner

In November 2010 Justice for Megrahi (JfM) lodged petition PE1370 with the Petitions Committee calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. The petition was referred to the Justice Committee which first considered it on 8th November 2011.

In 2012 we lodged with the police nine allegations of criminality linked to the Lockerbie investigation and trial, and for the last three years Police Scotland has been conducting a major criminal investigation into these allegations under the codename “Operation Sandwood‟. It is anticipated that the police will submit their final report to the Crown Office in the early part of this year.

Over the period since its submission in 2011 the Justice Committee has agreed to keep this petition open. At the meeting on 27th September however members decided to keep the petition open “pending the completion of Operation Sandwood”. This could be construed as a change from the previous position, assumed by us, that the petition would be kept open until the Crown Office had fully considered the police report and announced its findings.

Given the centrality of this issue to the image of Scottish Justice at home and abroad and the previous public dismissal of the JfM allegations by Crown Office even before the police investigation of them had begun (indeed, even before the supporting evidence had been submitted), we would seek assurance from the Justice Committee that it will continue its review of our petition and the Operation Sandwood inquiry until the police report has been fully considered by Crown Office and its conclusions have been announced.

We believe that the Justice Committee is the principal body through which the Scottish Parliament fulfils its constitutional duty to provide political oversight of the Scottish Justice System. As such, we believe that its continued monitoring of the actions of the prosecution authorities in relation to the Operation Sandwood investigations is critical and very much in the public interest.

We would respectfully urge the Committee to allow Petition PE1370 to remain on the table until the Crown Office has announced its conclusions in respect of Operation Sandwood.

Justice Committee to resume consideration of Megrahi petition

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) seeking an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial features on the agenda for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s meeting to be held on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 in Holyrood Committee Room 2, beginning at 10.00. The committee clerk’s note on this item reads as follows:]

Terms of the petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls for the opening of an inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

Recent background to the petition in Session 4

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

17. On 5 November 2015, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) announced that: “it is not in the interests of justice‖ to continue with a review of the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Consequently, the application has been refused.” In a news release published that day the Commission‘s Chairman, Jean Couper said:

“A great deal of public money and time was expended on the Commission‟s original review of Mr Megrahi‟s case which resulted, in 2007, in him being given the opportunity to challenge his conviction before the High Court by way of a second appeal. In 2009, along with his legal team, Mr Megrahi decided to abandon that appeal. Before agreeing to spend further public money on a fresh review the Commission required to consider the reasons why he chose to do so. It is extremely frustrating that the relevant papers, which the Commission believes are currently with the late Mr Megrahi‟s solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, and with the Megrahi family, have not been forthcoming despite repeated requests from the Commission. Therefore, and with some regret, we have decided to end the current review. It remains open in the future for the matter to be considered again by the Commission, but it is unlikely that any future application will be accepted for review unless it is accompanied with the appropriate defence papers. This will require the cooperation of the late Mr Megrahi’s solicitors and his family.”

Operation Sandwood

18. Operation Sandwood is the operational name for Police Scotland‘s investigation into the nine allegations of criminality levelled at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi‘s conviction. The allegations range from perverting of the course of justice to perjury. Police Scotland‘s report of this operation is expected to be completed before the end of the year. The S4 Committee received a number of updates from JFM asking that an “independent prosecutor” be appointed to assess the findings of Operation Sandwood.

19. The S4 Committee wrote to the Lord Advocate seeking his views on the appointment of an “independent prosecutor” as proposed by JFM. His response outlined arrangements made by COPFS to employ independent Crown Counsel not involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with the matter. JFM rejected the involvement of independent Crown Counsel as they consider it does not represent an “independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach”. The S4 Committee sought further information regarding the appointment of an independent prosecutor in September 2015 to which the Lord Advocate reiterated his earlier response.

20. On 5 January 2016, the S4 Committee wrote again to the Lord Advocate, asking him to respond to JFM‘s most recent submission which questioned the Lord Advocate‘s intention to appoint Catherine Dyer, the Crown Agent, as the Crown Office official responsible for co-ordinating matters with the “independent counsel”. (Ms Dyer has since retired from the COPFS.)

21. On 29 February 2016 the S4 Committee received a response from the Crown Agent setting out the steps which will be taken by COPFS to ensure that the police investigation into allegations of criminality by JFM in connection with the Lockerbie case, known as Operation Sandwood, are dealt with appropriately. The Crown Agent attached copies of previous correspondence from 26 June 2013 setting out the specific arrangements which pertain to Operation Sandwood and from 25 February 2013 and 25 March 2013 which include general details of how COPFS deals with allegations of criminal conduct by prosecutors or former prosecutors.

Session 4 Legacy Report

22. The S4 Justice Committee last considered the petition on 1 March 2016. It agreed to seek further information about the progress of Operation Sandwood and to keep the petition open. In its Legacy Report in respect of PE1370 the S4 Committee stated—

PE1370 lodged by Justice for Megrahi (JfM) in November 2010 calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1998. Much of the Committee‟s recent activity has focused on receiving progress updates on Police Scotland’s “Operation Sandwood‟. This operation is its investigation into JfM‟s nine allegations of criminality levelled at the COPFS, the police, and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes around Megrahi‟s conviction. In addition, the Committee has been examining the process for the COPFS appointing independent counsel to examine the findings of Operation Sandwood when available. We requested a final update on progress with Police Scotland‟s investigation in March 2016 for consideration by our successor committee.

Latest information available

23. The most recent response from Police Scotland was received on 11 March 2016 and can be found in Annexe E. It states that the Deputy Chief Constable expected to receive a detailed report by mid May. This report and its findings would then require be scrutinised and assessed by the independent Queens Counsel appointed by Police Scotland. Police Scotland confirmed that a definitive timetable to complete the process could not be provided at this stage. There has been no public statement since then, of which the clerks are aware, indicating whether this process has proceeded as indicated in the 11 March letter.

24. On 2 June, the issue of comments about the Megrahi case made in a recent book by former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, were raised during First Minister‘s Questions. The First Minister stated that "it is not for me, for any First Minister or for any member of the government to decide that a conviction is unsafe. That is a matter for the courts of the land. That is the case in this case and it is the case in any other criminal matter." She added that it remained open for Megrahi's close relatives to ask the SCCRC to refer the case to the appeal court: “Ministers have repeatedly made clear that they would be comfortable if that was to happen but that is the process that must be undertaken if this case is to be looked at by the appeal court."

25. In September there were press reports that Mr Megrahi‘s eldest son Khalid al-Megrahi intends to come to Scotland to resurrect the appeal against conviction which his father had dropped on his return to Libya in August 2009. The petitioner‘s response (Annexe F) refers to this and confirms they have no information as to the truth or otherwise of these reports. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/11/lockerbie-bombers-son-plans-move-toscotland-to-clear-his-father/

26. The Petitioner for PE1370 has provided a written submission which can be found in Annexe F.

Options for action on petition PE1370

27. The Committee is asked to consider and agree what, if any, action it wishes to take in relation to the petition (see paragraph 6* for possible options).

28. As ever, there is the option of closing the petition. If the Committee wished to keep the petition open, it might wish to consider writing to Police Scotland seeking confirmation the Operation Sandwood report has been received and trying again to seek clarity on the future timetable for completion of the process.

*Options available to Committees considering petitions

6. Once a petition has been referred to a subject Committee it is for the Committee to decide how, or if, it wishes to take the petitions forward. Some examples of how this can be done are set out below although the list is not exhaustive. The Committee can choose to:  

• Keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government or other stakeholders seeking their views on what the petition is calling for, or views on further information to have emerged over the course of considering the petition;
• Keep the petition open and take oral evidence from the petitioner and / or stakeholders;  
• Keep the petition open and await the outcome of a specific piece of work, such as a consultation or piece of legislation;  
• Close the petition on the grounds that the Scottish Government has made its position clear or that the Scottish Government has made some or all of the changes requested by the petition, or that the Committee, after due consideration, has decided it does not support the petition;  
• Close the petition on the grounds that a current consultation, call for evidence or inquiry gives the petitioner the opportunity to contribute to the policy process.

[RB: The various Annexes referred to in the clerk’s note, including the submission from Justice for Megrahi, can be read here.]

Justice for Megrahi petition on agenda for next Justice Committee meeting

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) is once again on the agenda
for the meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to be
held on Tuesday 27 March 2018 starting at 10.00 in Holyrood
Committee Room 2. What follows is excerpted from the
meeting papers:]

Options available to Committees considering petitions

5. Once a petition has been referred to a subject Committee it is for the Committee
to decide how, or if, it wishes to take the petition forward. Among options open to
the Committee are to:  

*Keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government or other
stakeholders seeking their views on what the petition is calling for, or views
on further information to have emerged over the course of considering the petition;
*Keep the petition open and take oral evidence from the petitioner, from relevant
stakeholders or from the Scottish Government;

*Keep the petition open and await the outcome of a specific piece of work, such as
a consultation or piece of legislation before deciding what to do next;  

*Close the petition on the grounds that the Scottish Government has made its
position clear, or that the Scottish Government has made some or all of the
changes requested by the petition, or that the Committee, after due consideration,
has decided it does not support the petition;  

*Close the petition on the grounds that a current consultation, call for evidence or
inquiry gives the petitioner the opportunity to contribute to the policy process.

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of the petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010):

The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls on the Scottish Parliament
to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001
Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing
of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

Current consideration

7. At its meeting on 19 December 2017 the Committee agreed, as it had at its
meetings on 5 September 2017, 2 May 2017 and 24 January 2017, to keep the
petition open pending completion of Operation Sandwood. This is the operational
name for Police Scotland‟s investigation into the nine allegations of criminality
levelled by Justice for Megrahi at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service,
the police, and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes
relating to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perverting the course
of justice to perjury.

8. The clerks understand from Police Scotland that the operation is in its concluding

stage. Once Police Scotland‟s report is completed, it will be submitted for
consideration by an independently appointed Queen‟s Counsel appointed by
Police Scotland, before going to the Crown Office. Following submission of the
report, there will be discussion with the Crown Office as to what information, if any,
can be made public.

9. On 4 July 2017, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC)

confirmed it had received an application to review the conviction. The SCCRC
may refer a case to the High Court if it believes that a miscarriage of justice may
have occurred and that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be
made. The SCCRC stated that it will give careful consideration to this new
application, but that it will not make any further comment at this time. No further
information is available.

10. The Committee is asked to consider and agree what action it wishes to take

in relation to the petition (see paragraph 5 for possible options).

Megrahi petition on Justice Committee agenda for 23 February meeting

[The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament will be resuming consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) at its meeting on 23 February 2016 commencing at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. The relevant note by the committee’s clerk reads as follows:]

PE1370: Independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction

Terms of petition

PE1370 (lodged 1 November 2010): The petition on behalf of Justice for Megrahi (JFM), calls for the opening of an inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

Background

Operation Sandwood

17. “Operation Sandwood‟ is the operational name for Police Scotland‟s investigation into JFM‟s nine allegations of criminality levelled at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, police and forensic officials involved in the investigation and legal processes relating to Megrahi‟s conviction. The allegations range from perverting of the course of justice to perjury. Police Scotland‟s report of this operation is expected to be completed before the end of the year. The Committee has received a number of updates from JFM asking that an “independent prosecutor‟ be appointed to assess the findings of Operation Sandwood.

18. The Committee previously wrote to the Lord Advocate seeking his views on the appointment of an „independent prosecutor‟ as proposed by JFM. His response outlined arrangements made by COPFS to employ independent Crown Counsel not involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with the matter. JFM have rejected the involvement of independent Crown Counsel as they consider it does not represent an “independent, unbiased and constitutionally sound approach”. The Committee sought further information regarding the appointment of an independent prosecutor in September 2015 to which the Lord Advocate reiterated his earlier response.

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

19. On 5 November 2015, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) announced that: “it is not in the interests of justice” to continue with a review of the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Consequently, the application has been refused.” In a news release published that day the Commission‟s Chairman, Jean Couper said:

“A great deal of public money and time was expended on the Commission‟s original review of Mr Megrahi‟s case which resulted, in 2007, in him being given the opportunity to challenge his conviction before the High Court by way of a second appeal. In 2009, along with his legal team, Mr Megrahi decided to abandon that appeal. Before agreeing to spend further public money on a fresh review the Commission required to consider the reasons why he chose to do so. It is extremely frustrating that the relevant papers, which the Commission believes are currently with the late Mr Megrahi‟s solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, and with the Megrahi family, have not been forthcoming despite repeated requests from the Commission. Therefore, and with some regret, we have decided to end the current review. It remains open in the future for the matter to be considered again by the Commission, but it is unlikely that any future application will be accepted for review unless it is accompanied with the appropriate defence papers. This will require the cooperation of the late Mr Megrahi‟s solicitors and his family.”

Latest developments

20. On 5 January 2016, the Committee agreed to write again to the Lord Advocate, asking him to respond to JFM‟s most recent submission to the Committee which questions the Lord Advocate‟s intention to appoint Catherine Dyer, the Crown Agent, as the Crown Office official responsible for co-ordinating matters with the “independent counsel‟. The Committee requested the Lord Advocate‟s response by 5 February. At the time of writing this response has not been received. It will be circulated to members and published on the Committee‟s website as soon as it is received.

21. In the interim, JFM has provided a submission to the Committee outlining their disappointment that a response from the Lord Advocate has not yet been received (Annexe D).

Options for action on petition PE1370

22. The Committee may wish to agree to:

• keep the petition open and recommend that a future justice committee continues to monitor these issues and, in particular, progress with Operation Sandwood, or

• take any other action in relation to the petition that the Committee considers appropriate (including closing the petition).

ANNEXE D

Justice for Megrahi submission for the consideration of PE1370 by the Justice Committee on 23 February 2016

Since the last consideration of PE 1370, on 5 January 2016, nothing of import has emerged from either the Lord Advocate or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) that clarifies their position re JfM‟s request that a prosecutor entirely independent of COPFS, and who had been appointed independently of said body, receive and consider the final Police Scotland Operation Sandwood report.

On 12th January 2016, the Deputy Convenor of the Justice Committee wrote to the Lord Advocate asking that he address JFM‟s concerns over the manner in which he was dealing with our request for total independence from the Crown Office in the consideration of the Operation Sandwood report.

When this letter was posted on the Parliament website JfM expressed some concern that the terms of the agreement reached at the Justice Committee on 5th January to write to the Lord Advocate appeared not to have been fully met in that the 8 questions we asked the committee to put to the Lord Advocate had not been referred to. We are unaware if this issue had been resolved.

The Deputy Convenor afforded the Lord Advocate a full month in which to respond. At the time of writing, we believe that he is in default as no reply has yet been received by the Justice Committee.

Given that the submission of Police Scotland‟s Operation Sandwood report to the Crown Office is imminent this is a most unsatisfactory position.

It is clearly against the public and a constitutional interest that the Lord Advocate has so far failed to confirm that the police report will be considered by an authority entirely separate from the Crown Office and totally free from its influence or to lay out clearly what his intentions are.

Thus, JFM appeals to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament to exercise whatever means it has at its disposal to ensure that before the Operation Sandwood Report is submitted that your committee and JfM are fully briefed on how this report will be considered and who will consider it.

Megrahi petition to be considered by Scottish Parliament Justice Committee

Justice for Megrahi's petition PE1370 is on the agenda for the virtual meeting of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee to be held tomorrow, Tuesday 02 March, at 10.30. The meeting will be broadcast on www.scottishparliament.tv. What follows is Justice for Megrahi's submission to the committee.

On 28th June 2011 the Public Petitions Committee referred the Justice for Megrahi (JfM) petition PE1370 to the Justice Committee for consideration. Its terms were as follows.

‘Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.’

On 6th June, 2013, as part of its consideration, the Justice Committee wrote to Kenny MacAskill MSP, then Cabinet Secretary for Justice, asking for the Government’s comments on our request for a public enquiry. In his reply of 24th June 2013, while acknowledging, that under the Inquiries Act 2005, the Scottish Ministers had the power to establish an inquiry, he concluded:

‘Any conclusions reached by an inquiry would not have any effect on either upholding or overturning the conviction as it is appropriately a court of law that has this power. In addition to the matters noted above, we would also note that Lockerbie remains a live ongoing criminal investigation. In light of the above, the Scottish Government has no plans to institute an independent inquiry into the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.’

As you are aware the above petition was first heard by the Justice Committee on 8th November 2011 and has been kept open by the committee to allow various developments related to the Lockerbie case to be monitored.

On 6 March 2020 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC),following a submission by the Megrahi family, referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.

On 15 January 2021 that court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original conviction. Aamer Anwar, the Megrahi family lawyer, has stated that the family willnow appeal to the UK Supreme Court and will continue pressing for the UK government to release a secret document thought to implicate Iran and a Palestinian terror group.

The Crown Office, Police Scotland and the American law enforcement authorities have all confirmed that the investigation into the bombing remains open and that leads are being actively pursued.

As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stated on 24th June 2013, the decision whether an independent inquiry should be held in Scotland depends on the criminal investigation being completed and matters having been fully determined judicially. Until this happens we believe it is vital that our petition remains under consideration in the Scottish Parliament.

Deep controversy still surrounds the whole circumstances behind the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing and the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi and until fully resolved this tragedy will continue to cast a shadow over the Scottish justice system nationally and internationally.

We greatly value the Justice Committee’s continuing scrutiny and political oversight, which we believe is very much in the public interest, and we would respectfully urge the Committee to allow Petition PE1370 to remain on the table.

UPDATE 02 March 2021

The Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee at this morning's meeting decided unanimously to keep Justice for Megrahi's petition open. It will remain on the new committee's agenda following the Holyrood election in May. There were strong supporting speeches from a number of committee members. A video of the proceedings can be viewed here.

Justice Committee consideration of Megrahi petition

[What follows is taken from a Justice for Megrahi press release:]

On Tuesday 11th December in the Scottish Parliament the Justice Committee will decide how it will move matters forward in respect of the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) petition PE1370 calling for an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp Van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 In December 1988. This decision comes as serious criminal allegations against the Crown Office and police in respect of the Lockerbie investigation are under consideration by Dumfries and Galloway Police.

EVENTS
10.00 hrs Tuesday 11th December: Scottish Parliament Committee Room 2 – Justice Committee considers, among other matters, Petition PE1370 from Justice for Megrahi.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/Papers20121211.pdf

NOTE: It is estimated that the petition will be considered between 11/11.30 am. Dr Jim Swire, Revd John Mosey, Len Murray, Jock Thomson QC, Iain McKie, Tessa Ransford OBE, James Robertson and other members of the Justice for Megrahi Committee and its signatory membership will attend the meeting and will be available for interview in the main reception area after the meeting.

BACKGROUND
Justice for Megrahi in their most recent submission to the Justice Committee in respect of petition PE 1370, state: ‘It is extremely important that this matter remains a ‘live’ issue within the Scottish Parliament so that it cannot be arbitrarily closed down by the very people we believe might have culpability in the matter. It is vital that clear and unambiguous answers are forthcoming from the appropriate authorities. In light of the integral relationship between PE1370 and the allegations we have lodged with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, we would request that the Justice Committee maintain the status of PE1370 as ‘open’ whilst decisions are made in respect of these allegations. It is obvious that we have raised many important questions that the ongoing Crown Office/police enquiry has failed to answer.

[At just about the time that the Justice Committee is expected to reach this item on its agenda, I shall be landing in Cape Town. Further posts to this blog are not likely until Wednesday, 12 December.]

"I am desperate for the truth of the matter to come out..."

[This is the heading over an item posted yesterday on the Lallands Peat Worrier blog, following the publication of the official report of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee's most recent consideration of the Justice for Megrahi petition. The discussion was as follows:]

The Convener: PE1370 is on justice for Megrahi. I refer members to the clerks' paper and invite comments from the committee.

Nanette Milne: I find this to be a difficult petition to deal with. There is an option to get an update from the Scottish Government on its plans for legislation regarding the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Beyond that, however, I think that the committee has gone as far as it can with the petition. I know that I have been a bit reluctant to refer petitions to subject committees, but this is clearly one to refer to the Justice Committee.

Sandra White: It is an extremely important petition on a subject that people have various views on. It could be controversial, but I think that it is an honest petition that is seeking the truth. I was not a member of the previous session's committee, which deliberated on the petition. Would it be sufficient for the Public Petitions Committee to ask the Scottish Government to open an inquiry, or would it be better to send the petition to the Justice Committee with the recommendation that the Government pursue an inquiry? My problem is that I do not want it to get hidden in the Justice Committee stuff and not come back out again.

Kevin Stewart: I agree that the petition should go to the Justice Committee. As a new member of Parliament, I should probably declare an interest in that I may have signed the petition—I am not quite sure. If I did not, I probably did not see it, otherwise I would have signed it. It is a matter for the Justice Committee and we should allow that committee to have a clear look at it.

The Convener: I should have mentioned that Jim Swire and Robert Forrester are present. I thank them for the comprehensive work that they have done on the petition and for referring us to the interview with Gareth Peirce, "The Quiet Storm", which made fascinating reading.

Bill Walker: I am desperate for the truth of the matter to come out. It is fundamental that the truth come out, and we should do everything that we can to help it to come out. I agree with Kevin Stewart that the petition should go to the Justice Committee, although I was a bit concerned when Sandra White said that it might get buried in that committee's paperwork. The terrible events happened a long time ago so we must get to the truth sooner rather than later. Let us not let the Justice Committee bury it.

The Convener: I cannot make any predictions about other committees, but given Christine Grahame's interest in the matter, I would be extremely surprised if the petition did not have a high profile in the Justice Committee.

John Wilson: You said it, convener. The interest of the new convener of the Justice Committee in the matter will do the petition justice and ensure that the issues that have been raised are examined. The previous Public Petitions Committee tried to deal with the petition although it came to the committee late in the previous session. However, the responses that we have received and the further evidence that has been submitted by the petitioners indicate that the matter is for the Justice Committee to consider. The petition raises a number of concerns about who takes responsibility for what decisions in relation to the process of appeals within the Scottish criminal justice system, so I would be happy to see it passed on to the Justice Committee.

The Convener: If no member wishes to make any further comment, we will move on. It is agreed that we will refer the petition to the Justice Committee under rule 15.6.2?

Members indicated agreement.