The BBC Scotland news website has an article today with the above headline. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Volker is quoted as saying that the agreement that led to the Lockerbie trial provided that, if convicted, the accused should serve their sentences in Scotland. The United States expected this agreement to be adhered to, notwithstanding any prisoner transfer agreement that may have been entered into by the UK Government and Libya. The full article can be read here.
And here is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish National Party (the party which forms the Scottish -- as distinct from the UK -- Government):
'The US state department has said it is standing by an international agreement requiring the Lockerbie bomber to serve his sentence in Scotland.
'Acting Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Volker told BBC Scotland he expected the original deal to be "followed through". The UK Government and Libya recently struck an agreement over prisoner transfers.
'It emerged in June 2007 that the UK Government had signed a memorandum of understanding with Libya covering prisoner exchanges.
'First Minister Alex Salmond claimed at the time that the deal could allow Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya and he protested about a lack of consultation.
'Reacting to news that the US wants the Lockerbie bomber to stay in Scotland, Mr Salmond said:
"Anybody connected and convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve their sentences under Scottish jurisdiction. It is certainly not right for anyone regardless of their motivation to attempt to compromise or interfere or undermine the independent processes of the Scottish judicial system and I won't allow that to happen.
"We will defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system, and uphold the international agreements that had been previously made."
'Megrahi is serving life for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing. He was convicted in 2001 of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.'
Friday, 4 April 2008
Monday, 31 March 2008
Libya's Lockerbie compensation proposal
There have recently been a series of press reports about a Libyan proposal to resolve outstanding compensation issues regarding the La Belle disco bombing and the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie and UTA 772 over Niger. Here, reproduced from Mathaba.Net, is Patrick Haseldine's perceptive commentary:
'It is hardly surprising that details have not been revealed about the 'comprehensive settlement agreement' which Libya has proposed to resolve the question of compensation for the terrorist bombings of Berlin's La Belle discotheque in April 1986, Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie in December 1988 and UTA Flight 772 over Niger, West Africa, in September 1989.
Libya has never admitted responsibility for the La Belle attack. Nonetheless, in August 2004, the Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations (GIFCA) agreed with lawyers representing the German victims a final compensation figure of $35 million. US victims were presumably excluded from this agreement because of the USAF retaliatory air raid on Tripoli in June 1986, in which Muammar al-Gaddafi's adopted daughter Hannah was among dozens of casualties.
On August 15, 2003, Libya's UN ambassador, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in relation to both aircraft bombings. The Libyan government offered $2.7 billion compensation to relatives of the 270 Lockerbie bombing victims and proceeded to pay each family $8 million (from which legal fees of about $2.5 million were deducted). As a result, the United Nations cancelled the sanctions that had been suspended four years earlier, and US trade sanctions were lifted. A further $2 million would have gone to each family had the US State Department removed Libya from its list of states regarded as supporting international terrorism, but as this did not happen before the deadline set by Libya, the Libyan Central Bank withdrew the remaining $540 million in April 2005 from the escrow account in Switzerland through which the earlier $2.16 billion compensation for the victims' families had been paid. A civil action against Libya continues on behalf of Pan Am, which went bankrupt partly as a result of the Lockerbie attack. The airline is seeking $4.5 billion for the loss of the aircraft and the effect on the airline's business.
In January 2004, the Libyan leader's son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi signed an agreement on behalf of GIFCA with French relatives' group "Les familles du DC-10 d'UTA en colère" offering a compensation payment of $170 million, or $1 million for each of the 170 UTA victims. By May 2007, it was reported that 95% of this compensation money had been distributed. However, the families of the seven American victims refused to accept their $1 million awards and are pursuing the Libyan government through a federal court in Washington. On September 19, 2006, the court was asked to rule that the Libyan government and six of its agents were guilty of the September 19, 1989 destruction of UTA Flight 772. Damages of more than $2 billion were claimed for the loss of life and the destruction of the DC-10 jet. In April 2007, D.C. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy found Libya directly responsible for the bombing and presided over a three day bench trial from August 13 to August 15, 2007. On January 15, 2008 Judge Kennedy issued an order awarding $6 billion in damages to the families and owners of the airliner. Libya has appealed this decision.
There are, however, strong reasons for believing that Libya was "fitted up" for these two aircraft bombings. According to French investigative journalist, Pierre Péan, the FBI conspired to incriminate Libya for the sabotage of both Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772. Péan wrote an article published in 'Le Monde Diplomatique' in March 2001, just after the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial had ended with the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi on the strength of just one piece of hard evidence: a tiny fragment of a timing device manufactured by the Swiss firm Mebo.
Two years earlier, six Libyans were tried 'in absentia' and convicted in 1999 by a Paris court for the UTA Flight 772 bombing. Péan claimed there was something wrong:
"It is striking to witness the similarity of the discoveries, by the FBI, of the scientific proof of the two aircraft that were sabotaged: the Pan Am Boeing 747 and the UTA DC-10. Among the thousands or rather tens of thousands of pieces of debris collected near the crash sites, just one PCB fragment was found in each case, which carried enough information to allow its identification: Mebo for the Boeing 747 and "TY" (from Taiwan) for the DC-10."
Péan went on to accuse judge Jean-Louis Bruguière of ignoring the results of an analysis by Claude Colisti of the Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire (DCPJ) – one of the world's foremost explosives experts – that the "TY" timer fragment had no trace of explosives residue, and could not therefore have been connected to the bomb that destroyed UTA Flight 772. Furthermore, neither a forensic inquiry by the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST) nor an examination by the scientific laboratory of the Préfecture de Police (PP) could make any connection between the timer fragment and the bomb. According to Péan, judge Bruguière had therefore taken at face value the word of an FBI political operative (Thomas Thurman), who had been discredited in 1997 by the US Inspector-General, Michael Bromwich, and told never again to appear in court as an expert witness, rather than accept the findings of French forensic experts. It was revealed at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial that the British scientist, Dr Thomas Hayes, had also failed to test the Mebo timer fragment for explosives residue. Such reckless disregard for the integrity of forensic evidence is likely to have the most profound effects upon the Scottish judicial process in relation to Megrahi's second appeal against conviction at the Edinburgh Appeal Court in 2008.
There have been suggestions that, if Megrahi's appeal is successful and his conviction is overturned, Libya could seek to recover the compensation that has already been paid. Interviewed by French newspaper 'Le Figaro' on December 7, 2007, Saif al-Gaddafi insisted 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 ($2.33 billion in total), Saif al-Gaddafi replied: "I don't know".
Thus, the proposed 'comprehensive settlement agreement' - that Libyan officials discussed in London last week with David Welch of the US State Department - is more likely to involve a refund of compensation to Libya, rather than any further payments by Libya.'
Here is an article on the compensation issue from The Wall Street Journal of 2 April 2008.
'It is hardly surprising that details have not been revealed about the 'comprehensive settlement agreement' which Libya has proposed to resolve the question of compensation for the terrorist bombings of Berlin's La Belle discotheque in April 1986, Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie in December 1988 and UTA Flight 772 over Niger, West Africa, in September 1989.
Libya has never admitted responsibility for the La Belle attack. Nonetheless, in August 2004, the Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations (GIFCA) agreed with lawyers representing the German victims a final compensation figure of $35 million. US victims were presumably excluded from this agreement because of the USAF retaliatory air raid on Tripoli in June 1986, in which Muammar al-Gaddafi's adopted daughter Hannah was among dozens of casualties.
On August 15, 2003, Libya's UN ambassador, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in relation to both aircraft bombings. The Libyan government offered $2.7 billion compensation to relatives of the 270 Lockerbie bombing victims and proceeded to pay each family $8 million (from which legal fees of about $2.5 million were deducted). As a result, the United Nations cancelled the sanctions that had been suspended four years earlier, and US trade sanctions were lifted. A further $2 million would have gone to each family had the US State Department removed Libya from its list of states regarded as supporting international terrorism, but as this did not happen before the deadline set by Libya, the Libyan Central Bank withdrew the remaining $540 million in April 2005 from the escrow account in Switzerland through which the earlier $2.16 billion compensation for the victims' families had been paid. A civil action against Libya continues on behalf of Pan Am, which went bankrupt partly as a result of the Lockerbie attack. The airline is seeking $4.5 billion for the loss of the aircraft and the effect on the airline's business.
In January 2004, the Libyan leader's son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi signed an agreement on behalf of GIFCA with French relatives' group "Les familles du DC-10 d'UTA en colère" offering a compensation payment of $170 million, or $1 million for each of the 170 UTA victims. By May 2007, it was reported that 95% of this compensation money had been distributed. However, the families of the seven American victims refused to accept their $1 million awards and are pursuing the Libyan government through a federal court in Washington. On September 19, 2006, the court was asked to rule that the Libyan government and six of its agents were guilty of the September 19, 1989 destruction of UTA Flight 772. Damages of more than $2 billion were claimed for the loss of life and the destruction of the DC-10 jet. In April 2007, D.C. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy found Libya directly responsible for the bombing and presided over a three day bench trial from August 13 to August 15, 2007. On January 15, 2008 Judge Kennedy issued an order awarding $6 billion in damages to the families and owners of the airliner. Libya has appealed this decision.
There are, however, strong reasons for believing that Libya was "fitted up" for these two aircraft bombings. According to French investigative journalist, Pierre Péan, the FBI conspired to incriminate Libya for the sabotage of both Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772. Péan wrote an article published in 'Le Monde Diplomatique' in March 2001, just after the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial had ended with the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi on the strength of just one piece of hard evidence: a tiny fragment of a timing device manufactured by the Swiss firm Mebo.
Two years earlier, six Libyans were tried 'in absentia' and convicted in 1999 by a Paris court for the UTA Flight 772 bombing. Péan claimed there was something wrong:
"It is striking to witness the similarity of the discoveries, by the FBI, of the scientific proof of the two aircraft that were sabotaged: the Pan Am Boeing 747 and the UTA DC-10. Among the thousands or rather tens of thousands of pieces of debris collected near the crash sites, just one PCB fragment was found in each case, which carried enough information to allow its identification: Mebo for the Boeing 747 and "TY" (from Taiwan) for the DC-10."
Péan went on to accuse judge Jean-Louis Bruguière of ignoring the results of an analysis by Claude Colisti of the Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire (DCPJ) – one of the world's foremost explosives experts – that the "TY" timer fragment had no trace of explosives residue, and could not therefore have been connected to the bomb that destroyed UTA Flight 772. Furthermore, neither a forensic inquiry by the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST) nor an examination by the scientific laboratory of the Préfecture de Police (PP) could make any connection between the timer fragment and the bomb. According to Péan, judge Bruguière had therefore taken at face value the word of an FBI political operative (Thomas Thurman), who had been discredited in 1997 by the US Inspector-General, Michael Bromwich, and told never again to appear in court as an expert witness, rather than accept the findings of French forensic experts. It was revealed at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial that the British scientist, Dr Thomas Hayes, had also failed to test the Mebo timer fragment for explosives residue. Such reckless disregard for the integrity of forensic evidence is likely to have the most profound effects upon the Scottish judicial process in relation to Megrahi's second appeal against conviction at the Edinburgh Appeal Court in 2008.
There have been suggestions that, if Megrahi's appeal is successful and his conviction is overturned, Libya could seek to recover the compensation that has already been paid. Interviewed by French newspaper 'Le Figaro' on December 7, 2007, Saif al-Gaddafi insisted 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 ($2.33 billion in total), Saif al-Gaddafi replied: "I don't know".
Thus, the proposed 'comprehensive settlement agreement' - that Libyan officials discussed in London last week with David Welch of the US State Department - is more likely to involve a refund of compensation to Libya, rather than any further payments by Libya.'
Here is an article on the compensation issue from The Wall Street Journal of 2 April 2008.
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Arab Ministerial Council Demands Release of Documents in the Libyan Citizen Case
The following is from Mathaba News Network on 29 March:
"The Council of Arab Foreign Ministers has demanded that all documents requested by the defence team in the trial of the Libyan political hostage Abd al Basset al Megrahi to be released to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. [Note by RB: The documents in question were, in fact, released to the SCCRC, which regarded them as of such importance that their non-disclosure at the trial may have given rise to a miscarriage of justice. It is disclosure of the documents to Megrahi's legal team and to the court for the purpose of the appeal that is currently at issue.]
The failure to release the documents will lead to the miscarriage of justice and an impediment to his vindication, the Council said in a meeting in Damascus today.
The Council entrusted the Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa with the follow up of this decision and to report back to the next Arab summit.
It considered the Libyan citizen Abd al Basset al Megrahi a hostage by all international norms and laws.
The Council endorsed a decision to tackle the damage resulting from the Lockerbie case.
It reconfirmed the legitimate right of Libya to reparations for the human and material losses incurred by the unjust sanctions that had been imposed on it."
See http://mathaba.net/news/?x=587142
The English language website of the Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation has a brief report of the same story, which can be read here.
"The Council of Arab Foreign Ministers has demanded that all documents requested by the defence team in the trial of the Libyan political hostage Abd al Basset al Megrahi to be released to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. [Note by RB: The documents in question were, in fact, released to the SCCRC, which regarded them as of such importance that their non-disclosure at the trial may have given rise to a miscarriage of justice. It is disclosure of the documents to Megrahi's legal team and to the court for the purpose of the appeal that is currently at issue.]
The failure to release the documents will lead to the miscarriage of justice and an impediment to his vindication, the Council said in a meeting in Damascus today.
The Council entrusted the Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa with the follow up of this decision and to report back to the next Arab summit.
It considered the Libyan citizen Abd al Basset al Megrahi a hostage by all international norms and laws.
The Council endorsed a decision to tackle the damage resulting from the Lockerbie case.
It reconfirmed the legitimate right of Libya to reparations for the human and material losses incurred by the unjust sanctions that had been imposed on it."
See http://mathaba.net/news/?x=587142
The English language website of the Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation has a brief report of the same story, which can be read here.
The Iranian connection
In an article entitled “The truth behind Lockerbie” on the website of Al-Arabiya News Channel (reproduced from the issue of Al-Ahram Weekly for 20 – 26 March) Issaka Souaré reviews the problems about the evidence used to convict Abdelbaset Megrahi in the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist, and highlights retired CIA officer Robert Baer’s view that the true responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am 103 lay with Iran. See
http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2008/03/27/47511.html
Also focusing on Iranian responsibility is the latest article, entitled “Lockerbie: the man who was not there”, by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer which appeared on OhMyNews International on 29 March. The author retells the story of the claim by Abolghasem Mesbahi, a high-ranking Iranian intelligence agent, that Iran alone was responsible for the destruction of the aircraft. Dr De Braeckeleer continues his debate with Richard A Marquise, the retired FBI Special Agent who headed that body’s Lockerbie investigation. The full text of this lengthy and informative article can be read here.
http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2008/03/27/47511.html
Also focusing on Iranian responsibility is the latest article, entitled “Lockerbie: the man who was not there”, by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer which appeared on OhMyNews International on 29 March. The author retells the story of the claim by Abolghasem Mesbahi, a high-ranking Iranian intelligence agent, that Iran alone was responsible for the destruction of the aircraft. Dr De Braeckeleer continues his debate with Richard A Marquise, the retired FBI Special Agent who headed that body’s Lockerbie investigation. The full text of this lengthy and informative article can be read here.
Monday, 24 March 2008
Dr Swire's article in The Scotsman
I am grateful to Dr Jim Swire for sending me the full text of the article that appeared in The Scotsman on 14 March (see post on that date on this blog). It reads as follows (the version in The Scotsman was slightly edited):
"The issues here are tied into the development of the Scottish devolution process, they involve a great deal more than the sanctity of Mr Megrahi's (described by your headline as 'the Lockerbie bomber') appeal process.
"As the Lockerbie case progressed, the prosecution found itself in possession in 1996 of material that Mr Miliband now claims cannot be divilged to the defence. This occurred originally, it is said, because at the time, Scotland's Lord Advocate was ex officio a member of the UK government.
"Mr Miliband has, as your article says, now taken out Public Interest Immunity certificates(PIIs) to 'protect' the documents from release to either the defence or the public.
"Since a basic tenet of Scottish criminal law is 'equality of arms' between the defence and prosecution in a criminal case, it is hard to see how anyone can contend in the present circumstances that the 2nd appeal could be considered fair. Specially since the SCCRC seemed to be including the contents of these documents (which they had also been shown) in their reasons for referring the case back.
"PII certificates, carry as their justification and title, the interests of 'the public'. What may be at stake here, unless a solution is found in the High Court, is the freedom of the Scottish criminal system to be, and to be seen to be, independent of political control from Whitehall.
"If that absolute independance of Scottish law were not to be decisively established, and soon, it would be a black day indeed for the scottish public, which presumably Mr Miliband also claims to serve.
"The citizen needs to have faith in the independence and fairness of his judicial system, which he might need to use to protect himself from injustice imposed by his own government, let alone that in Westminster: selective disclosure to the prosecution in so grave a criminal case cannot be right."
"The issues here are tied into the development of the Scottish devolution process, they involve a great deal more than the sanctity of Mr Megrahi's (described by your headline as 'the Lockerbie bomber') appeal process.
"As the Lockerbie case progressed, the prosecution found itself in possession in 1996 of material that Mr Miliband now claims cannot be divilged to the defence. This occurred originally, it is said, because at the time, Scotland's Lord Advocate was ex officio a member of the UK government.
"Mr Miliband has, as your article says, now taken out Public Interest Immunity certificates(PIIs) to 'protect' the documents from release to either the defence or the public.
"Since a basic tenet of Scottish criminal law is 'equality of arms' between the defence and prosecution in a criminal case, it is hard to see how anyone can contend in the present circumstances that the 2nd appeal could be considered fair. Specially since the SCCRC seemed to be including the contents of these documents (which they had also been shown) in their reasons for referring the case back.
"PII certificates, carry as their justification and title, the interests of 'the public'. What may be at stake here, unless a solution is found in the High Court, is the freedom of the Scottish criminal system to be, and to be seen to be, independent of political control from Whitehall.
"If that absolute independance of Scottish law were not to be decisively established, and soon, it would be a black day indeed for the scottish public, which presumably Mr Miliband also claims to serve.
"The citizen needs to have faith in the independence and fairness of his judicial system, which he might need to use to protect himself from injustice imposed by his own government, let alone that in Westminster: selective disclosure to the prosecution in so grave a criminal case cannot be right."
And again ...
I am off tomorrow (Tuesday 25th) to Oudtshoorn for the Klein Karoo Nasionale Kunstefees, the Afrikaner equivalent of the Edinburgh Festival. There will therefore be no postings on this blog before Sunday, 30 March. Fortunately, as far as a trawl of the internet and the blogosphere can show, there is little of interest happening (at least in public) on the Lockerbie front.
Thursday, 20 March 2008
Service interruption
Because I am on duty at Gannaga Lodge over the Easter weekend (barman, porter, dishwasher, assistant chef) I shall not be in a position to post on this blog until Monday, 24 March at the earliest.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
American lawyer sues firm over Lockerbie work
Douglas Rosenthal, an American attorney, is suing his former firm, Sonnenschein, Nash and Rosenthal for $8.5m in the Washington DC Superior Court for its alleged failure properly to recognise, and to compensate him for, his work in representing relatives of passengers killed in the destruction of Pan Am 103. An account of the first week of the court proceedings can be read here.
Saturday, 15 March 2008
An anniversary ... just a day late
14 March 2008 marks the sixth anniversary of the dismissal of Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal against conviction. That appeal was unsuccessful because his then lawyers did not ask the Appeal Court to address the correct questions: see the very first post on this blog (section headed "The Appeal").
In the appeal which is currently wending its way -- painfully slowly -- through the Scottish criminal justice system, the correct issues have been raised, and the result should be the overturning of Mr Megrahi's conviction.
In the appeal which is currently wending its way -- painfully slowly -- through the Scottish criminal justice system, the correct issues have been raised, and the result should be the overturning of Mr Megrahi's conviction.
Friday, 14 March 2008
Alternative take: Dr Jim Swire, father of Lockerbie victim Flora Swire
This is the title of an article in today's issue of The Scotsman. It starts:
"As the Lockerbie case progressed, the prosecution found itself in possession in 1996 of material that Mr [David] Miliband now claims cannot be divulged to the defence.
"This occurred originally, it is said, because at the time, Scotland's Lord Advocate was ex officio a member of the UK government.
"Mr Miliband has now taken out Public Interest Immunity certificates (PIIs) to 'protect' the documents from release to..."
The article is in the premium (ie pay to view) section of The Scotsman's website, and so I am not in a position to quote more of it or to summarize its contents since I resolutely refuse to pay for access to the newspaper (a) because I am a Scot and (b) because this once-great newspaper has in recent times declined disastrously.
The full article (if you are a subscriber) can be read here.
The readers' comments are of interest, even if you cannot access the full text of Dr Swire's article.
"As the Lockerbie case progressed, the prosecution found itself in possession in 1996 of material that Mr [David] Miliband now claims cannot be divulged to the defence.
"This occurred originally, it is said, because at the time, Scotland's Lord Advocate was ex officio a member of the UK government.
"Mr Miliband has now taken out Public Interest Immunity certificates (PIIs) to 'protect' the documents from release to..."
The article is in the premium (ie pay to view) section of The Scotsman's website, and so I am not in a position to quote more of it or to summarize its contents since I resolutely refuse to pay for access to the newspaper (a) because I am a Scot and (b) because this once-great newspaper has in recent times declined disastrously.
The full article (if you are a subscriber) can be read here.
The readers' comments are of interest, even if you cannot access the full text of Dr Swire's article.
Monday, 10 March 2008
Dr Swire on the PII decision
Dr Jim Swire has a letter about the PII issue in today's issue of The Herald. It reads:
"It is hard to see how the Westminster Foreign Secretary can justify his attempt to 'protect'documents with Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates on the grounds that they would harm the UK's relations with other nations, and that their release to the defence in the Lockerbie case would disadvantage the very public PIIs are designed to serve.
"It appears these documents were supplied to the prosecution (and Dumfries and Galloway police) about 12 years ago, and concern the truth about a terrorist atrocity of nearly 20 years ago. It also appears they were considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to be part of their reason for considering the original trial and appeal might have been unsafe. The Foreign Secretary must realise that the longstanding release of them to the prosecution, but not the defence, wrecks any chance of the next appeal being considered fair. Coupled with their inclusion in the SCCRC's referral back to appeal, this grossly selective restriction can only destroy any remaining vestige of faith in the freedom and independence of Scotland's judicial system.
"No doubt the defence will continue to fight for the documents to be released to them. Meanwhile, the use of the PII certificates will be seen outside these islands as at best a delaying tactic by Whitehall, and at worst a calculated attempt to ensure Mr Megrahi does not get a fair appeal and the relatives are denied the truth about the murder of their loved ones, as are the the public, while Scotland's independent criminal law is seen as enslaved to Britain's politicians."
For the full text, and readers' comments, see
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2105464.0.No_justification.php
"It is hard to see how the Westminster Foreign Secretary can justify his attempt to 'protect'documents with Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates on the grounds that they would harm the UK's relations with other nations, and that their release to the defence in the Lockerbie case would disadvantage the very public PIIs are designed to serve.
"It appears these documents were supplied to the prosecution (and Dumfries and Galloway police) about 12 years ago, and concern the truth about a terrorist atrocity of nearly 20 years ago. It also appears they were considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to be part of their reason for considering the original trial and appeal might have been unsafe. The Foreign Secretary must realise that the longstanding release of them to the prosecution, but not the defence, wrecks any chance of the next appeal being considered fair. Coupled with their inclusion in the SCCRC's referral back to appeal, this grossly selective restriction can only destroy any remaining vestige of faith in the freedom and independence of Scotland's judicial system.
"No doubt the defence will continue to fight for the documents to be released to them. Meanwhile, the use of the PII certificates will be seen outside these islands as at best a delaying tactic by Whitehall, and at worst a calculated attempt to ensure Mr Megrahi does not get a fair appeal and the relatives are denied the truth about the murder of their loved ones, as are the the public, while Scotland's independent criminal law is seen as enslaved to Britain's politicians."
For the full text, and readers' comments, see
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2105464.0.No_justification.php
Saturday, 8 March 2008
The Herald on the PII decision
Lucy Adams has a comprehensive article on the Appeal Court's ruling on the PII issue in today's issue of The Herald. As she makes clear, all that the court decided yesterday was that it was competent for the Advocate General to claim PII on behalf of the UK Government. There will now be a further hearing on the substantive issue of whether the document should be disclosed in the interests of justice, notwithstanding the UK Government's desire for the document to be withheld. The full article can be read here.
Friday, 7 March 2008
The Appeal Court's decision on PII
The Criminal Appeal Court has rejected the argument by Mr Megrahi's legal team that it is incompetent for the Advocate General for Scotland on behalf of the UK Government to claim public interest immunity in Scottish legal proceedings where the Lord Advocate declines to do so. The court held that, under the law governing devolution to Scotland, it must be permissible for a UK Government departments to claim PII in Scottish proceedings, just as the Lord Advocate could do on their behalf prior to devolution. For the full text of the court's judgment, see
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC15.html
This is the outcome that I predicted in respect of this issue: see
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/third-procedural-hearing-much-as.html
The court has ordered further argument on whether it should compel disclosure of the document notwithstanding the UK Foreign Secretary's claim of PII. A possibility that has been canvassed is that it should be handed over, not to Megrahi's lawyers, but to a specially appointed independent counsel. This is a mechanism sometimes adopted in England in terrorism cases, but it has not heretofore been resorted to in Scotland.
Here are the reports about the court's decision from the websites of The Scotsman and the BBC:
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Appeal-setback-for-Lockerbie-bomber.3856346.jp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7283139.stm
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC15.html
This is the outcome that I predicted in respect of this issue: see
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/third-procedural-hearing-much-as.html
The court has ordered further argument on whether it should compel disclosure of the document notwithstanding the UK Foreign Secretary's claim of PII. A possibility that has been canvassed is that it should be handed over, not to Megrahi's lawyers, but to a specially appointed independent counsel. This is a mechanism sometimes adopted in England in terrorism cases, but it has not heretofore been resorted to in Scotland.
Here are the reports about the court's decision from the websites of The Scotsman and the BBC:
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Appeal-setback-for-Lockerbie-bomber.3856346.jp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7283139.stm
Lockerbie: Truth - the final casualty
This is the title of an article just published on the website of the Mathaba News Agency, an organisation which concentrates on material relevant to North Africa. The article profiles some of the principal characters in the Lockerbie story, and also highlights the Westminster Government's "interference" in the Scottish judicial process, particularly in relation to its objections to disclosure of the mysterious foreign document relating to timers. See
http://www.mathaba.net/rss/?x=584537
http://www.mathaba.net/rss/?x=584537
Thursday, 6 March 2008
The public interest immunity decision
I am reliably informed that the Criminal Appeal Court's decision on the public hinterest immunity (PII) plea taken by the UK Government (in relation to the document from a foreign country relating to timers) will be released tomorrow (Friday, 7 March). This was the issue debated at the third procedural hearing held on 20 February. See
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/third-procedural-hearing.html
and
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/third-procedural-hearing-much-as.html
The court has to decide (a) whether it is competent for the Advocate General for Scotland (the UK Government's Scottish legal adviser) to claim PII in Scottish criminal proceedings when the Lord Advocate (Scotland's public prosecutor and a minister in the Scottish Government) has chosen not to claim it; and (b) if it is competent, whether the public interest in "national security", which the UK Government is asserting would be affected if the document were disclosed, outweighs the public interest in the administration of justice which requires that accused persons should have access to all material that could assist their case.
There will also on Friday be a further brief procedural hearing at which Mr Megrahi's legal team will raise the issue of the Crown's refusal to allow them access to the productions used at the original trial; and the issue of the Crown's contention (in the face of appellate decisions to the contrary) that the new appeal should be confined to those issues in respect of which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) decided that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. In my account on this blog on 20 December 2007 of the second procedural hearing where this issue was first raised, I commented:
"Two other matters were discussed at the hearing. The first was the scope of the appeal. The Crown had earlier stated that it would consider asking the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to allow to be argued all (or some) of the Grounds of Appeal that related to matters that had been investigated by the SCCRC but rejected by that body. Today Mr Clancy went considerably further: the Crown now wished to argue that, as a matter of law, the Appeal Court was not permitted to hear Grounds of Appeal that had not been accepted by the SCCRC. That is a legal issue that has already been decided by a three-judge bench who held in 2004 that there was no such restriction on the Grounds of Appeal that could be heard. Nothing daunted, Mr Clancy asked for a five-judge court to be convened to reconsider the matter. The court ordered the Lord Advocate to submit within one month a written note setting out her legal arguments and appointed the appellant to submit written answers within one month thereafter. A five-judge court would then be convened to hear oral argument."
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/third-procedural-hearing.html
and
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2008/02/third-procedural-hearing-much-as.html
The court has to decide (a) whether it is competent for the Advocate General for Scotland (the UK Government's Scottish legal adviser) to claim PII in Scottish criminal proceedings when the Lord Advocate (Scotland's public prosecutor and a minister in the Scottish Government) has chosen not to claim it; and (b) if it is competent, whether the public interest in "national security", which the UK Government is asserting would be affected if the document were disclosed, outweighs the public interest in the administration of justice which requires that accused persons should have access to all material that could assist their case.
There will also on Friday be a further brief procedural hearing at which Mr Megrahi's legal team will raise the issue of the Crown's refusal to allow them access to the productions used at the original trial; and the issue of the Crown's contention (in the face of appellate decisions to the contrary) that the new appeal should be confined to those issues in respect of which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) decided that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. In my account on this blog on 20 December 2007 of the second procedural hearing where this issue was first raised, I commented:
"Two other matters were discussed at the hearing. The first was the scope of the appeal. The Crown had earlier stated that it would consider asking the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to allow to be argued all (or some) of the Grounds of Appeal that related to matters that had been investigated by the SCCRC but rejected by that body. Today Mr Clancy went considerably further: the Crown now wished to argue that, as a matter of law, the Appeal Court was not permitted to hear Grounds of Appeal that had not been accepted by the SCCRC. That is a legal issue that has already been decided by a three-judge bench who held in 2004 that there was no such restriction on the Grounds of Appeal that could be heard. Nothing daunted, Mr Clancy asked for a five-judge court to be convened to reconsider the matter. The court ordered the Lord Advocate to submit within one month a written note setting out her legal arguments and appointed the appellant to submit written answers within one month thereafter. A five-judge court would then be convened to hear oral argument."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)