Friday, 11 July 2008
The wreckage of Pan Am 103
On 29 October 2007, I drew attention to a story in the Daily Mail about debris from the plane rotting in a scrapyard in Lincolnshire. A photograph and map reference details of the precise location can now be found here.
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
More on alleged Iranian responsibility for Lockerbie
Here is a lengthy story (including interview and podcast) about an alleged Iranian CIA operative or asset who claims that Iran was responsible for the destruction of Pan Am 103.
Monday, 7 July 2008
A journalist remembers
Journalist Arthur MacDonald, writing in the Gulf Daily News (Bahrain) draws parallels between the Piper Alpha disaster and the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, both in 1988. Here is what he says about Lockerbie:
'The Lockerbie disaster was triggered by a bomb, planted on the plane by terrorists in Malta.
One of my happier memories of covering this awful event was speaking to Press officer from the US Central Intelligence Agency, who, when I first called them assured me they did not know who killed John F Kennedy, even before I asked them.
How did they know I was going to pose this question? All you Limeys ask that, I was told.
At the time, the UK officially did not have a secret service so instead of talking to MI5 or MI6, journalists were left to deal through PC Plod from Glasgow.
Exactly when everyone decided Libya was responsible for this outrage I can't actually remember. Mr Gadaffi seemed to be everybody's whipping boy at the time, so that could explain it.
What I do know is that none of the journalists I worked with on the story ever believed that Libya was guilty. Nor did most of the victims' relatives.
Today only one man has been convicted of being involved in what was the worst airline terrorist attack before 9/11.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi has been rotting in a Scottish jail since his show trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. He was simply accused of being a Libyan intelligence officer and that was that.
Anyone who knows anything about what happened to Pan Am flight 103 knows that delivering the bomb onto the aircraft was a highly complex operation and it was certainly not carried out by one person.
It was almost certainly not carried out by Libyans either.
But just as the people who were behind the Piper Alpha disaster have never been brought to justice, neither have the people responsible for Lockerbie.
And for some reason I just don't understand, no one is bothering to do anything about this.'
The full article can be read here.
'The Lockerbie disaster was triggered by a bomb, planted on the plane by terrorists in Malta.
One of my happier memories of covering this awful event was speaking to Press officer from the US Central Intelligence Agency, who, when I first called them assured me they did not know who killed John F Kennedy, even before I asked them.
How did they know I was going to pose this question? All you Limeys ask that, I was told.
At the time, the UK officially did not have a secret service so instead of talking to MI5 or MI6, journalists were left to deal through PC Plod from Glasgow.
Exactly when everyone decided Libya was responsible for this outrage I can't actually remember. Mr Gadaffi seemed to be everybody's whipping boy at the time, so that could explain it.
What I do know is that none of the journalists I worked with on the story ever believed that Libya was guilty. Nor did most of the victims' relatives.
Today only one man has been convicted of being involved in what was the worst airline terrorist attack before 9/11.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi has been rotting in a Scottish jail since his show trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. He was simply accused of being a Libyan intelligence officer and that was that.
Anyone who knows anything about what happened to Pan Am flight 103 knows that delivering the bomb onto the aircraft was a highly complex operation and it was certainly not carried out by one person.
It was almost certainly not carried out by Libyans either.
But just as the people who were behind the Piper Alpha disaster have never been brought to justice, neither have the people responsible for Lockerbie.
And for some reason I just don't understand, no one is bothering to do anything about this.'
The full article can be read here.
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Scottish newspapers accused of shirking investigative duties
Today's issue of the Sunday Herald contains an article about a letter written by Professor Hans Köchler complaining about the supine attitude of the Scottish press over the Lockerbie miscarriage of justice. The article reads in part:
'When readers are asked what they want more of in newspapers the answer is often great, jaw-dropping scoops. Yet investigative reporting - the discipline behind many such stories - is increasingly seen by many newspaper executives as too expensive to bother with.
'This is certainly the view of Professor Hans Kochler [sic], the former UN monitor of the Lockerbie trial, who has attacked the Scottish media for its coverage of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's continuing appeals against his conviction.
'Kochler believes Scottish journalists are becoming unwilling to question the establishment version of events and work under editors and executives who refuse to finance proper reporting. He says he has a list of publications and journalists he believes have failed to do their jobs properly, which he may seek to publish at a later date.
'Says Kochler: "As far as Lockerbie is concerned I can't understand why more isn't being done by the European country that was most concerned with it. There is a lot at stake: the rule of law, security, the role of international terrorism. Why isn't somebody trying to find out why the authorities are now trying to withhold evidence and delaying everything?"
'In an earlier letter to veteran campaigner Robbie the Pict nee [sic] Brian Robertson, in which Kochler raised the issue of a potential media blackout, he simply wrote: "Where are Scotland's investigative journalists?"
'Kochler claims that editors reduced coverage under establishment pressure. Some journalists closely related to the story argue that the real reason why Lockerbie is off the agenda is because people are tired of it, but Kochler claims it is a symptom of a wider problem that cuts across the profession.'
The comments from members of the public which follow the article are well worth reading and are extremely well-informed.
'When readers are asked what they want more of in newspapers the answer is often great, jaw-dropping scoops. Yet investigative reporting - the discipline behind many such stories - is increasingly seen by many newspaper executives as too expensive to bother with.
'This is certainly the view of Professor Hans Kochler [sic], the former UN monitor of the Lockerbie trial, who has attacked the Scottish media for its coverage of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's continuing appeals against his conviction.
'Kochler believes Scottish journalists are becoming unwilling to question the establishment version of events and work under editors and executives who refuse to finance proper reporting. He says he has a list of publications and journalists he believes have failed to do their jobs properly, which he may seek to publish at a later date.
'Says Kochler: "As far as Lockerbie is concerned I can't understand why more isn't being done by the European country that was most concerned with it. There is a lot at stake: the rule of law, security, the role of international terrorism. Why isn't somebody trying to find out why the authorities are now trying to withhold evidence and delaying everything?"
'In an earlier letter to veteran campaigner Robbie the Pict nee [sic] Brian Robertson, in which Kochler raised the issue of a potential media blackout, he simply wrote: "Where are Scotland's investigative journalists?"
'Kochler claims that editors reduced coverage under establishment pressure. Some journalists closely related to the story argue that the real reason why Lockerbie is off the agenda is because people are tired of it, but Kochler claims it is a symptom of a wider problem that cuts across the profession.'
The comments from members of the public which follow the article are well worth reading and are extremely well-informed.
Saturday, 5 July 2008
Administration of the Lockerbie Review
The ninth annual report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, covering the period 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008, was published on 1 July 2008. It contains a section, with the above title, on the Commission's work on the Lockerbie case, resulting in the reference of the case back to the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal, written by its Chief Executive, Gerard Sinclair. The full annual report can be seen here, with the relevant section on pages 18 and 19 of the pdf document.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Statement by Professor Hans Köchler
Lockerbie Appeal:
Is the insistence on the right to a fair trial absurd and illogical?
Scottish judiciary has to abide by the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights
Statement by Dr. Hans Köchler
Vienna, 3 July 2008
P/RE/20161c
According to reports in the Scottish media, Crown counsel Ronnie Clancy QC has branded as "absurd" and "illogical" demands that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's appeal before the High Court of Justiciary shall not be restricted to the grounds of appeal given by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC had announced its decision to refer Mr al Megrahi's case back to the High Court of Justiciary for a new appeal. The Commission had given six reasons for its decision some of which it kept secret upon announcement. Obviously (and not only in view of its "secretive" nature), the list of grounds given by the SCCRC cannot be considered as an exhaustive enumeration of all possible grounds of appeal. The grounds given by the SCCRC are simply those that led that body to suspect a miscarriage of justice. The reasons revealed by the SCCRC to the public are almost identical to the points I had raised in my trial and appeal reports (in 2001 and 2002 respectively) which I had submitted to the United Nations.
Contrary to the Crown's position, it is neither absurd nor illogical if an appellant expects an appeal court to hear additional grounds of appeal - if new information has indeed become available. Rather, it would be absurd and illogical to limit the appeal to a fixed number of grounds, i.e. - as regards the present case - to those grounds given in last year's decision of the SCCRC (whereby the evidence related to some of the grounds is still being kept secret).
In order to be fair, an appeal process must be comprehensive. Justice requires truth. Certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt" can not be established if the Defence is prevented from giving the grounds of appeal on the basis of the evidence that is available to it. A court's judgment must be based on arguments. To determine that certain issues and facts are excluded from being considered (because the presentation of some grounds of appeal is rejected by one party) invalidates the entire argumentative process.
A "fair trial" according to Art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("European Convention on Human Rights") requires that no one interferes into the competence of the Defence and that, accordingly, additional evidence that has become available is also heard. The limitation of the grounds of appeal is not only contrary to the rationale of a judicial review as such and, thus, intrinsically unfair, but it is also illogical if the goal of an appeal process is indeed a comprehensive review of the original verdict. There can be no rational argumentation of an appeal if the appellant is told what grounds he is allowed to raise and what not.
Rather, in terms of the labels used by the Crown counsel, it could be argued that the original verdict of the High Court of Justiciary was "absurd" and "illogical" since it declared one of the two Libyan suspects "guilty" and the other one "not guilty" - while the entire logic of the indictment was based on the theory of the two suspects having conspired together to ingest an explosive device at Luqa airport (Malta) to be transported in a piece of unaccompanied luggage to Frankfurt airport and from there on to Heathrow.
The effort at limiting the scope of the appeal by restricting the grounds that can be heard is especially serious in view of the British Government's insistence on withholding evidence from the Defence by means of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Should the efforts of the Crown and the British Government succeed, the appellant would again be denied his right to a fair trial and will thus be entitled to seek redress from the European Court of Human Rights.
Dr Hans Köchler
Is the insistence on the right to a fair trial absurd and illogical?
Scottish judiciary has to abide by the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights
Statement by Dr. Hans Köchler
Vienna, 3 July 2008
P/RE/20161c
According to reports in the Scottish media, Crown counsel Ronnie Clancy QC has branded as "absurd" and "illogical" demands that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's appeal before the High Court of Justiciary shall not be restricted to the grounds of appeal given by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
On 28 June 2007 the SCCRC had announced its decision to refer Mr al Megrahi's case back to the High Court of Justiciary for a new appeal. The Commission had given six reasons for its decision some of which it kept secret upon announcement. Obviously (and not only in view of its "secretive" nature), the list of grounds given by the SCCRC cannot be considered as an exhaustive enumeration of all possible grounds of appeal. The grounds given by the SCCRC are simply those that led that body to suspect a miscarriage of justice. The reasons revealed by the SCCRC to the public are almost identical to the points I had raised in my trial and appeal reports (in 2001 and 2002 respectively) which I had submitted to the United Nations.
Contrary to the Crown's position, it is neither absurd nor illogical if an appellant expects an appeal court to hear additional grounds of appeal - if new information has indeed become available. Rather, it would be absurd and illogical to limit the appeal to a fixed number of grounds, i.e. - as regards the present case - to those grounds given in last year's decision of the SCCRC (whereby the evidence related to some of the grounds is still being kept secret).
In order to be fair, an appeal process must be comprehensive. Justice requires truth. Certainty "beyond a reasonable doubt" can not be established if the Defence is prevented from giving the grounds of appeal on the basis of the evidence that is available to it. A court's judgment must be based on arguments. To determine that certain issues and facts are excluded from being considered (because the presentation of some grounds of appeal is rejected by one party) invalidates the entire argumentative process.
A "fair trial" according to Art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("European Convention on Human Rights") requires that no one interferes into the competence of the Defence and that, accordingly, additional evidence that has become available is also heard. The limitation of the grounds of appeal is not only contrary to the rationale of a judicial review as such and, thus, intrinsically unfair, but it is also illogical if the goal of an appeal process is indeed a comprehensive review of the original verdict. There can be no rational argumentation of an appeal if the appellant is told what grounds he is allowed to raise and what not.
Rather, in terms of the labels used by the Crown counsel, it could be argued that the original verdict of the High Court of Justiciary was "absurd" and "illogical" since it declared one of the two Libyan suspects "guilty" and the other one "not guilty" - while the entire logic of the indictment was based on the theory of the two suspects having conspired together to ingest an explosive device at Luqa airport (Malta) to be transported in a piece of unaccompanied luggage to Frankfurt airport and from there on to Heathrow.
The effort at limiting the scope of the appeal by restricting the grounds that can be heard is especially serious in view of the British Government's insistence on withholding evidence from the Defence by means of a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Should the efforts of the Crown and the British Government succeed, the appellant would again be denied his right to a fair trial and will thus be entitled to seek redress from the European Court of Human Rights.
Dr Hans Köchler
Lockerbie Appeal - To Crown it All
I am grateful to Robbie the Pict for drawing my attention to the following article in Private Eye of 27 June 2008.
'Unless the Scottish judiciary resists blatant meddling from Westminster, the forthcoming appeal of Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing, is in danger of descending into fiasco.
'Not only is the Foreign Office trying to keep secret intelligence documents that are crucial to the Libyan's defence by claiming public interest immunity (PII) on them (see Eye 1201), but the Crown Office is now seeking to limit Megrahi's appeal too.
'Crown lawyers want the appeal restricted to the six grounds cited last year by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). Because one of those grounds relates to documents which the UK government wants kept secret, the United Nations special observer, Dr Hans Kochler, has already said the appeal looks more like an "intelligence operation" than a fair hearing.
'To try now to limit the scope of the appeal will underscore Kochler's belief and confirm the view of many, including some of the victims' families, that the government does not want the truth to emerge about how and why Pan Am flight 103 was blasted from the sky nearly 20 years ago, killing 270 people.
'The secret documents relate indirectly to the timing device alleged to have detonated the bomb and said to provide the crucial link to both Libya and Megrahi. Recent leaks to two Scottish newspapers suggest the documents are German in origin and cast doubt on the Libyan connection. Scotland on Sunday quoted a source who had seen the material saying it held "considerable detail" and "appeared to confirm that the method of attack was typical of a Palestinian terror cell in Germany".
'A Syrian-backed Palestinian terrorist cell operating out of Frankfurt was of course broken by German police two months before Lockerbie. Altitude sensitive bombs packed in cassette recorders were found in their flat. It was calculated that they would blow an aircraft up around 40 minutes after take off- spookily similar to the fate of Pan Am 103 after it left Heathrow.
'The Palestinians were the main suspects for the Pan Am bombing for well over a year - until the investigation suddenly switched to Libya and Megrahi with the purported discovery of a tiny fragment of circuit board said to come from a Swiss-made MST 13 timer.
'How the fragment was found and later identified by UK scientists and US investigators has always been highly contentious. Thus any evidence about the timer is central to Megrahi's defence. As well as seeking disclosure of the secret material, it is understood his lawyers want to introduce the results of independent forensic tests casting farther doubt on the evidence given about the timer - unless the Crown Office succeeds in limiting the scope of the appeal.'
'Unless the Scottish judiciary resists blatant meddling from Westminster, the forthcoming appeal of Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing, is in danger of descending into fiasco.
'Not only is the Foreign Office trying to keep secret intelligence documents that are crucial to the Libyan's defence by claiming public interest immunity (PII) on them (see Eye 1201), but the Crown Office is now seeking to limit Megrahi's appeal too.
'Crown lawyers want the appeal restricted to the six grounds cited last year by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). Because one of those grounds relates to documents which the UK government wants kept secret, the United Nations special observer, Dr Hans Kochler, has already said the appeal looks more like an "intelligence operation" than a fair hearing.
'To try now to limit the scope of the appeal will underscore Kochler's belief and confirm the view of many, including some of the victims' families, that the government does not want the truth to emerge about how and why Pan Am flight 103 was blasted from the sky nearly 20 years ago, killing 270 people.
'The secret documents relate indirectly to the timing device alleged to have detonated the bomb and said to provide the crucial link to both Libya and Megrahi. Recent leaks to two Scottish newspapers suggest the documents are German in origin and cast doubt on the Libyan connection. Scotland on Sunday quoted a source who had seen the material saying it held "considerable detail" and "appeared to confirm that the method of attack was typical of a Palestinian terror cell in Germany".
'A Syrian-backed Palestinian terrorist cell operating out of Frankfurt was of course broken by German police two months before Lockerbie. Altitude sensitive bombs packed in cassette recorders were found in their flat. It was calculated that they would blow an aircraft up around 40 minutes after take off- spookily similar to the fate of Pan Am 103 after it left Heathrow.
'The Palestinians were the main suspects for the Pan Am bombing for well over a year - until the investigation suddenly switched to Libya and Megrahi with the purported discovery of a tiny fragment of circuit board said to come from a Swiss-made MST 13 timer.
'How the fragment was found and later identified by UK scientists and US investigators has always been highly contentious. Thus any evidence about the timer is central to Megrahi's defence. As well as seeking disclosure of the secret material, it is understood his lawyers want to introduce the results of independent forensic tests casting farther doubt on the evidence given about the timer - unless the Crown Office succeeds in limiting the scope of the appeal.'
Sunday, 29 June 2008
Caledonia, here I come ...
All good things come to an end. So with my six months in the wilds of the Northern Cape. I shall be back in Scotland on 2nd July and will re-commence posting then or shortly thereafter.
Monday, 23 June 2008
Must the new appeal be heard at Zeist?
Professor Hans Köchler, the UN appointed observer at the Lockerbie trial, has today issued a press release in the following terms:
‘In an article published in its issue of 15 June 2008, the Sunday Times reports that Prof Robert Black (Edinburgh) “said that the intergovernmental agreement no longer applied.” He is quoted with the statement that the Agreement “existed for the original trial and the appeal. This is now the second appeal …” and that “the agreement was spent.”
‘The statement that the Agreement “no longer applied” and “was spent” contradicts the precise wording of the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning a Scottish Trial in the Netherlands, concluded at The Hague, Netherlands, on 18 September 1998 and entered into force on 8 January 1999 (United Kingdom Treaty Series No 43 [1999]) in the following two respects:
‘(1) Art 3(4)(c) states that “the trial” “will be deemed to be ended when … any judgments of the Scottish Court following conviction have become final and conclusive.” As of today, this is clearly not the case since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Megrahi’s case back to the High Court for a second appeal.
‘(2) Under “Definitions” in Art 1, it is expressly stated that the term “the trial” also means “any appeal by the accused following conviction, all in accordance with Scots law and practice.” Nowhere does the agreement distinguish between a “first” and a “second” appeal.
‘If one applies the provision of Art 16(2)(a) of the Agreement to the situation prevailing now – after a new appeal has been granted to the convicted Libyan national – the appeal proceedings can only be held in Scotland under the condition that he has given his “written agreement” and has confirmed that agreement “in person to the High Court of Justiciary in the presence of any counsel instructed by [him].”
‘As of today, the undersigned is not aware of such a written agreement given by Mr Megrahi in person to the High Court of Justiciary. An agreement conveyed by his defense counsel (should that have been the case) is not sufficient. Even in the case of Mr Megrahi’s having given his agreement according to Art 16(2)(a), the intergovernmental Agreement as such is still valid because it does not distinguish between “first” and “second” appeal.’
My response is as follows:
Dr Köchler is wrong in his interpretation of the intergovernmental agreement. It covered a trial and an appeal, both of which have now taken place. Extraordinary processes subsequent to the conclusion of trial and appeal (such as applications to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and applications to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and procedure flowing therefrom) are not covered by the extraterritorial provisions of the agreement, and no court would interpret the agreement as embracing them. Clearly, neither the Government of the Netherlands nor the Government of the UK would have agreed to maintaining the Scottish Court (and the Scottish prison) in existence at Zeist for an indefinite period (amounting potentially to decades) to cover the event of a successful application being made to the SCCRC at some indeterminate time in the future. Dr Köchler’s interpretation would entail precisely that unreasonable consequence and, for that reason alone, would be rejected by any court tasked with construing the agreement.
The expression “any appeal” in the context in which it is used, means “an appeal (if there happens to be one)”. A convicted person may choose not to appeal. “Any appeal” is a recognised way, in the English language, of expressing this element of indeterminacy. It does not envisage a plurality of appeals. If that had been the intention, the phrase used in art 1 would have been “any appeals (or 'all appeals') by the accused following conviction”.
It is noteworthy that Mr Megrahi’s current (and highly expert and experienced) legal team have deliberately decided that such a submission (that the extraterritoriality provisions of the intergovernmental agreement should apply to the new appeal) was not worth pursuing.
‘In an article published in its issue of 15 June 2008, the Sunday Times reports that Prof Robert Black (Edinburgh) “said that the intergovernmental agreement no longer applied.” He is quoted with the statement that the Agreement “existed for the original trial and the appeal. This is now the second appeal …” and that “the agreement was spent.”
‘The statement that the Agreement “no longer applied” and “was spent” contradicts the precise wording of the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning a Scottish Trial in the Netherlands, concluded at The Hague, Netherlands, on 18 September 1998 and entered into force on 8 January 1999 (United Kingdom Treaty Series No 43 [1999]) in the following two respects:
‘(1) Art 3(4)(c) states that “the trial” “will be deemed to be ended when … any judgments of the Scottish Court following conviction have become final and conclusive.” As of today, this is clearly not the case since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Megrahi’s case back to the High Court for a second appeal.
‘(2) Under “Definitions” in Art 1, it is expressly stated that the term “the trial” also means “any appeal by the accused following conviction, all in accordance with Scots law and practice.” Nowhere does the agreement distinguish between a “first” and a “second” appeal.
‘If one applies the provision of Art 16(2)(a) of the Agreement to the situation prevailing now – after a new appeal has been granted to the convicted Libyan national – the appeal proceedings can only be held in Scotland under the condition that he has given his “written agreement” and has confirmed that agreement “in person to the High Court of Justiciary in the presence of any counsel instructed by [him].”
‘As of today, the undersigned is not aware of such a written agreement given by Mr Megrahi in person to the High Court of Justiciary. An agreement conveyed by his defense counsel (should that have been the case) is not sufficient. Even in the case of Mr Megrahi’s having given his agreement according to Art 16(2)(a), the intergovernmental Agreement as such is still valid because it does not distinguish between “first” and “second” appeal.’
My response is as follows:
Dr Köchler is wrong in his interpretation of the intergovernmental agreement. It covered a trial and an appeal, both of which have now taken place. Extraordinary processes subsequent to the conclusion of trial and appeal (such as applications to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and applications to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and procedure flowing therefrom) are not covered by the extraterritorial provisions of the agreement, and no court would interpret the agreement as embracing them. Clearly, neither the Government of the Netherlands nor the Government of the UK would have agreed to maintaining the Scottish Court (and the Scottish prison) in existence at Zeist for an indefinite period (amounting potentially to decades) to cover the event of a successful application being made to the SCCRC at some indeterminate time in the future. Dr Köchler’s interpretation would entail precisely that unreasonable consequence and, for that reason alone, would be rejected by any court tasked with construing the agreement.
The expression “any appeal” in the context in which it is used, means “an appeal (if there happens to be one)”. A convicted person may choose not to appeal. “Any appeal” is a recognised way, in the English language, of expressing this element of indeterminacy. It does not envisage a plurality of appeals. If that had been the intention, the phrase used in art 1 would have been “any appeals (or 'all appeals') by the accused following conviction”.
It is noteworthy that Mr Megrahi’s current (and highly expert and experienced) legal team have deliberately decided that such a submission (that the extraterritoriality provisions of the intergovernmental agreement should apply to the new appeal) was not worth pursuing.
Saturday, 21 June 2008
More on the Susan Lindauer saga
On 17 October 2007, I reproduced on this blog an article by Michael Collins about Susan Lindauer and her involvement in the Lockerbie affair: see "American Cassandra -- Susan Lindauer's Story". For further developments in this fascinating tale, see this recent article on Michael Collins's blog.
Friday, 20 June 2008
The scope of the appeal (continued)
As far as I can see from a trawl of the internet and the blogosphere, nothing has been published about the second, third and fourth days of the current procedural hearing about whether the scope of the new appeal should be limited to the issues on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. However, an observer who was present in court during the submissions has informed me that his impression was that the Crown's arguments in favour of such limitation were subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the judges, and that the defence's arguments that there should be no such limitation (in accordance with existing appellate decisions) seemed to be more receptively entertained.
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Normal service ...
... will be resumed as soon as possible. It is unlikely that I shall be in a position to make further posts until Friday 20th at the earliest.
An observer who was present in court yesterday during the first day of the current procedural hearing has commented in an e-mail to me: "Today in court the Crown was telling the High Court how they should interpret the SCCRC's referral criteria ('scope of appeal' is the subject). Viewing the body language suggested the court didn't like it."
The Herald's report on the proceedings can be read here.
The Scotsman's much shorter report can be seen here.
For the first time in all of the various Lockerbie trials and appeals, a woman judge, Lady Paton, was amongst those on the bench.
An observer who was present in court yesterday during the first day of the current procedural hearing has commented in an e-mail to me: "Today in court the Crown was telling the High Court how they should interpret the SCCRC's referral criteria ('scope of appeal' is the subject). Viewing the body language suggested the court didn't like it."
The Herald's report on the proceedings can be read here.
The Scotsman's much shorter report can be seen here.
For the first time in all of the various Lockerbie trials and appeals, a woman judge, Lady Paton, was amongst those on the bench.
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
The scope of the appeal
The procedural hearing that started today is not, after all, about the issue of disclosure of the mystery documents. It is about whether, as the Crown argues, Mr Megrahi’s new appeal should be limited solely to the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to the Criminal Appeal Court, or whether other issues can be ventilated as well. Existing appellate decisions in earlier cases have held that the grounds of appeal should not be limited to those issues accepted by the SCCRC. This is why the current procedural hearing is being heard by a bench of five judges: so that the earlier three-judge decisions can, if the court is so minded, be overruled.
According to Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown, allowing the appeal to go beyond the specific matters on which the SCCRC referred the case back to the court would be “absurd” and “illogical”.
Brief accounts of today's proceedings can be found on the BBC News website and on the icDumfries website.
According to Ronnie Clancy QC for the Crown, allowing the appeal to go beyond the specific matters on which the SCCRC referred the case back to the court would be “absurd” and “illogical”.
Brief accounts of today's proceedings can be found on the BBC News website and on the icDumfries website.
Monday, 16 June 2008
Fifth (public) procedural hearing
The rolls of the High Court of Justiciary indicate that four days -- Tuesday 17th to Friday 20th June -- have been set aside for argument on disclosure of the mysterious documents relating to timers in respect of which the UK Government has claimed public interest immunity. At the last public procedural hearing at the end of May, the Advocate General representing the UK Government was ordered to produce the material to the court which would consider it in private session: see posts on this blog dated 27 to 30 May. This week's hearing, in open court, is to determine whether disclosure to Mr Megrahi's regular legal team should be ordered; or disclosure to security-vetted special counsel; or no disclosure at all.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
More on the presumed contents of the mystery document
The distinguished German journalist, Bo Adam, has a letter in today's Scotland on Sunday commenting on Marcello Mega's article in the newspaper on 1st June (referred to on this blog under the heading "Yet more on the mystery document" on the same date). Mr Adam's letter reads:
'The latest revelation on the Lockerbie bomb timer seems to be more confusing than helpful (News, June 1). The news that the Mebo timers were supplied to countries other than Libya tells us nothing. It would, of course, be of some interest to know what other countries where in possession of such timers but only if you really can link a country to some terrorists like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC).
The suggestion that a Mebo timer was used by the PFLP-GC group in Neuss, Germany, would go against all common knowledge. The Neuss group is said by the German police to have used a different mechanism.
Let us assume that the secret document originates from German investigators. What could it contain?
1. The allegations by an Iranian defector. Why should they be secret?
2. Evidence about the Neuss group of the PFLP-GC. Their activities have already been dealt with in public, including the possible connection to Lockerbie. So why should that part be secret?
3. Additional findings concerning the Mebo timers and other details? Why top-secret?
Further on your article states that either the top-secret document contains evidence that "knocks down" some "pillars of the Crown's case" or in itself doesn't clear Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi and doesn't prove anyone else was responsible (another source).
I would join Jim Swire in his fears that, while watching the dispute about the top-secret document, we are witnessing an attempt to derail a new screening of the Lockerbie trial.'
'The latest revelation on the Lockerbie bomb timer seems to be more confusing than helpful (News, June 1). The news that the Mebo timers were supplied to countries other than Libya tells us nothing. It would, of course, be of some interest to know what other countries where in possession of such timers but only if you really can link a country to some terrorists like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC).
The suggestion that a Mebo timer was used by the PFLP-GC group in Neuss, Germany, would go against all common knowledge. The Neuss group is said by the German police to have used a different mechanism.
Let us assume that the secret document originates from German investigators. What could it contain?
1. The allegations by an Iranian defector. Why should they be secret?
2. Evidence about the Neuss group of the PFLP-GC. Their activities have already been dealt with in public, including the possible connection to Lockerbie. So why should that part be secret?
3. Additional findings concerning the Mebo timers and other details? Why top-secret?
Further on your article states that either the top-secret document contains evidence that "knocks down" some "pillars of the Crown's case" or in itself doesn't clear Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi and doesn't prove anyone else was responsible (another source).
I would join Jim Swire in his fears that, while watching the dispute about the top-secret document, we are witnessing an attempt to derail a new screening of the Lockerbie trial.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)