The Herald today publishes a letter from Christopher Frew in response to the letter from Dr Jim Swire published yesterday. It reads:
"Further to Dr Jim Swire's detailed and dignified letter (June 2) on the Lockerbie appeal, there is one aspect which I think invites re-examination.
That is the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate signed by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who has said that disclosing the two confidential documents would cause 'real harm' to national security.
The role of PII certificates in court proceedings seems to straddle uneasily the pillars of the judicial and the political structures. May I suggest merely that we keep in mind two precedents: first, the scathing comments by the judiciary on the blocking of the BAE inquiry, where political expedience was allowed to take precedence over due process; and, secondly, the case of the Matrix Churchill prosecutions, where four ministers (Clarke, Rifkind, Garel-Jones for Hurd and Heseltine) signed PII certificates.
Michael Heseltine, to his credit, made his reservations clear, both to officials and in the wording particular to his PII. The whole affair can be studied in various books, notably Truth Is A Difficult Concept: Inside the Scott Inquiry, by Richard Norton Taylor (Guardian Books, 1995).
An illuminating quote as to the government view comes in that case from an assistant Treasury solicitor, Andrew Leithead: 'It is damaging to the public interest to have any decision-making process expanded.'
Let us hope the judges have a more enlightened view as to the public interest."
The comments from members of the public that follow the letter are also worth reading.
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
"Insider" confirmation to Dr De Braeckeleer
Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer reports on OhMyNews International (OMNI) that, only a very short time after the publication of his article identifying the source and contents of the document at the heart of the public interest immunity claim by the UK Government, an "insider" contacted him to confirm that his information was correct. He writes:
"Within hours of the publication by OMNI, an insider, who wishes to remain anonymous for security reasons, contacted me. This source confirmed that OMNI had correctly identified the document and its country of origin. The source also tells me that the nature of an earlier meeting would unambiguously reveal the political nature of the indictments against Libya."
The full article can be read here.
"Within hours of the publication by OMNI, an insider, who wishes to remain anonymous for security reasons, contacted me. This source confirmed that OMNI had correctly identified the document and its country of origin. The source also tells me that the nature of an earlier meeting would unambiguously reveal the political nature of the indictments against Libya."
The full article can be read here.
Monday, 2 June 2008
Dr Swire on public interest immunity
Today's issue of The Herald has a letter on the public interest immunity issue from Dr Jim Swire. It reads as follows:
"Our first encounter with the Scottish justice system was the fatal accident inquiry (FAI) held in Dumfries under the late Sheriff Principal John Mowat. Two findings stood out: 1. The aircraft destroyed at Lockerbie on which our families perished, and into which it appeared that a bomb had been loaded at Heathrow, had been under the "host state protection" of the UK authorities; 2. It was preventable.
At the end of 1991 indictments were issued against two Libyans; there was, so the Foreign Office told us, no evidence against any other country than Libya.
Within two weeks, and with the subsequent ending of a professional career, one of us went to visit Colonel Gaddafi. We told him we believed that Scottish criminal justice was among the fairest available, and that it was independent of the English-based government. We dared to explain that we felt US justice to be inappropriate because of the death penalty, and because of the enmity between the two nations, and that Libyan justice, though appropriate under the international aviation treaties of the time, would never be accepted as impartial by the international community. Our plea to him was to allow his citizens to face justice under Scots law.
It was not until after two further visits to Libya and following the intervention of many, including Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh with proposals as to how Scottish criminal law might best be used, plus that of the late Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary, and Nelson Mandela some years later, that our wish was granted, the result being the trial at Zeist in Holland.
Meanwhile, we had sought, in the light of the FAI findings and the known warnings received beforehand, an independent and far-reaching inquiry into why the UK government had failed to protect our families. The Thatcher government of the day refused to discuss the issue of an inquiry with us. Twenty years later, despite repeated refusals, we are still waiting for the government to face up to the 1988 failure by allowing a full inquiry.
Therefore, we bring some preconceptions from outwith the criminal justice arena about the role of the UK government in the whole Lockerbie disaster, and issues arising from the trial, though that trial has to do only with the accusations against the two Libyan individuals, one of whom was acquitted and the other of whom is currently in Greenock prison.
Doubts about the verdict against him meant the affair was referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which, after some three years, decided the trial might have been unfair, partly because two documents given to the UK government by a foreign power had been available to the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway police from long before the trial, but not to the defence. The matter fell to be resolved by the High Court.
Following representations by the advocate-general to the [UK] government, the Foreign Office's response was to make the two documents the subject of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate.
The two documents, the denial of which to the defence was crucial to the SCCRC's decision that the verdict might be unsafe, are still denied to those by whom the convicted Libyan wishes to be represented in the appeal. The Foreign Office, through this PII certificate, has attempted to block, in the name of the national interest, the very Scottish criminal judicial process we believed to be independent of it.
The documents refer to a preventable outrage. They were provided to Dumfries and Galloway police and the Crown Office from at least 1996. PII certificates have never impacted upon Scottish criminal justice in this way before. The High Court has now to decide whether to set aside the PII certificate, or whether the national interest is really sufficiently powerful that it should be served by some intermediate degree of security for the documents. To do this the court first has to see the documents. Last week the High Court issued an order to the advocate-general that they be supplied with the documents within seven days.
No doubt their lordships will reach a wise decision; their responsibility is both to the Lockerbie criminal appeal process, and to future perceptions as to the independence of our criminal justice system. It has always been part of our endeavour to force something good out of this atrocity, and we hope Scottish criminal justice will be enhanced, not harmed.
As for the relatives of the dead, some of us cast the Westminster government in a role far removed from impartiality. However seriously defective its full failure in 1988 may or may not have been, it has hidden it behind powerful protective screens. The repercussions, should the criminal verdict be overturned on appeal, might impact heavily upon the perceived degree of the government's failure to protect our families and promote the truth. Just what this PII certificate is supposed to benefit is unclear. Maybe the answer is simply the politicians and civil servants of the Foreign Office."
"Our first encounter with the Scottish justice system was the fatal accident inquiry (FAI) held in Dumfries under the late Sheriff Principal John Mowat. Two findings stood out: 1. The aircraft destroyed at Lockerbie on which our families perished, and into which it appeared that a bomb had been loaded at Heathrow, had been under the "host state protection" of the UK authorities; 2. It was preventable.
At the end of 1991 indictments were issued against two Libyans; there was, so the Foreign Office told us, no evidence against any other country than Libya.
Within two weeks, and with the subsequent ending of a professional career, one of us went to visit Colonel Gaddafi. We told him we believed that Scottish criminal justice was among the fairest available, and that it was independent of the English-based government. We dared to explain that we felt US justice to be inappropriate because of the death penalty, and because of the enmity between the two nations, and that Libyan justice, though appropriate under the international aviation treaties of the time, would never be accepted as impartial by the international community. Our plea to him was to allow his citizens to face justice under Scots law.
It was not until after two further visits to Libya and following the intervention of many, including Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh with proposals as to how Scottish criminal law might best be used, plus that of the late Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary, and Nelson Mandela some years later, that our wish was granted, the result being the trial at Zeist in Holland.
Meanwhile, we had sought, in the light of the FAI findings and the known warnings received beforehand, an independent and far-reaching inquiry into why the UK government had failed to protect our families. The Thatcher government of the day refused to discuss the issue of an inquiry with us. Twenty years later, despite repeated refusals, we are still waiting for the government to face up to the 1988 failure by allowing a full inquiry.
Therefore, we bring some preconceptions from outwith the criminal justice arena about the role of the UK government in the whole Lockerbie disaster, and issues arising from the trial, though that trial has to do only with the accusations against the two Libyan individuals, one of whom was acquitted and the other of whom is currently in Greenock prison.
Doubts about the verdict against him meant the affair was referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which, after some three years, decided the trial might have been unfair, partly because two documents given to the UK government by a foreign power had been available to the Crown and Dumfries and Galloway police from long before the trial, but not to the defence. The matter fell to be resolved by the High Court.
Following representations by the advocate-general to the [UK] government, the Foreign Office's response was to make the two documents the subject of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate.
The two documents, the denial of which to the defence was crucial to the SCCRC's decision that the verdict might be unsafe, are still denied to those by whom the convicted Libyan wishes to be represented in the appeal. The Foreign Office, through this PII certificate, has attempted to block, in the name of the national interest, the very Scottish criminal judicial process we believed to be independent of it.
The documents refer to a preventable outrage. They were provided to Dumfries and Galloway police and the Crown Office from at least 1996. PII certificates have never impacted upon Scottish criminal justice in this way before. The High Court has now to decide whether to set aside the PII certificate, or whether the national interest is really sufficiently powerful that it should be served by some intermediate degree of security for the documents. To do this the court first has to see the documents. Last week the High Court issued an order to the advocate-general that they be supplied with the documents within seven days.
No doubt their lordships will reach a wise decision; their responsibility is both to the Lockerbie criminal appeal process, and to future perceptions as to the independence of our criminal justice system. It has always been part of our endeavour to force something good out of this atrocity, and we hope Scottish criminal justice will be enhanced, not harmed.
As for the relatives of the dead, some of us cast the Westminster government in a role far removed from impartiality. However seriously defective its full failure in 1988 may or may not have been, it has hidden it behind powerful protective screens. The repercussions, should the criminal verdict be overturned on appeal, might impact heavily upon the perceived degree of the government's failure to protect our families and promote the truth. Just what this PII certificate is supposed to benefit is unclear. Maybe the answer is simply the politicians and civil servants of the Foreign Office."
Sunday, 1 June 2008
The Lord Advocate on public interest immunity
According to a report dated 30 May in the news section of the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, the Lord Advocate, Eilish Angiolini QC, appears to believe that before the incorporation into Scottish domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights the Scottish courts were bound to accept, and could not override, any claim of public interest immunity put forward by the Lord Advocate. With reference to the PII debate in the High Court last week and the court's decision to hold a later closed session once the documents have been produced to it, she is quoted as saying:
"What is a surprise is that it is a surprise," Angiolini told The Firm.
"The European Convention of Human Rights is what brings about this new procedure. It is not some frolic on the part of the court or the lawyers involved in this case. In the past, if there was a circumstance where there was public interest immunity, before ECHR, the Lord Advocate simply declared it and the court wouldn’t question that. It has now shifted to a position where the court determines interest, rather than the minister who makes the assertion."
"That is a huge change for the positive, that it is in court. You have to find a way which guards the issue at stake. The court has to determine the way forward. It is a complex issue and probably an issue of communication, but that is where you are hoping that journalists will look into the history of the law in this area. To look at the background, the history and the European jurisprudence. It is a very specialised area. What I hope is that there will be a balanced approach to it, informed by all of the facts."
If the Lord Advocate has been accurately reported, she is hugely mistaken about the history of public interest immunity. It has been the case for at least fifty years (and probably much longer) that Scottish courts could look behind a PII certificate from the Lord Advocate or a government minister and order the document to be made available as evidence. The House of Lords so decided in the Scottish case of Glasgow Corporation v Central Land Board 1956 SC (HL) 1 (and incidentally extended the Scottish approach to England in the later case of Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910).
"What is a surprise is that it is a surprise," Angiolini told The Firm.
"The European Convention of Human Rights is what brings about this new procedure. It is not some frolic on the part of the court or the lawyers involved in this case. In the past, if there was a circumstance where there was public interest immunity, before ECHR, the Lord Advocate simply declared it and the court wouldn’t question that. It has now shifted to a position where the court determines interest, rather than the minister who makes the assertion."
"That is a huge change for the positive, that it is in court. You have to find a way which guards the issue at stake. The court has to determine the way forward. It is a complex issue and probably an issue of communication, but that is where you are hoping that journalists will look into the history of the law in this area. To look at the background, the history and the European jurisprudence. It is a very specialised area. What I hope is that there will be a balanced approach to it, informed by all of the facts."
If the Lord Advocate has been accurately reported, she is hugely mistaken about the history of public interest immunity. It has been the case for at least fifty years (and probably much longer) that Scottish courts could look behind a PII certificate from the Lord Advocate or a government minister and order the document to be made available as evidence. The House of Lords so decided in the Scottish case of Glasgow Corporation v Central Land Board 1956 SC (HL) 1 (and incidentally extended the Scottish approach to England in the later case of Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910).
Yet more on the mystery document
Marcello Mega, who is normally very well-informed on Lockerbie issues, has a story in today's Scotland on Sunday based on information obtained from a source who claims to have seen the document at the heart of the UK Government's public interest immunity claim. The story reads in part:
"The top-secret document at the heart of the Lockerbie bombing appeal confirms beyond doubt the bomb timer was supplied to countries other than Libya, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
"The document also gives 'considerable detail' on how the use of a small bomb concealed inside a radio-cassette recorder was consistent with Palestinian terrorists rather than Libyans, according to a prominent legal source who has seen the paper.
"Important pillars of the Crown's case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan serving life for the atrocity, are 'knocked down' by the contents of the document, added the source."
The source refused to reveal the foreign country which supplied the document, but Mega speculates (in line with the views of Ludwig de Braeckeleer reported here on this blog) that the country is Germany and the document contains the fruits of the debriefing by the BKA of the Iranian defector, Abolghasem Mesbahi.
The full Scotland on Sunday article can be read here.
"The top-secret document at the heart of the Lockerbie bombing appeal confirms beyond doubt the bomb timer was supplied to countries other than Libya, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
"The document also gives 'considerable detail' on how the use of a small bomb concealed inside a radio-cassette recorder was consistent with Palestinian terrorists rather than Libyans, according to a prominent legal source who has seen the paper.
"Important pillars of the Crown's case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan serving life for the atrocity, are 'knocked down' by the contents of the document, added the source."
The source refused to reveal the foreign country which supplied the document, but Mega speculates (in line with the views of Ludwig de Braeckeleer reported here on this blog) that the country is Germany and the document contains the fruits of the debriefing by the BKA of the Iranian defector, Abolghasem Mesbahi.
The full Scotland on Sunday article can be read here.
Saturday, 31 May 2008
The procedural hearing: a Libyan perspective
Here is the report on the outcome of the procedural hearing which appears on the website of the Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation:
“Scotland's top Judge called on the British government to provide him with two documents related to bombing of the Pan Am plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, which the government says are secret.
“The call came within the Scotland's appeal court to review the previous verdict against the political hostage, the Libyan national Abdel Basset Al-Maghrahi.
“Scotland's top judge Lord Hamilton and two appeal court judges in Edinburgh, said the lawyer representing the British government should produce for the court the documents in question within a week, subject to appropriate security measures.
“He said the judges would consider the documents, which Foreign Secretary David Milliband has declared secret.
“Advocate General, representing the British government in the hearing, conceded that under Scottish law, which is different from the British, the final decision on whether the documents were produced in open court lay with the court of appeal.
“An open session of the appeal court will be held on 17-18 June to review the new documents.”
“Scotland's top Judge called on the British government to provide him with two documents related to bombing of the Pan Am plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, which the government says are secret.
“The call came within the Scotland's appeal court to review the previous verdict against the political hostage, the Libyan national Abdel Basset Al-Maghrahi.
“Scotland's top judge Lord Hamilton and two appeal court judges in Edinburgh, said the lawyer representing the British government should produce for the court the documents in question within a week, subject to appropriate security measures.
“He said the judges would consider the documents, which Foreign Secretary David Milliband has declared secret.
“Advocate General, representing the British government in the hearing, conceded that under Scottish law, which is different from the British, the final decision on whether the documents were produced in open court lay with the court of appeal.
“An open session of the appeal court will be held on 17-18 June to review the new documents.”
Libya to resolve claims with US
This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. After talks held in London between Libya and the United States, a mechanism has been agreed for resolving outstanding compensation claims, including the final payment to the families of the Lockerbie victims. The report reads in part:
"The US and Libya have agreed to work together to resolve compensation claims from the Lockerbie bombing and other 1980s attacks blamed on Libyan agents.
"Libya has already paid out $8m (£4m) to each Lockerbie victim's family but has not made final payments of $2m amid a dispute over America's obligations.
"A US court ruling that Libya should pay billions of dollars to Americans killed by another bomb incensed the Libyans.
"They are hoping for an all-in-one deal to cover that and the other attacks."
ABC News's coverage of the story can be read here and the Daily Express's here.
"The US and Libya have agreed to work together to resolve compensation claims from the Lockerbie bombing and other 1980s attacks blamed on Libyan agents.
"Libya has already paid out $8m (£4m) to each Lockerbie victim's family but has not made final payments of $2m amid a dispute over America's obligations.
"A US court ruling that Libya should pay billions of dollars to Americans killed by another bomb incensed the Libyans.
"They are hoping for an all-in-one deal to cover that and the other attacks."
ABC News's coverage of the story can be read here and the Daily Express's here.
Friday, 30 May 2008
Newspaper reports on day three of procedural hearing
The Herald has a lengthy report on the third day of the procedural hearing. The last three paragraphs read:
'The Advocate General has put forward a plan for a special security-vetted advocate to be appointed to replace the defence in the hearings which will address the issue of public interest immunity.
'He has also suggested that the special advocate could play a role in the appeal itself, a proposal which was criticised by the defence.
'Margaret Scott QC, for the defence, said: "It is a radical departure and an unprecedented use of special representatives. It involves the improper use of special advocates. The result would be... to deny the appellant to a fair hearing in his appeal."'
The full article can be seen here.
The Scotsman's very short report can be read here.
'The Advocate General has put forward a plan for a special security-vetted advocate to be appointed to replace the defence in the hearings which will address the issue of public interest immunity.
'He has also suggested that the special advocate could play a role in the appeal itself, a proposal which was criticised by the defence.
'Margaret Scott QC, for the defence, said: "It is a radical departure and an unprecedented use of special representatives. It involves the improper use of special advocates. The result would be... to deny the appellant to a fair hearing in his appeal."'
The full article can be seen here.
The Scotsman's very short report can be read here.
The mysterious document identified?
In his latest article in OhMyNews International, Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer says that he is convinced that he has identified the document that is the subject of the UK Government's PII claim in the new Lockerbie appeal. He states:
"Very little is known about this document. We know that it was obtained from a foreign country, which is not the United States or one of its agencies. The document is rumored to obliterate the thesis of the bomb being activated by a MST-13 timer and the Thurman fragment. The government argues that the PII is needed, surprisingly not for National Security reasons, but to safeguard the good relation of the UK with the country that provided the document. Lastly, the document was passed to the UK in 1996.
"Yesterday, I was informed that the document was delivered on Sept. 13, 1996. The date leaves me with little doubt that the document is the testimony of Iranian defector Abolghasem Mesbahi who alleged that Tehran, not Tripoli, had ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103."
The complete article can be read here.
"Very little is known about this document. We know that it was obtained from a foreign country, which is not the United States or one of its agencies. The document is rumored to obliterate the thesis of the bomb being activated by a MST-13 timer and the Thurman fragment. The government argues that the PII is needed, surprisingly not for National Security reasons, but to safeguard the good relation of the UK with the country that provided the document. Lastly, the document was passed to the UK in 1996.
"Yesterday, I was informed that the document was delivered on Sept. 13, 1996. The date leaves me with little doubt that the document is the testimony of Iranian defector Abolghasem Mesbahi who alleged that Tehran, not Tripoli, had ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103."
The complete article can be read here.
Thursday, 29 May 2008
Procedural hearing: third day
The only report that I have been able to find on the internet about day three of the procedural hearing comes from Reuters Africa. It reads in part:
“Scotland's top judge called on the British government on Thursday to provide him with two secret documents relating to the bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988.
“Lord [Justice General] Hamilton, sitting with two other appeal court judges in Edinburgh, said the lawyer representing the government should ‘produce for the court the documents in question ... subject to appropriate security measures being in place within seven days.’
“He said the judges would consider the documents, which British Foreign Secretary David Milliband has declared secret under a Public Interest Immunity (PII) order.
“Lord Hamilton said the judges would weigh up how important it was that the appeal be heard in a closed court, to which not even the defence team could be admitted for security reasons.”
There is, I am sure, no question of the appeal being heard behind closed doors. What is at issue is whether the question of disclosure of the documents should be decided in camera.
That this is, in fact, the position seems clear from the BBC News report that has just been posted. There will be a closed session after the documents have been produced to the judges, who will then decide what further disclosure (if any), and to whom, should be made.
“Scotland's top judge called on the British government on Thursday to provide him with two secret documents relating to the bombing of a Pan Am airliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988.
“Lord [Justice General] Hamilton, sitting with two other appeal court judges in Edinburgh, said the lawyer representing the government should ‘produce for the court the documents in question ... subject to appropriate security measures being in place within seven days.’
“He said the judges would consider the documents, which British Foreign Secretary David Milliband has declared secret under a Public Interest Immunity (PII) order.
“Lord Hamilton said the judges would weigh up how important it was that the appeal be heard in a closed court, to which not even the defence team could be admitted for security reasons.”
There is, I am sure, no question of the appeal being heard behind closed doors. What is at issue is whether the question of disclosure of the documents should be decided in camera.
That this is, in fact, the position seems clear from the BBC News report that has just been posted. There will be a closed session after the documents have been produced to the judges, who will then decide what further disclosure (if any), and to whom, should be made.
Newspaper reports on day two of procedural hearing
The Herald's report on yesterday's proceedings at the procedural hearing contains the following passage: "Margaret Scott, QC, for the defence, told the court that she did not object in principle to a closed hearing nor to the appointment of a special advocate. The hearing continues today."
Similarly, the short report in The Scotsman states: "Lawyers for the Lockerbie bomber accepted yesterday that there could be a private hearing in his appeal, but voiced misgivings about a lack of detail."
This seeming acceptance of the possibility of a closed hearing and special counsel strikes me as mildly surprising. But I suspect that it is simply a very reluctant fall-back position from the defence's strong primary submission that disclosure of the document should be ordered by the court to Megrahi's legal team without restrictions.
The report in The Times makes no mention of the defence concession.
Similarly, the short report in The Scotsman states: "Lawyers for the Lockerbie bomber accepted yesterday that there could be a private hearing in his appeal, but voiced misgivings about a lack of detail."
This seeming acceptance of the possibility of a closed hearing and special counsel strikes me as mildly surprising. But I suspect that it is simply a very reluctant fall-back position from the defence's strong primary submission that disclosure of the document should be ordered by the court to Megrahi's legal team without restrictions.
The report in The Times makes no mention of the defence concession.
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Former Iranian President blames Tehran for Lockerbie
This is the headline over a lengthy and detailed article today in OhMyNews International by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer. The President in question is Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and the statement about Iran's ordering the destruction of Pan Am 103 (in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by the USS Vincennes) came during an interview with Dr De Braeckeleer on 16th May.
The full article can be read here.
The full article can be read here.
Procedural hearing: second day
It appears that the Lord Advocate does not agree with the Advocate General’s suggestion that the solution to the impasse over the disclosure of the mysterious foreign document would be for it to be disclosed to special (security-vetted) counsel rather than to Megrahi’s regular legal team.
Ronnie Clancy QC, appearing for the Lord Advocate, suggested that the way forward might be for limited disclosure – perhaps by way of a summary of the document – to be made to Megrahi and his lawyers. He is reported as saying, “The principle about involving the defence to the maximum extent looms large here. The Lord Advocate is mindful of the difficulty that the petitioner [Megrahi] would have in bringing a ground of appeal without even limited disclosure." He acknowledged that the Advocate General, who represents the UK Government in legal matters north of the border, may be "less enthusiastic" about the idea. "I don't understand the Advocate General to have ruled out limited disclosure at this stage," he added.
As might be expected, Megrahi’s counsel are strongly opposed to the Advocate General’s proposal and to anything less than full disclosure of the document to Megrahi’s current legal representatives.
Maggie Scott QC, senior counsel for the Libyan, is reported as saying: "Megrahi's position here is that he wants disclosure of these documents in order to exercise his right of appeal. My main concern is any proposed procedure which determines the substance of the appeal taking part in the absence of Megrahi or his defence counsel."
The report on the BBC News website can be read here.
[Reports on the first day of the hearing by Scotland's two daily "heavies", The Herald and The Scotsman, can be seen here and here.]
Ronnie Clancy QC, appearing for the Lord Advocate, suggested that the way forward might be for limited disclosure – perhaps by way of a summary of the document – to be made to Megrahi and his lawyers. He is reported as saying, “The principle about involving the defence to the maximum extent looms large here. The Lord Advocate is mindful of the difficulty that the petitioner [Megrahi] would have in bringing a ground of appeal without even limited disclosure." He acknowledged that the Advocate General, who represents the UK Government in legal matters north of the border, may be "less enthusiastic" about the idea. "I don't understand the Advocate General to have ruled out limited disclosure at this stage," he added.
As might be expected, Megrahi’s counsel are strongly opposed to the Advocate General’s proposal and to anything less than full disclosure of the document to Megrahi’s current legal representatives.
Maggie Scott QC, senior counsel for the Libyan, is reported as saying: "Megrahi's position here is that he wants disclosure of these documents in order to exercise his right of appeal. My main concern is any proposed procedure which determines the substance of the appeal taking part in the absence of Megrahi or his defence counsel."
The report on the BBC News website can be read here.
[Reports on the first day of the hearing by Scotland's two daily "heavies", The Herald and The Scotsman, can be seen here and here.]
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Today's procedural hearing
The BBC News website reports today's procedural hearing under the headline "Lockerbie documents security plea" and indicates that, as anticipated, the Advocate General for Scotland representing the United Kingdom Government wishes the substantive issue to be argued behind closed doors, with specially vetted counsel (rather than Megrahi's regular legal representatives) being appointed to protect Megrahi's interests at the hearing.
The Sun has a somewhat longer report of the proceedings, which can be read here.
Megrahi's counsel have not yet been heard in reply to the Advocate General's proposals. The hearing is scheduled to continue on Wednesday and Thursday.
The Sun has a somewhat longer report of the proceedings, which can be read here.
Megrahi's counsel have not yet been heard in reply to the Advocate General's proposals. The hearing is scheduled to continue on Wednesday and Thursday.
Zeist appeal must be seen to be fair
This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's issue of The Herald, in reply to the recent letter from the Crown Office. It reads:
"The Crown Office is quite right in saying that the Westminster Government is responsible for the imposition of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate over this "document from a Foreign Power".
"The Westminster decision over the PII certificate followed representations to it from Scotland's Advocate General, after discussions in the High Court in Edinburgh: that is what he is there for, rightly or wrongly, under the rules of devolution.
"The information in the document, whether important or not to the case, appears to have influenced the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into declaring that the Zeist Lockerbie bombing trial might not have been fair. So long as that information continues to be available to the prosecution, but not the defence, the whole process will continue to be seen as unfairly biased towards the prosecution.
"The Crown Office does not mention that it is opposing, in the High Court, the defence request to widen the grounds for this appeal to include all material now available, rather than simply the grounds presented by the SCCRC. Nor does it mention that it opposes in the High Court the defence's request for full access to all the material from Zeist, for forensic and other purposes.
"Can any of these three issues be denied to the defence, if the appeal is to be seen as fair?
"There is no way that such obstruction from Westminster via a PII certificate can be seen as in the interests of the Scottish public, but the High Court will hold diets on all three issues, two out of the three are opposed by the Crown Office, not Westminster."
"The Crown Office is quite right in saying that the Westminster Government is responsible for the imposition of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate over this "document from a Foreign Power".
"The Westminster decision over the PII certificate followed representations to it from Scotland's Advocate General, after discussions in the High Court in Edinburgh: that is what he is there for, rightly or wrongly, under the rules of devolution.
"The information in the document, whether important or not to the case, appears to have influenced the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) into declaring that the Zeist Lockerbie bombing trial might not have been fair. So long as that information continues to be available to the prosecution, but not the defence, the whole process will continue to be seen as unfairly biased towards the prosecution.
"The Crown Office does not mention that it is opposing, in the High Court, the defence request to widen the grounds for this appeal to include all material now available, rather than simply the grounds presented by the SCCRC. Nor does it mention that it opposes in the High Court the defence's request for full access to all the material from Zeist, for forensic and other purposes.
"Can any of these three issues be denied to the defence, if the appeal is to be seen as fair?
"There is no way that such obstruction from Westminster via a PII certificate can be seen as in the interests of the Scottish public, but the High Court will hold diets on all three issues, two out of the three are opposed by the Crown Office, not Westminster."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)