http://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12770332.Miliband_has_made_Lockerbie_appeal_a_mockery_of_justice/
http://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12767528.Anger_over__apos_interference_apos__in_Lockerbie_appeal/
A commentary on the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of the murder of 270 people in the Pan Am 103 disaster.
Dear Robert,
You will, I think, be interested to see my exchange of emails with Dr Hans Koechler, the United Nations Observer at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial:
| Date: | Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:27:10 +0000 (GMT) |
| From: | |
| | |
| To: | info@i-p-o.org |
Dear Dr Koechler,
The ePetitions team gave the following explanation for the rejection: Criminal investigations are instigated by the police, not by the Prime Minister. You should take your request to the police authorities.
I understand that it was Prime Minister Thatcher who decided early in 1989 that the original Lockerbie investigation should be controlled by the small Dumfries and Galloway force - in liaison with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and involving British and US intelligence - rather than by a specialist national police unit based in London. I had hoped that Prime Minister Brown would reverse that decision for a new investigation, but it could be that the powers devolved in 1998 from the House of Commons to the Parliament in
References supporting the text of the rejected petition can be found at the website of Professor Robert Black (http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/01/patrick-haseldine-on-lockerbie.html).
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Haseldine
| From: | "info@i-p-o.org" info@i-p-o.org |
| To: | patrick.haseldine |
| Date: | Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:39:33 -0500 |
| | |
23 February 2008
Dear Mr. Haseldine!
Thank you for the information on the reply from the Prime Minister's office.
In view of the many revelations during the last two years in the English and Scottish media, the Scottish authorities should undertake an investigation into the handling of the Lockerbie case - and possible criminal misconduct - by the Scottish police and judiciary. The Scots have to demonstrate that they are capable to handle judicial matters properly.
Devolution in matters of criminal justice is meaningless if they are not able to assert their authority vis-a-vis the
With best regards
Hans Koechler
In today’s issue of The Herald there is a letter from Dr Jim Swire (who attended Wednesday’s procedural hearing, as he had also the previous two). He calls on the UK Government to cease objecting on “national security” grounds to disclosure to Megrahi’s legal team of the document emanating from a foreign country (relating to timers) that was in the hands of the Crown before the Zeist trial but which was not divulged to the defence even though (according to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) it could have helped Megrahi’s defence.
From what has appeared in the media about the third procedural hearing in the new Lockerbie appeal, it would appear that the arguments were much as had been anticipated in this blog on 19 February.
The Guardian's account of the proceedings is to be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/21/lockerbie.scotland
A full court day has been allocated on Wednesday, 20 February for the third procedural hearing in the appeal by Abdelbaset Megrahi. For an account of proceedings at the first two procedural hearings, see
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/10/procedural-hearing_11.html
and
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2007/12/second-procedural-hearing.html
The principal issue now to be discussed is the United Kingdom Government’s claim for public interest immunity (PII) in respect of disclosure of the document from a foreign country (not the United States of America) the failure to disclose which to the defence at the original trial was one of the reasons that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission gave for concluding that Mehrahi’s conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
For Lucy Adams's article in The Herald, see
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2046568.0.Clash_over_Jack_Straws_secret_letter_on_Megrahi.php
and for that newspaper's editorial comment see
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/editorial/display.var.2046488.0.Transfer_of_prisoners.php
And for some readers' letters on the subject, see
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2046494.0.Families_of_Lockerbie_victims_have_a_right_to_be_informed.php
The Scotsman's coverage is at
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Straw-Lockerbie-bomber39s-fate-may.3781347.jp
I suggest that the terms of this letter supply further corroboration, if more were needed, that the negotiations with Libya were conducted with Megrahi very much in mind. The UK negotiators, however, were either (a) unaware that the ultimate decision on transfer of Megrahi rested with the Scottish Government or (b) were aware of this but deliberately concealed the fact from their Libyan counterparts, whom they knew to be concerned, above all, with the position of Megrahi. The fact that the Scottish Government was not informed that the negotiations were taking place might perhaps be construed as evidence supporting alternative (a). For my part, I am not at all sure that gross constitutional ignorance is all that much less of a sin in the UK Foreign Office than dishonest concealment.
For a somewhat different perspective from The Telegraph, an English newspaper, see
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/15/nlockerbie115.xml
'Readers will remember that even without knowledge of a cynical commercial reason for the agreement, there was concern as to its effect on Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi's position, and anger at the failure to consult the Scottish Government.
'We now hear Jack Straw has admitted that Megrahi's transfer to Libya to serve the rest of his sentence for the Lockerbie bombing was essential to the completion of the deal.
'The Crown Office maintains there is no question of Megrahi being allowed to be repatriated while his second appeal is in process. It is clear this appeal could not proceed without embarrassing revelations emerging over evidence led at Zeist, and in the view of many, the prosecution case would fail.
'Megrahi is determined to clear his name. What is to stop the Crown now abandoning the case, thus serving "the national interest" (as exemplified by the Libya-BP deal)?
'At the last hearing in Edinburgh High Court the prosecution were still not prepared to divulge the contents of a document (from abroad) to the defence. This failure would be likely to mean that the court would have to declare a fair appeal impossible. Already the Crown were talking of obtaining public interest immunity (PIIs) certificates to "protect" the document from being divulged.
'Lockerbie relatives have bitter memories of threats of PII certificates being prepared against us. If the Crown abandons the case, or if the court cannot proceed without the document, Libya, Whitehall and BP would all be delighted. Abandonment would presumably result in the verdict being declared unsafe and overturned, in view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's published view that the Zeist trial might not have been fair.
'Scotland, her government and her justice system would have been used as an expendable tool to achieve a politically, and now commercially, convenient stitch-up. The relatives would see that their legitimate interests in seeking to find out who really murdered their loved ones and why their families were not protected, had again been treated with cynical derision, this time on the altar of profit.
'Have we really sunk so low?'
SeeThe spat between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government over the possibility of Abdel Baset Megrahi benefiting from the prisoner transfer agreement concluded recently between the
‘It was reported that the UK Government drafted a transfer agreement that could cover Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
‘But
‘Mr Salmond spoke out on the issue after the Financial Times reported that Libya had just ratified a £450m contract with oil giant BP, after Westminster ministers drafted a prisoner transfer agreement that it claimed could cover al-Megrahi.’
For the full text, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7224194.stm
The truth of the matter is this. The UK Foreign Office (and officials in the office of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair) entered into negotiations with