Scientific shenanigans

[What follows is an extract from The people who moved the world, a forthcoming book by Jim Swire. It appears here by kind permission of Dr Swire and Peter Biddulph.]

Dr Thomas Hayes was formerly head of the forensics explosives laboratory at the British Royal Armaments Research and Defence Establishment (RARDE), and was a key witness in the prosecution case. I would find his evidence at times breathtaking and worrying.

He was aged fifty three, having retired from his RARDE post ten years earlier. As a bachelor of science honours in chemistry, a master of science in the faculty of forensic science, a doctor of philosophy in the faculty of forensic science, a chartered chemist, and a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry, we might expect an outstanding memory. And yet he seemed reluctant to tell the court why or when he'd retired to start a new career as a chiropodist. When did he start work at Fort Halstead? In July 1974. And when did he leave? " The exact date of my leaving is a little circumspect, but I believe it was in 1990."

He actually retired in 1989, a year that for him may have been circumspect, but was, in relation to our trial, most significant. Hayes, I would discover from our own research, had an uncomfortable history in relation to one other major terrorist event, namely the IRA bombing said to involve seven members of the Maguire family - The Maguire Seven. In that trial Hayes and two close colleagues - including his immediate supervisor Dr Higgs - had performed a central and discredited role, and were found out by a Parliamentary investigation. To add to that Dr Higgs was also discovered to have conspired to mislead the court - with a further two RARDE colleagues of Hayes - in the case of Judith Ward, accused of a bombing in Guildford.

Was Hayes carefully avoiding using the numbers, "1989", so as to deter the court from forming its own conclusion? When asked by friendly advocate Campbell, Hayes could not recall when he became a chiropodist. Nor did his memory improve as he faced defence QC Richard Keen.

"KEEN. Dr Hayes, you told us in your earlier evidence that you were head of the Forensics explosives laboratory at RARDE until 1989? And your change of career from forensic scientist to chiropodist would appear to coincide in point of time with the decision of the Home Secretary to appoint Sir John May to inquire into the trial of those known as the Maguire Seven. Is that true?
HAYES. I believe so. I don't recall clearly."

I am convinced to this day that Hayes really did recall the date and reason. He simply did not dare say it in front of the judges. For in May 1989, even as he examined the fragment which appeared in the evidence bag with a label signed by Detective Constable Gilchrist and altered by unknown persons, a campaign was running in Parliament to have him and his colleagues investigated for their roles in both IRA trials. The Parliamentary findings were published in 1992 and 1996, long after the November 1991 indictments of the Libyan suspects Al-Megrahi and Fhimah.

In his study of the 1976 trial of the Maguire Seven, Sir John May found that the notebooks of three RARDE scientists, including Hayes, had been consciously withheld from the court. The first of the three was Douglas Higgs, Principal Scientific Officer and head of department; second was Walter Elliott, a Senior Scientific Officer; and the third was Hayes, at that time a Higher Scientific Officer.

During the trial, results of tests for traces of nitro-glycerine on skin and fingernails of the Maguire family were firmly maintained by the three scientists to be positive and decisive. Unknown to the court, however, the three had performed a second set of tests plus a series of experiments. Both tests and experiments indicated a negative result and an innocent means of contamination. They therefore knew of evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused yet failed to inform the court. Furthermore, during the inquiry their notebooks were disclosed to Sir John May only at the final "hearing" stage of that Inquiry. Thus he was forced to view the case files only on the last day of his public hearings.

Sir John recorded his unease at the delay, and concluded: "In all the elements of the prosecution case the Crown relied on the evidence of three RARDE scientists. Their accuracy, reliability, fairness and credibility were fundamental to the convictions. In my opinion the whole scientific basis upon which the prosecution was founded was so vitiated that on this basis alone the Court of Appeal should set aside the convictions."

Then the Judith Ward case: in February 1974 twelve people were killed in an IRA bombing attack on a military bus in Guildford. Ward was arrested, and in an almost exact parallel to the Maguire case, the evidence central to her conviction was an analysis of samples taken from the skin and fingernails. These, maintained three lying scientists, were evidence of her guilt. In November of 1974 she was sentenced to life imprisonment. She would spend fifteen years in jail before her innocence could be established.

Hers was one of a spate of miscarriages of justice including the Maguire case and the Birmingham Six. In every appeal, the manipulation of evidence by RARDE forensic scientists was a major feature of the convictions, and its exposure the cause of successful appeals.

Of the dishonesty revealed in the Ward case Lord Justice Glidewell observed that the catalogue of the lamentable omissions included "failure to reveal actual test results, the failure to reveal discrepant Rf values, the suppression of the boot polishing experimental data, the misrepresentation the first firing cell test results, economical witness statements calculated to obstruct inquiry by the defence, and most important of all, oral evidence at the trial in the course of which three senior RARDE scientists knowingly placed a false and distorted picture before the jury. It is, in our judgement, also a necessary inference that the three senior RARDE forensic scientists acted in concert in withholding material evidence."

Of Higgs Lord Justice Glidewell commented "We reject Mr Higgs' account as a deliberate falsehood" Higgs was, in the words of the appeal panel "An experienced chemist… the head of a closely knit team." The words "deliberate falsehood" are clear. The man and two senior members of his organisation were nothing less than liars.

Dealing with another item of evidence, an apparently bomb damaged suitcase, prosecution advocate Campbell QC led Hayes through what seemed an endless list of items in his detailed schedule. The catalogue droned onward for seventy six pages of transcript. Suddenly Hayes reached a thirteen word sentence, almost hidden from, and mostly missed by, the court and the relatives. It was quietly read: "… The suitcase was fitted with a rigid plastics handle, bright metal trim and locks, which were devoid of any proprietary or owner's identification. A rectangular hole had been cut in the hard shell above the handle. The left-hand edge of the suitcase showed evidence of having been damaged by an explosion, with disruption and blackening of the outer skin and bright metal body frame, [etc]

The suitcase belonged to Major Charles McKee, leader of a four-man CIA team returning from Beirut. He, with colleagues Gannon, Lariviere, and O'Connor, were on a mission to explore ways of freeing a group of American hostages held in Lebanon by Iranian-based terrorists. McKee's suitcase contained something that the US government were desperate to keep from the sight of the media or the public. That something remains so important to America's security that for twenty years the White House has never even hinted at what it might be.

McKee's case had been removed by unknown persons, a rectangular hole expertly sawn just below the handle, the contents taken away and new contents put in. Security suitcases of this type were fitted with an incendiary explosive device on the interior of the case, just by the handle. Should the suitcase be opened without the use of a security code, the suitcase would explode and incinerate the contents. Hence the hole sawn into the case to enable disablement of the explosive trigger. A clean set of clothes were inserted and the case was returned to the crime scene and placed on a Lockerbie hillside so that it could be "found". The removal of evidence from a crime scene is of itself a criminal offence. Yet nothing would be said of it in the trial by the prosecution or the judges.

It was and is - for me - a disturbing tale. How had Hayes, publicly demonstrated as untrustworthy, and working in a close-knit organisation discredited by two major criminal cases, become so central to the Lockerbie tragedy? His repeated plays on words, his professions of innocence, his claims of forgetfulness, all were greatly worrying. As a skilled forensic scientist he should have been immediately alerted by the tampering that took place between the finding of McKee's suitcase and its arrival in his laboratory. Label, name tag and contents had been removed, and a set of clothes put into the case. These were recorded as to '...show no evidence of explosive damage, as opposed to the suitcase which was damaged.' It was as if a new set of clothes had been put into the case. And when writing notes about the identification tags and name tag of the suitcase, instead of using the word 'removed', Hayes chose the words 'devoid of'; technically correct, but in the true sense meaning simply not there. What most worried me, and auguring badly for whatever verdict might follow, was the nature of Lord Sutherland's interjection. His Lordship saw intelligence service interference with the trial process and illegal tampering with evidence as no cause for concern. It seemed to me that he was not the first senior trial judge to be fooled by RARDE's economical witness statements calculated to obstruct inquiry by the defence.

"KEEN. A rectangular hole has been cut in the top of the case, and that cannot be attributed in any form to blast damage or impact damage in the disaster, can it?
HAYES. No, it cannot.
KEEN. You are presented with the alleged contents in a bag marked with the name of the owner of the case? That wasn't usual, so far as the presentation of evidence to you at RARDE was concerned, was it?
HAYES. I don't think I can helpfully answer your question. I don't know.
KEEN. You have no recollection of other cases being presented to you in this fashion, for the purposes of your forensic examination?
HAYES. A case outside this Lockerbie investigation?
KEEN. Outside this particular case on page 22.
HAYES. The suitcase?
KEEN. The suitcase.
HAYES. No particular recollection, no.
KEEN. What appears to have happened, Dr. Hayes, in respect of this case, is that it has been the subject of interference or intromission by some third party.
HAYES. The cut hole would seem to suggest that. The rest of the observations may have some quite innocent explanation.
KEEN. Well, was any innocent explanation proffered to you for the state of this evidence when it was given to you for forensic examination at RARDE?
HAYES. I never asked for an explanation.
KEEN. Was any explanation ever volunteered to you?
HAYES. I'm sorry, I don't recall."

Under further cross-examination Hayes was unable to explain his notes concerning a fragment of circuit board from the MEBO MST-13 timer which was said to be part of the bomb. He found and identified it on 12th May 1989, labelling it "PT35-B" on page fifty one of his one hundred and seventy two page loose-leaf notebook. He would maintain that he was the first person to observe this, finding it in the evidence bag signed and dated by DC Gilchrist, mentioned above.

Hayes said he always kept detailed notes, yet his sheets were strangely renumbered for all pages subsequent to that containing information on the circuit board fragment. Was that particular page later written up and inserted so as to create the illusion of a contemporaneous sequence of entries? Richard Keen tried to extract the truth:

"KEEN. Well, whether it be the date or the page number, Dr. Hayes, would you like to explain how the present page fifty one came to be in your examination notes?
HAYES. How it came to be there?
KEEN. Yes.
HAYES. I'm rather lost for words. It came to be there in exactly the same way as every other page came to be there.
KEEN. If that was the case, Dr. Hayes, the pagination of your notes would run quite simply from pages fifty to fifty six, without the need for the alterations that have been made in the pagination of the notes themselves, and the index; is that not the case?
HAYES. Well, I can understand you expressing some concern on page fifty two onwards. But to my mind, fifty two follows from page fifty one, page fifty one follows from page fifty in a perfectly normal way.
KEEN. But page fifty one can only be there because what preceded it as page fifty one has been changed to page fifty two; is that not equally obvious, Dr. Hayes?
HAYES. Well, otherwise there would be two pages fifty one, of course.
KEEN. And what would have appeared at the end of pages fifty two to fifty six now appears at the bottom half of page forty nine? That is the entry for PI/991.
HAYES. Well, the mystery -- apparent mystery of the entry on the bottom of page forty nine, PI/991, to my mind is no more complex than there was space available on the page. And rather than waste part of the page, I inserted an examination note and dated it. The pagination, to me, is of no great consequence. The date and day of the examination, to me, is of much greater consequence.
KEEN. Well, I understood you to tell us that these were contemporaneous notes that you prepared as you were carrying out your examinations; is that right?
HAYES. Yes. But presumably our definitions of "contemporaneous" are different. My -- I only mean that these notes were written on the date on the page, and that the notes were written at the time precisely of the examination, and not any time afterwards.
KEEN. Well, if that had been the case, there would have been no need for the insertion of what is now page fifty one, would there?
HAYES. Well, it is your suggestion that it was inserted. I have no recollection of an insertion of that form at all. If it was, then it was done for a particularly good and perfectly innocent reason.
KEEN. Which you can't now recollect?
HAYES. I wish I could help you. It would save a lot of awkwardness. But I cannot, no."

He was then re-examined by friendly prosecution advocate Campbell, who steered him methodically through his notes on those same pages. Suddenly, lo and behold, Hayes remembered it all.

"CAMPBELL. Does that explanation of the way in which the items detailed in examination notes are listed help to jog your memory?
HAYES. It has helped me, sir, in attempting to explain what appears to be an unfathomable mystery. And I think the solution is very straightforward. And it is this: That when I wrote these notes, I initially did not number the pages… And in numbering the pages, I mistakenly used the number 51 twice, realised my error, after numbering a few pages, and corrected it… So whereas the page numbers may be in sequential order, the dates would not be."

This sudden flash of recall under Campbell's friendly re-examination for me remains unconvincing, and differed totally from his previous explanation, namely that "… the mystery was no more complex than there was space available on the page. And rather than waste part of the page, I inserted an examination note and dated it." As I watched him playing games with the defence, I became more and more convinced that he was misleading the court so as to achieve a prosecution, and not for the first time. He may have made notes, but unlike all similar items which he found, the sole piece of material evidence, PT/35B, claimed to link Bollier and MEBO to the Libyans, was absent from his drawings. And he gave it a higher identification number in his index than a similar sized piece of material he was to examine four weeks later.

Then as Richard Keen probed further concerning the fragment of shirt collar found by Detective Constable Gilchrist, Hayes could not quite remember the moment of finding the fragment.

"KEEN. Do you actually recall finding this fragment?
HAYES. I think so. If I was -- it's tempting to be too helpful in answering your question and saying clearly a very important piece, you must have a memory of it. You have flashbacks of certain important items that you've looked at. I question whether those are flashbacks to the correct case examination or another case examination. So although in my mind there is no question whatever that I did find it within this neck-band, whether I have a clear recollection in my memory of teasing it out, I would prefer not to be too definite about it."

Finally Hayes' notes dated 12th May 1989 recorded the following: "Trapped in the grey material within the blackened area were A. several fragments of black plastics, B. a fragment of a green-coloured circuit board". Thus he exposed, in an unguarded moment, a serious discrepancy from the evidence previously given by DC Thomas Gilchrist.

"KEEN. Dr Hayes, you record in those notes on page fifty one that PT/35B was trapped in the collar of a shirt or in a piece of material. So that fragment could not, presumably, have come to light as far as the police were concerned, prior to it being extracted from the cloth by yourself?
HAYES. That's correct. Yes.
KEEN. It would follow that it could not have been seen by the police prior to the cloth being passed to you at RARDE and the article being extracted by you from the trapped area of material?
HAYES. I'm sure that is the case."

Thus he twice maintained that neither Gilchrist - nor anyone else - could have seen the fragment prior to his probing the collar on his workbench. So we may ask when was the label altered to "DEBRIS", and by whom? More importantly, for what purpose was the label altered, other than to draw attention to a piece of "debris" inserted into the bag by persons unknown? That discrepancy was never challenged either during the trial nor at the subsequent appeal.

In yet another puzzling exchange with Richard Keen, Hayes admitted that even though his initial conclusion was that the green fragment - PT35/B - was a fragment from a bomb timer, he failed to undertake a routine chemical trace analysis to determine whether it had been in contact with an explosion. This was quite contrary to standard forensic process, and can only be described as negligence. It contrasted with the chemical trace analyses he undertook of each of the twenty four pieces of luggage surrounding the immediate explosion of which the fragment was a component. In spite of prolonged cross-examination, Hayes could provide no logical explanation for it. Or, perhaps, did Hayes know what he would find, namely that the fragment possessed no trace of explosive? Only a controlled analysis by an independent forensic scientist might test the fragment's provenance. And that could not occur without a special form of appeal. Such would not prove possible until the year 2009, and I will return to this subject later in this book.

Meanwhile in Kamp Zeist the judges had only Hayes’ word. They knew of his record as a conspirator in with-holding evidence in a major IRA trial, and that of his immediate colleagues in a second IRA trial. They watched his contrasting explanations regarding the pagination of his notebook and the sudden return of his memory when gently steered under re-examination by the prosecution. They witnessed his word games regarding McKee's suitcase - illegal evidence tampering by the intelligence services of either the United Kingdom or America. They listened to him twice claim that he was the first to find debris - the fragment of the bomb - in the evidence bag, and that therefore neither Gilchrist nor anyone else could have seen it before he did. Yet instead of basing their judgement on what Hayes actually said, they would substitute their own explanations and believe the man implicitly.

Hundreds of fragments from the luggage container and its contents were discovered. From the remains of the Toshiba cassette recorder that contained the bomb; from twenty four items of luggage in the immediate vicinity of the explosion; from clothing and personal effects; even from a black umbrella. For me it was not unreasonable to expect many fragments from the bomb and timer, the wires, the circuits, the frame, the timer itself, to be embedded in surrounding clothing and luggage, the luggage container, the aircraft spars and structure. Yet apart from a charred shirt collar, none contained a single fragment of the bomb. The fragment too, when displayed before the court, and apart from fraying around the edges (said to have been done by laboratory processing), was almost pristine. Its bright green anti-solder covering was still bright green. Its printed circuits remained just as pristine. Both in spite of its position at the centre of a three thousand degree high explosive fireball.

In time I would watch witness Allan Feraday, who prepared the final forensic report for the trial, confirm under oath that only one fragment - the Hayes four millimetre square piece of "debris" - was ever found. That of itself seemed an unusual occurrence. I found myself asking how much other material might have been removed, or re-inserted, or even planted. One of Cannistraro's colleagues in the White House had discussed the use of manufactured evidence to destabilise a middle eastern government. If such was good for Yemen, then why not for Libya? Yet in spite of my suspicions - also shared by many of those following the progress of the trial - the miraculous fragment would pass without challenge.

CIA had duplicate timers.

"There has been some speculation about timers from that same series being provided to STASI [The East German Secret Police, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989], and it's true that they were. But they were on brown circuit boards. The circuit board that was used in the explosion at Lockerbie was a green production model of the timer, and that came from Libyan intelligence." So spoke Vincent Cannistraro into the camera in 1993. His words were of interest, not for what he said, but for what he did not say. During that time, unknown to the public and the media, within the storeroom of the CIA laboratories in Langley Virginia lay at least one exact duplicate of an MST-13 timer. It was set on a green lacquered baseboard identical to the type from which the Hayes fragment was said to have originated.

8th June 2000.

A column of vans with blacked-out windows glided to a halt at the entrance to the court building. Shielded from public and journalist gaze several men were ushered into the rear entrance.

One of the men was witness Richard Louis Sherrow, a retired US Army veteran of twenty years' service, and an expert in firearms and explosives, who'd worked for the U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Service (ATF). Prosecution advocate Turnbull led Sherrow through his evidence-in-chief. In 1986 Sherrow had been instructed by the ATF to travel to Lome, Togo, with an Edward Owen of the ATF, and James Casey of the State Department. During the visit, Sherrow observed a number of items, including explosives and several timers. One timer was of special interest to him.

"TURNBULL: Had you ever seen electronic timers similar to the ones you saw in Lome?
SHERROW: Not exactly similar, no, sir. Subsequently, I was allowed to take one timer and a sample of, I believe, three different types of explosives. They were placed in the United States diplomatic pouch and returned. I examined [the timer] at the headquarters of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, performed bench tests, functioning tests.
TURNBULL: Did you photograph it at the headquarters?
SHERROW: Yes, I did.
TURNBULL: And having performed these tests and photographed it, what did you then do with it?
SHERROW: I was requested to take it to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and give a briefing on what I found.
TURNBULL: And did you take the timer back with you?
SHERROW: No, I didn't. That was released to their custody."

US opens trade office in Libya

It is being reported by various news media, relying on AFP which itself relies on the Libyan news agency JANA, that the United States yesterday (Sunday) opened a trade office in Tripoli. The most detailed report that I can find is on the RTTNews website. It can be read here.

Quilt tribute to disaster victims

This is the headline over a story on the BBC News website. The full story, with a picture of the quilt, can be seen here. The first four sentences read:

'A quilt marking the 20th anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster has been unveiled in the town. It took five women almost two years to complete the work depicting a tree shedding its leaves in the countryside. The falling leaves symbolise the 259 people who died on Pan Am Flight 103 while pebbles represent 11 Lockerbie residents who lost their lives. The tree roots convey the people of Lockerbie who strove to rebuild their lives after the 1988 atrocity.'

More on PII from Private Eye

The current issue of the magazine Private Eye contains the following article:

LOCKERBIE APPEAL: Howells of outrage

Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has revealed that the Scottish judges hearing the Lockerbie bombing appeal have agreed to the [UK] government’s request to keep under wraps evidence that is crucial to the defence of [Abdelbaset] Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan serving life for the murder of [270] people killed when Pan Am flight 103 was blown from the skies.

The judges apparently gave their ruling at the end of the secret hearing in August to discuss the evidence from a “foreign power” (…) which is understood to relate to the bomb’s timing device. But as Megrahi’s defence team and the public were excluded from the court, no one knew about it until Howells responded to a request for an update from former MP Tam Dalyell.

Instead of allowing Megrahi’s lawyers access to this piece of evidence, which forms one of the six grounds of appeal identified by the Scottish criminal cases review commission (SCCRC) the judges are instead to appoint a “special counsel”, supposedly to represent Megrahi’s interests. According to Howells, this special counsel “will be provided with a confidential summary of the submissions made by the Advocate General at the last (August) hearing”.

He or she will need much more than that. The evidence which convicted Megrahi was highly complex, multinational and full of contradictions and anomalies – particularly the evidence surrounding the damning fragment of timing device said to link the bomb to the Libyans and Megrahi. Lawyers preparing his appeal need all the evidence to ensure they have the full picture; but as it stands they do not even know which “foreign power” this piece of evidence comes from and thus how significant it is.

Will a “special counsel” with no detailed knowledge of the case or of the modus operandi of other terrorist organizations operating at the time really be able to assess and advise Megrahi’s lawyers about the importance of this evidence after being given a “summary”?

One of the most worrying features of the Megrahi case identified by the Scottish CCRC is that this evidence – and other material – pointing to the Libyan’s innocence was concealed from his trial in the first place.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora perished in the atrocity, said the foreign office’s reliance on public interest immunity to keep secret documents that police, prosecutors and the SCCRC have had in their possession for years, showed that politics was again being allowed to override justice.

In January 2005 journalist [Ian] Ferguson used freedom of information laws to unearth a staggering agreement between the crown and the US authorities not to introduce such material – even at the price of a fair trial, it would seem.

The UK government of course dismisses claims of interference in Megrahi’s appeal. “The decision by the foreign secretary to assert public interest immunity (PII) in relation to certain material is entirely appropriate and in accordance with the rule of law. It is the foreign secretary’s assessment that the release of this material would do real and lasting damage to the UK’s relations with other states and the UK’s national security,” says Howells.

[Note by RB: My understanding is that the “special counsel” will make submissions to the court (in closed session) about whether, and in what form, the mystery documents should be released for use in the appeal. It is perfectly possible that the court will override the Foreign Secretary’s PII certificate and order the documents to be disclosed to Megrahi’s legal team, either as they stand or in a redacted form satisfactory to that team. If the court does not order the release of the documents, the question then arises of whether the appeal can be (and be seen to be) fair within the meaning of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is an issue that could go from the Scottish courts to the Privy Council in London and, ultimately, to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.]

The Firm's coverage of Skye event

The October issue of the Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm has a two-page spread, with photographs, on the meeting organized by the Lockerbie Justice Group at Greshornish House, Skye, on 15 and 16 September 2008. The text reads as follows:

No limits on Skye as legal academics aim for new way ahead

Over two days at a retreat in the north of Skye, a unique and unprecedented international accord was drafted in an effort to provide Scots law with a way out of the Lockerbie judicial quagmire, and provide a better model for future cases. Steven Raeburn was there to hear the outcomes.

A secluded idyll at practically the northwesternmost fringe of the European continent is an incongruous site for an international conference. The ripples that could emanate from a quiet country hotel sited at the end of a rutted road, promulgated by two legal academics at the invitation of Scotland’s most dogged and effective patriot, far from the entrenched attitudes, vested interest and closed minds of the madding crowd of Holyrood and central belt establishment, could ripple out and write a profoundly significant chapter in the history of Scottish justice.

The Greshornish House Accord proposes that if Scotland was charged with managing such an international case in the future, it could be held at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. And that non Scottish judges could participate in a Scottish trial, citing international precedent. It also proposes practical amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland ) Act 1995, the ‘bible’ of criminal law, and to the Scotland Act to amend the ‘inappropriate’ situation where the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of criminal prosecutions.

“I hope that we can set a hare running from this point, and that this message will eventually get to the powers-that-be, and they will take some cognisance of it,” said Robbie the Pict, who had gathered Professor Robert Black and Dr Hans Kochler, UN appointed observer to the Lockerbie proceedings, to discuss four key questions “in the hope of guidance in the pursuit of proper justice for all in relation to the destruction of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988”. The resultant accord is a four part template providing both a philosophical and a practical way out of the quagmire surrounding the ongoing Lockerbie proceedings which have stained Scots law. Proceedings which presently appear to be hostage to the strategic interests of UK and US foreign policy and Libyan governmental expedience.

The scale and depth of the mess has been extraordinary. The ease with which Scots law was hijacked is troubling. The lack of fuss or even interest from within the legal and political establishment, and the evident assent of Scots law to serve the geopolitical interest gives the impression of collusion, complicity and denial. Court doors have literally been closed as proceedings carry on in secret, to the exclusion even of the defence and the accused. The era of hidden justice is upon us. The proponents of the Greshornish House accord don’t think this is good enough.

“As an observer, I just would like to know exactly what the causes of this incident in the air over Lockerbie really are. I just hope that there will be a new appeal. If evidence is withheld from the defence, there can be no appeal,” Hans Kochler said, announcing the joint conclusions on Skye. “To me it is extremely frustrating that in regard to such an incident, just one person has been presented as the culprit, with no further questions asked and no investigations ever having been made. This is not a credible explanation.

“Why doesn’t Scotland, independent in regard to the administration of criminal justice, undertake the appropriate measures to investigate this matter fully? This is a case that is not closed. This is something that is ongoing, and I will not run away until I am presented with a clear, unambiguous and comprehensive decision of a court.”

“If this is an independent system, theoretically, the prosecutorial authorities of Scotland could still initiate investigations into this incident and into what caused it. I do not think everything is just connected to the question of the personal criminal responsibility of one lone individual.”

The ongoing court proceedings in the case, returned to the High Court on the basis that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, are presently diverted with procedural issues relating to the disclosure or otherwise of evidential letters, which have been given considerable weight by the court and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, although sources who are aware of the contents of the documents have told the Firm that their contents are well known and irrelevant. The sleight of hand will result, say both Black and Kochler, in unavoidable prejudice to Megrahi’s case, and his inevitable repatriation.

“This panel basically agrees that if they uphold the PII certificate, no appeal is possible, and Mr Megrahi will be sent home. He would have to be sent home. We cannot offer him a fair hearing of his appeal,” said Robbie the Pict, who brokered the accord and convened the panel. “If the FCO are urging that this is a highly sensitive document, this cannot be taken lightly. So it would prevail over the interests of Scottish justice. If that happens, there is an implicit duty upon the judges to say there is not an equality of arms, therefore they cannot offer Mr Megrahi a fair appeal hearing.”

Professor Robert Black, instrumental in orchestrating the original trial proceedings in Zeist, says there is currently no political will to reinvestigate the circumstances of the event, even if Megrahi is repatriated and proceedings close without a solid conviction as predicted. “I am not convinced that there is such political will. One of the things we have been trying to do is insert some backbone into those politicians who have the power to make it happen,” he said.

Kochler in turn drew comparison with the Shirley McKie embarrassment, which resulted in a lengthy and productive inquiry process that shed some welcome light on the dustier corners of the Scottish judicial and political power structure. Such an outcome is warranted in the Lockerbie scenario he says. “The present case definitely has as much weight as the McKie case for the rule of law, and for democratic structures. Why would the government of Scotland not agree to an independent inquiry? Scotland would also do a great service to the international rule of law. This was an incident of international nature. To know the truth about it is extremely important.”

The nexus between Scots law and UK foreign policy is directly affected by the friction arising from the handling of this case. Kochler believes that this presents an opportunity for Scots law to assert its credibility and ensure the maintenance of its international reputation. “It is a test case to see how independent the Scottish judiciary acts and how determined the authorities of this country are to assert the supremacy of the law over political interests,” he says.

“Scottish justice may still come out very well, if there is a new appeal, which is fair, and conducted with all the material and all the evidence made available to both sides, then there is still a chance. If not, this will just be one of the many cases where politics finally prevailed over law. This is the result of a political and international constellation that Scotland cannot control. But still, the judiciary should try to act independently and not give in to the political pressures.”

Libya taps foreign, own companies to fill fund

This is the headline over a story on the Reuters Africa website. The first three paragraphs read:

'Tripoli is tapping U.S., Libyan and other companies to put money into a humanitarian fund for U.S. victims of terrorism, a senior Bush administration official and another source said on Friday.

'The fund, agreed on in August by the United States and Libya to settle terrorism cases on both sides, still has no any money in it but a senior U.S. official said he was confident Tripoli would fulfill its obligations.

'"They (the Libyans) are out there raising their funds," said the senior official, who spoke on condition he not be named because the issue is sensitive.'

The full article can be read here.

Rewards for Justice

The aangirfan blog has a post on the denial in The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie television programme that witnesses were offered rewards for their information and/or testimony. As has been demonstrated elsewhere too, this is false. The relevant portion of the post is paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

Hans Köchler and Lockerbie

I am grateful to Robbie the Pict for drawing my attention to an article by Nicola Barry on the work of Professor Hans Köchler, particularly in relation to Lockerbie, in the Scottish edition of the Sunday Express on 28 September. The article does not appear to be available online, and so I reproduce it here. Click on the image and it will become legible.

Eurojustice conference in Edinburgh

Legal professionals from around Europe will arrive in Edinburgh this week when the city and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service - Scotland's Prosecution Service - plays host for the first time to the annual Eurojustice conference.

Held over two days and delivered in both French and English, this year's conference brings together top prosecutors from 28 countries in the European Union and European Economic Area and representatives of key European and international institutions, providing an opportunity to discuss issues relating to European criminal law policy, management and best practice in prosecution.

The 11th annual conference will focus on two themes -

* prosecutors' roles in securing public confidence in the criminal justice system
* development of Information Communications Technology.

Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC will welcome over 70 delegates to the conference at a reception at Edinburgh Castle today.

Mrs Angiolini said:

"The annual Eurojustice conference provides an excellent opportunity for senior prosecutors from across Europe to discuss current issues facing the criminal justice system on a European stage and I am delighted that this year's conference is being held here in Edinburgh and, indeed, for the first time in the United Kingdom.

"I am particularly pleased that one of the main themes this year is securing public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is vital that the principle that justice is seen to be done is at the very heart of our work and that we, as prosecutors, recognise our role in ensuring that the public have the greatest measure of confidence in the criminal justice system."

[From a Scottish Government press release dated 29 September 2008. Perhaps Mrs Angiolini should address the delegates on how Scottish prosecutors' conduct before, during and after the Lockerbie trial contributed, and continues to contribute, to ensuring that the public have the greatest measure of confidence in the criminal justice system. That would be a fascinating session.]

The Maltese shopkeeper

Part 82 of Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's series "Diary of a vengeance foretold" on the events leading up to the destruction of Pan Am 103 tells the story of Tony Gauci's part in the Lockerbie investigation and trial. It also explores the related question of payments by the US authorities to witnesses.

The full article can be read here.

Lockerbie rage over Libya invite

This is the headline over a story in today's Sunday Express. The first few paragraphs read:

'Families of the Lockerbie victims were outraged yesterday after it emerged Libya has been invited to a UK energy summit two days before the 20th anniversary of the atrocity.

'The Foreign Office confirmed the summit will take place, in London, on December 19, as relatives prepare to remember their loved ones.

'Downing Street refused to confirm if Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi would attend, though it is understood he has been invited as part of the continuing efforts to thaw relations with Tripoli.'

Dr Jim Swire is quoted as describing the timing of the meeting as "highly insensitive".

The only relative who expresses anything that might be described as even approaching "rage" is, of course, Susan Cohen.

The full article is available here.

Remembering Lockerbie

This is the title of a blog that I have just recently discovered. It is a memorial to the 270 people who died in the Lockerbie disaster. It can be found here.

Scottish Parliament to legislate on PII and disclosure

It has been announced by the Scottish Government that its forthcoming Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill will include new rules on the disclosure of evidence. It is to be expected that the new measures will follow the recommendations in the Coulsfield Report. Paragraphs 6.12 to 6.40 of that report contain Lord Coulsfield's consideration of the issue of disclosure of sensitive material, public interest immunity (PII) and "special counsel".

It is not without a measure of irony that the report is the work of one of the judges at the Lockerbie trial in the Scottish Court at Zeist; and that lack of Crown disclosure of material that might have assisted the defence is one of the principal grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided that Mr Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice.

US lawmakers block ambassador to Libya over fund

Reuters reports that the confirmation of the United States ambassador to Libya has been blocked in the Senate until the last payment of compensation is actually made to the relatives of those killed at Lockerbie. The report reads in part:

'On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey put on hold the nomination of diplomat Gene Cretz to become Washington's envoy to Libya until American victims were paid from a fund agreed on last month by both countries.

'"Libya has not yet satisfied its obligations to U.S. victims of its terrorist acts and I will object to this nomination's moving forward until those victims receive justice," said Lautenberg, a Democrat.(...)

'Appointing a U.S. ambassador was seen as one of the rewards for Libya giving up its weapons of mass destruction program in 2003, which led to a warming of ties between the former foes.

'Relatives of the Pan Am victims welcomed the Senate foreign relations committee's decision.

'"The committee's action ... has sent an unequivocal message to the administration and Libya that the Senate will not appoint a U.S. ambassador until Libya has fulfilled the agreement," said a statement from a group of families.'

The full report can be read here. I am grateful to Big David for drawing this story to my attention.

Professor Köchler on PII

Statement by Professor Hans Köchler following his visit to Scotland last week:

'The UN-appointed international observer at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands, Dr Hans Koechler, revealed in an interview with the BBC's Reevel Alderson on 17 September that the judges dealing with the new appeal of the only convicted suspect in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, have ruled that special counsel should be appointed for the Appellant in regard to the material covered by the Foreign Secretary's Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. This was communicated in a letter to a member of the House of Commons, dated 4 September 2008 and signed on behalf of the Minister of State Kim Howells. The respective paragraph at the end of the letter reads as follows:

'"The UK government has made clear its commitment to work closely with the Court to ensure that Mr. Megrahi receives a fair trial and that sensitive material is handled appropriately. To this end the court ruled on 19 August that special counsel should be appointed to assist the court and safeguard Mr Megrahi's interests in relation to this issue. Once appointed, the special counsel will be provided with a confidential summary of the submissions made by the Advocate General at the last hearing. The UK government supports this ruling in the interests of ensuring the trial is fair."

'It is to be noted that the above letter was in reply to a letter the member of the House of Commons had written earlier (13 August 2008) to the Foreign Secretary, stating that he was "deeply concerned if the statement by Dr Koechler in the attached letter is correct and vital 'exculpatory material' is being withheld from Mr Al-Megrahi's defence team." The member of the House of Commons refers to a letter by Dr Koechler, dated 21 July 2008, to the Foreign Secretary. It is further to be noted that Dr Koechler received an almost identical letter of reply from the Foreign Office (dated 27 August)- with the exception of the three sentences marked in bold in the above quotation.

'The UN-appointed international observer has visited Scotland from 11 to 19 September on a fact-finding mission aimed at assessing the reasons for the long delay of the new Lockerbie appeal. (In June 2007, after investigations that lasted several years, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred the convicted Libyan national's case back to the High Court of Justiciary.)

'In the course of his visit, Dr Koechler has participated in consultations held on 15/16 September at Greshornish House on the Isle of Skye. The meeting was convened at the invitation of the Lockerbie Justice Group, headed by Mr Robbie the Pict, and included Prof. Robert Black, the "architect" of the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. Under the motto Quid nunc, Scotia? the participants were asked to consider questions in regard to the fairness and impartiality of the Lockerbie proceedings in the Netherlands and eventual new appeal proceedings in Scotland and to reflect on the lessons to be learned for the handling of any such case in the future.

'Dr Koechler further held consultations at the House of the Binns with Mr Tam Dalyell, former member of the House of Commons; with Mr Alex Neil MSP and Mr Ian McKie, father of policewoman Shirley McKie, at the Scottish Parliament; and with members of the Lockerbie Justice Group. On 18 September he delivered a keynote speech on "The Lockerbie Trial and the Rule of Law" at the Law Awards of Scotland 2008, organized by The Firm magazine in association with Registers of Scotland at the Glasgow Hilton Hotel. In a reference to the Public Interest Immunity claimed by the UK government, Dr Koechler said:

'"Whether those in public office like it or not, the Lockerbie trial has become a test case for the criminal justice system of Scotland. At the same time, it has become an exemplary case on a global scale - its handling will demonstrate whether a domestic system of criminal justice can resist the dictates of international power politics or simply becomes dysfunctional as soon as 'supreme state interests' interfere with the imperatives of justice. (...) The fairness of judicial proceedings is undoubtedly a supreme and permanent public interest. If the rule of law is to be upheld, the requirements of the administration of justice may have to take precedence over public interests of a secondary order - such as a state's momentary foreign policy considerations or commercial and trade interests. The internal stability and international legitimacy of a polity in the long term depend on whether it is able to ensure the supremacy of the law over considerations of power and convenience."

'Dr Koechler's address was followed by enthusiastic applause from an audience of over 600 attendants representing Scotland's legal profession and was commented on by the subsequent keynote speaker, Sir Menzies Campbell CBE QC, former Leader of the United Kingdom's Liberal Democrats.

'In an exclusive interview for the German-French TV channel ARTE, conducted in Edinburgh, and in all public meetings and consultations in Scotland Dr Koechler reiterated his call for a full public inquiry into the causes of the mid-air explosion of PanAm flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie and the handling of the case by the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish as well as the British executive.'